problems with it. somehow despite all of the evidence, despite all the evidence there has never been a single member of congress or congressional staffer charged with insider trading. have to admit, like you and many others, i was shocked by this report. i think we all were. as a result, i filed my version of the stock act which would prohibit members and employees of congress from using material nonpublic information for their personal benefit. when homeland security and governmental affairs committee held a hearing on the state of insider trading and the law as such, it applies to congress, one thing was very, very clear. although as ranking member collins said, the s.e.c. theoretically has the ability to prosecute members, there has been no precedent for it, and the state of law at this point is very, very unsettled. to remove any and all doubt, we need to act and we need to act

now. in addition to clarifying that insider trading is indeed a criminal offense, we are increasing the trainers of members' trading activity to make sure that our investment decisions are out there for everyone to see plain as day. as president ronald reagan liked to say, trust but verify. in conclusion, i want to say that senator coburn has a phrase that i think is very accurate in this context. he talks about all the earmarks and contracts that -- in washington spending that ends up in the hands of those people he calls, and i quote, well heeled and well connected. in my opinion, no one is more well connected with more access to a wide range of privileged nonpublic information than members of congress, their friends, employees or family members. at a time when our economy is struggling and the average american family has to make hard economic choices, congressional members and staff should not be lining their pockets on insider

information. serving our country is a privilege, one that i cherish very, very much. i believe that we must level the playing field and show the american people that the united states congress does not consider itself to be above the laws that we expect everyone else across the country to cobra. i believe it's time to listen to our constituents and remember that every seat in this room is the people's seat. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: thank you very much to my colleague from massachusetts for his strong advocacy on such an important issue. i want to recognize chairman lieberman and ranking member collins for their leadership and their advocacy and for their work in getting this out of committee so quickly. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes for cloture tonight on this bipartisan bill to ensure clearly and unambiguously that all members of congress, their staff and federal employees play

by the exact same rules as the american people. the american people deserve the right to know that their lawmakers' only interest is what's best for the country, not their own financial interests. members of congress, their families and staff shouldn't be able to gain personal profits from information they have access to that everyday middle-class americans don't. it's simply not right. nobody should be above the rules. i introduced a bipartisan bill in the senate with 28 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to close this loophole. the stock act legislation is very similar to the legislation introduced by my friends in the house of representatives, congresswoman louise slaughter and congressman tim walls. i want to thank them for their long-standing advocacy and attention to this cause. i want to thank senator

lieberman and all the committee members for their work in acting swiftly to move this commonsense bill to the floor for a vote. i also want to thank leader reid for his leadership in moving this body forward to this important debate for an up-or-down vote that the american people deserve. our bill which has received the support of at least seven good government groups covers two important principles -- first, members of congress, their families and their staffs should be barred from buying or selling securities on the basis of knowledge gained through their congressional service or from using the knowledge to tip off anyone else. the s.e.c. and the cftc must be empowered to investigate these cases to provide additional teeth. such action would also be in violation of congress' own rules to make it clear that the activity is inappropriate. and second, members should be required to disclose

transactions within 30 days to make this information available online for their constituents to see, providing dramatically improved oversight and accountability from the current annual hard copy reporting. i am pleased that the final product that passed with bipartisan support out of the committee is a strong bill with teeth and includes measures such as ensuring members of congress cannot tip off others with nonpublic information gained through their duties and ensures trading from this information would also be a violation of congress' own ethics rules. some critics have said that this bill is unnecessary and already covered under current statutes. i have spoken with experts in the past with these investigations of this nature, and they strongly disagree. we must make it unambiguous that this kind of behavior is illegal. as my home state newspaper, "the buffalo news," noted, the stock

act would ensure that it's the people's business being attended to. president obama said in his state of the union send him the bill and he will sign it right away. we should not delay. it is time to act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes tonight for cloture so we can pass this bill without delay. let's take this step to begin rebuilding the trust necessary in congress. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i would ask unanimous consent that val mozan, a fellow in my office, be given privileges for the floor today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: later this afternoon, senators will be given the chance to ban insider trading by senators and members of their staff. insider trading is illegal in america, there is no doubt about that, but when it comes to information that congress learns

before the general public learns it, there are no clear-cut rules and that is unacceptable. folks in congress have advance knowledge of which bills and issues congress will consider. they know how those bills will affect basic goods and services, and often the legislation we pass impacts how well a company does on the stock market. good men and women work for congress, and i have the deepest respect for my colleagues. i would say all come to the senate with good intentions to carry out their daily responsibilities without thinking about using information that they learn for personal financial gain, and that's why banning insider trading should be an easy lift. the fact that members of congress and their staffs are allowed to buy and sell stocks based on privileged information is incredible to me. founders has historically low approval ratings from the american people. they believe many in congress don't represent them and have forgotten what it means to be a normal american.

most folks would assume that congressmen and senators already can't trade stocks based on information they get in their jobs, but it turns out this may not be true, and that is just one more example why the american people have lost faith in this institution. as elected officials, it is our duty to regain the trust of the american people. we have an obligation to be as transparent and as accountable as possible, so i was the first member of congress to post my public schedule online for everybody to see. my constituents can look at my schedule every day to see who i meet with and which hearings i attend. now we have the opportunity to help regain trust in this body by bringing our own rules in line with the rest of america, by adding transparency and accountability, the american people can know that working on their behalf without considering personal financial gains. this bill includes a provision that senator begich and i sponsored to ensure that the annual financial disclosure forms filed by members of congress are available electronically.

as with most transparency, full transparency means the public has the right and the ability to see our records. in the 21st century, there is no reason we can't do it right away. letting those disclosures sit in a filing cabinet somewhere in the capitol complex is not transparency. putting the files online in a searchable format is. in a time of hyperpartisanship, this is an opportunity for both sides to work together on a bill that we sorely need. there is not a democratic or a republican angle to this. every elected official should want to make sure that the rules we are held to are consistent and transparent and in line with the rest of the nation. in fact, this is a nonpartisan bill as it can be with ideas from senator gillibrand and senator brown, carried by senator lieberman. this bill covers each section of the political spectrum. it's a straightforward bill that's long overdue and the stock act will be a step toward

ensuring that when people run for congress or come to work for congress, they are doing so because they want to work on behalf of the american people and not for their own personal benefit. i call on my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to vote yes on this act so we can start restoring faith in congress. and with that, i yield the floor and suggest -- i just yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: i failed to just reference -- i was hopeful i could have nathanial hoops participate in the legislative process on the floor on this debate. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i was going to reserve the right to object on senator brown's motion because the aforementioned mr. hoops, i'm proud to say, got his start on capitol hill in my office, and i was just looking for an opportunity to say that. mr. president, we have about 20 minutes until the vote on the

motion occurs, and obviously we're all here together, senator collins, senator brown, senator gillibrand, senator tester and i to urge members to vote for cloture to take this measure up. it would be a ray of light, warm light if we pass this measure, this cloture vote overwhelmingly, and then we could go on to debate it. some people may have amendments. obviously, i presume they will that they want to offer. i hope that in considering amendments that our colleagues will -- will focus on the problem that stimulated this legislation, that led us to bring it to let -- led senator brown, senator gillibrand to introduce it, led our committee to pass it out on a bipartisan vote, which was concern that members of the congress and our staffs are not covered by insider trading laws.

this legislation makes clear that we are covered by insider trading laws and therefore can be investigated and prosecuted for violation of those laws, both by the s.e.c. and the justice department, but we have also asked the ethics committees of both houses of congress to issue interpretive guidances, making clear that insider trading is also a violation of the ethics rules of both chambers. so i'm sure that there are a lot of different things that members of congress, including ourselves on our committee that worked on this bill might have in mind to also correct problems that exist perhaps to also try to help to rebuild public confidence in the institution of congress. but i really appeal to our colleagues not to do so in a way that will make it more difficult or at worst impossible to fix

the -- the wrong, the problem that motivated this legislation, which is the fear that members of congress and our staffs are not covered by insider trading laws. i pledge and have talked to senator collins about this, people have other -- members have other ideas, please introduce them as legislation. to the extent that they are forwarded to our committee, we will give them hearings and due consideration and try to approach them thoughtfully and and -- and then follow the will of the majority of members of our committee. in other words, let's not try to make this measure so sweet that it -- or so good that it can't pass. i just had -- i say to my colleagues a very unusual metaphor come to mind. as i go to dr. seuss, and this

is one of my favorite dr. seuss books that i haven't read in a while, thidwick the moose. i don't know if you remember him, but he was a very good-natured moose. one by one through the pages of the book as dr. seuss records it, other animals in the forest want to lodge in his enormous antlers, and he welcomes them until finally there is too much there, and his antlers fall off and they all fall to the ground. we don't want -- we don't want this wonderful bill, which really does accomplish some very important things, to be so loaded up that it falls by the wayside. like thidwick's antlers. and does not pass. so i urge my colleagues to join us in a spirited debate, but let's exercise the kind of

restraint on a bipartisan basis that will allow us to have a significant bipartisan good government accomplishment here at the beginning of this session of congress. i listened to a conversation where somebody was asked why is the public opinion of congress so bad? the answer somebody gave is because congress has been so bad. this has not been a time in the history of this great institution that i think any of us feel good about and this is an opportunity to do something real that we can not only feel good about but more important, that our constituents can feel good about. so i hope that we will have a resounding vote at 5:30. i'd yield to the senator from massachusetts. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you. i concur and i've always felt one good deed begets another good deed and so on add so

forth. this is a measure that the american people are clamoring for. we need to re-establish the trust with the american people and this is the first step in doing that very thing. i want to once again thank the chairman for referencing something that i failed to reference as well, we need to make sure -- and i would encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle and my friends on the other side of the aisle to keep all amendments germane, make sure we move for cloture, get cloture, and then have a free and fair and spirited debate on the issues that concern them. but don't get sidetracked to the point where the bill gets killed or pulled. i think that would be a travesty and a mistake. so i'm going to encourage my colleagues to make sure if they have a concern, let's air it out and take a full and fair vote on it and move forward. and, you know, you, i love hearing your stories. that's why i'm reading your book, all right? because of your knowledge and your history and the way you can

weave things back and forth. that's a very good analogy. i too have concerns. as we've referenced many times that there may be forces beyond us who want to make sure that this doesn't come out of committee -- i'm sorry, come out of this chamber and go next door and ultimately signed by the president. i'm not one of them. i want to make sure as you and you and many other members, the cosponsors and such want to make make sure that this bill comes out in a good and fair form. we're here for a very specific reason to address a very specific issue that affects people quite frankly in a manner that i never thought was possible. there -- if there are other concerns, i commend the chairman for publicly stating let's bring them up in a separate matter and a separate bill and address them, if there are other things we've missed because i have a fear, and i hope i'm wrong, that by making it as you referenced i think too perfect or too sweet it could fail. i don't want to see that.

i want to make sure we have a very razor sharp bill that addresses a very specific issue, and if we do it together and work in that true bipartisan manner -- we have an opportunity right now, right now in this moment in our history of this country to do something special. i was sent here to do the people's business, and i do it each and every day and work across party lines each and every day with good people and good democrats like you and others. and i take that role very, very seriously. we have an opportunity right now to send a very powerful message that the american people are yearning for. they want us to do well. they want us to be good. they want us to be better than we've been representing ourselves out to be right now. so i'm encouraging also, just to reference and take it a step further, my colleagues to do the same thing. let's put our party differences aside, let's put the inner

party differences aside. and push this thing through in a thoughtful, methodful, respectful, responsible manner that will make the american people say hmm, wow, okay, it's a good first step. what's next? what's next, congress? you going to do the postal bill, save the postal bill? i hope that's the next thing up because we need to work in a truly bipartisan manner. once again, who's here? senator lieberman, senator collins, senator carper, and me, we're pushing to try to save the post office. that should be the next thing. what's next after that? we need to address our fiscal and financial issues so we can come out of this three-year recession in a lean and mean manner to be a better country, to be able to compete on a global business -- global basis. put the american people's interests first instead of everybody else's. i usually get in trouble when i go off like this but i think it's critically important to let people know one good deed begets

another good deeds begets another good deed. this is the stirs step in this 234u calendar year to do just that. thank you and i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: thank you, senator brown. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i'm pleased to report that i just received notice that within the hour the administration put out the statement of administration policy, the so-called s.a.p. strongly endorsing this legislation, s. 2038. and i appreciate that very much. it's a very strong statement of support for the principles and exactly the kinds of things that senator collins, senator brown, senator gillibrand, senator tester and i have been saying here. so as the president said on -- in his state of the union speech, this bill hits -- if we can get this bill to his desk and the sooner the better,

he'll sign it as soon as he possibly can. if there is no one else who wishes to speak at this time, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 301, s. 2038, the stop trading on congressional knowledge act. signed by 18 senators. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to senate 2038, an original bill to prohibit members of congress and employees of congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the yeas are 93, the nays are 2. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president,

i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, and that senator grassley be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, on buff behalf of the majority leader, he has asked me to announce that there will be no more votes tonight. on my own barvetion i say that we'll go to the stock act, s. 2038, tomorrow morning and hope anyone who has a relevant amendment will come to the floor and introduce it. i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i've been -- i've been -- the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order. mr. grassley: mr. president, i've been asked by senator brown of ohio, if he could be --

the presiding officer: excuse me. the i senate will come to order. mr. grassley: i'm willing to wait. let them talk. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i've been asked by senator brown of ohio if he could be recognized immediately after me. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: one week ago today i addressed the senate on president obama's decision to bypass the senate and the constitution as well by making four recess appointments at a time when the president's recess appointment did not apply. i explained in detail why the legal memo released by the obama administration attempting to justify president obama's actions did not hold legal water. last thursday i laid out the case that this is not an

isolated incident or a technical legal squabble. rather, the president's recess actions are part of a pattern of disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances. today i will address why such criticisms are justified and why such criticisms are necessary. first, is it legitimate for a u.s. senator to criticize a legal opinion issued by the office of legal counsel and the senate-confirmed head of that office? i have no doubt that senators may criticize such opinions, and when the facts warrant, ask whether that office and its head are exercising the independence that is required for the constitution to be upheld. now, recently you read some in

the media apparently disagreeing with this. they say that it is wrong for a senator to ever criticize a senate-confirmed official's independence and judgment. they say that all a senator can do is criticize the official's substantive arguments. i say nonsense. when the media makes these claims, it merely seeks to divert attention from the weakness of the opinions, actual conclusions and reasoning. in my statement last week i laid out my disagreement with the contents of the office of legal counsel opinion. of course senators and administration officials can reach different conclusions on the law. each can have a reasonable point of view, but that is not the case here. if the office of legal counsel is to

is to be -- quote, unquote -- the constitutional conscience of the administration that some in the media characterize it to be, it must exercise a certain level of independence, as i mentioned in my statement, when a president who takes an expansive view of his power asks the justice department officials who owe their job to him whether he has the constitutional or legal action to take action, the authority to take such action, there is always the chance that pressure will overtake their responsibilities to provide their best legal judgment. that is why at ms. cytes confirmation hearing and in a follow-up communications, we took very painstaking effort to give her the opportunity to state on the record her

commitment to providing independent legal advice. to make sure that she would place loyalty to the law and loyalty to the constitution above her loyalty to the president. that was our purpose. ms. cytes promised to act independently. she promised not to stand idly by if she thought the constitution was being violated. the only way to tell whether the office has given independent advice, the only way to tell whether pressure has been resisted is to review the arguments and the reasoning the office of legal counsel provides. the media cannot address criticism of whether the head of that office is independent and has used good judgment without such a review.

it is not enough that the media might agree with her conclusion. in this case the analysis in the office of legal counsel opinion was so poor as to raise legitimate questions concerning judgment and independence. office of legal counsel is supposed to give the president objective legal advice before that person acts. it is not supposed to provide a week -- a weakly thought-out rationalization for a presidential decision to act that has already been make. here the arguments in the opinion are so weak that a fair-minded person can question the independence and judgment of the opinions' authors. for instance, the opinion is internally inconsistent. it correctly recognizes that a president's ability to make recess appointments turns on the

capacity of the senate to conduct business. but in determining whether the pro forma sessions constitute a recess, the opinion does not consider at all the capacity of the senate to conduct business and what it could do. rather, it relies on what individual senators said, not what the institution said or can do. and it ignores not only what theoretically the capacity of the senate had to act, but even its actual actions. similarly, the established meaning of the word "recess" is the same each time it appears in the constitution. given the term -- giving the term the same meaning means the president can make recess appointments, but that this is a limited power. the office of legal opinion, contrary to clearly established

precedent, inconsistently defines the term "recess" differently when it was used in different parts of the constitution. but you can't do that. the only thing consistent in the opinion is that it interprets recess each time in a way that expands the power of the president to make recess appointments, and in such a way as to leave open the question of whether that power is limited in any meaningful way. former federal circuit judge michael mcconnell, himself a former justice department lawyer who's defended presidential power, found the arguments in the office of legal counsel opinion to be so implausible -- those are his words -- that -- quote -- "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the office of legal counsel is simply fashioning rules to reach the outcome that it wishes."

end of quote. since the outcome that the office of legal counsel wishes is to expand presidential power contrary to the text of the constitution and also many decades of historical practice, it is quite fair to question the independence, the judgment, and the adherence to statements made during the confirmation process by the head of that office. the media again focused more on personalities than on substance. and that will say that the bush administration reached a similar conclusion. so how can ms. cytes be criticized? that's where the media is coming from. well, there's three points to be made here that sets the record straight for the newspaper. first, president bush did not make recess appointments when the senate was in pro forma

session. secondly, president bush did not even claim that he could make such recess appointments while declining to do so. and, third, his office of legal counsel did not issue any opinion that would be binding on future justice department advice. unlike the public actions of the senate-confirmed head of o.l.c., a lower-level official in the previous administration, the bush administration, apparently wrote a secret memorandum to the file on this subject. now, the existence of such a memorandum was not known until the office of legal counsel opinion referred to it and sought to rely on it. it is not possible to evaluate the reasoning of that memorandum because the department of justice has not agreed to release it despite my request

that they do it, that they do release it. now, if the office of legal counsel is to exercise the independent judgment that is necessary for it to properly perform its functions, it cannot rely on some sort of secret memo or memos from lower-level officials. that approach creates incentives for the office of legal counsel heads to avoid accountability. an incentive is created for the preparation of secret memoranda that make outlandish claims of presidential power if they can't be reviewed by anybody. no one knows of the memo so, its arguments do not face the transparency of public scrutiny. the president and office of legal counsel take no responsibility for its conclusions. then the office of legal counsel

later issues a public opinion on the subject to bolster very weak arguments, it cites earlier memos. but it avoids transparency as well by keeping the memorandum secret, so no one can see that the opinion's weak arguments may be supported by only other weak arguments. and it avoids accountability by suggesting that this question was already decided by an earlier office of legal counsel memorandum. instantly the number of administrations that support expanded presidential power goes from zero to two. neither one of which is based -- is said to be responsible for that expansion. that boot strapping can never lead to a reasoned objective

analysis of presidential power. it cannot produce the independent o.l.c. that ms. cytes promised the senate that she would provide at her confirmation. the media has also made the strange argument that ms. cytes' opinion must be professional and her judgment and independence cannot be questioned because of her high professional reputation. now, isn't that a little bit backward? the legitimacy of the argument contained in the legal opinion is not established by the reputation of the person who wrote it? reputations are not static. they are established by quality -- by the quality of the professional work, not the other way around. in the past a prominent democratic senator called for a judge to resign because of his legal work as office of legal

counsel head. "the washington post," in an earlier editorial, criticized the opinions of other bush administration o.l.c. lawyers as displaying -- quote -- "the logic of criminal regimes." end of quote. again another quote -- "bringing shame to the american democracy." end of quote. now, if the "post" truly believes that criticizing office of legal counsel lawyers is beyond the pale, they should retract their earlier opinion and condemn the far, harsher rhetoric that was hurled against bush o.l.c. lawyers. well, explaining that, what's wrong with the newspapers, i now go to explain why my criticisms were not legitimate, but they

were absolutely necessary. last thursday i laid out in great detail a long series of abuses of executive authority and usurpation of legislative authority by president obama and his administration. in fact, he made his willingness to bypass congress a campaign issue with solvents like -- quote -- "we can't wait for congress." and those headlines and slogans were splashed all across the whitehouse web site. member made the decision to run for reelection not on his record for obvious reasons, but against congress. in doing so, he's daring congress to defend his role as a representative of the americans from each of the 50 states in face of his unilateral agenda. some have suggested that this is a clever political trap laid by

president obama, that if congress resists the president's power grabs, it will validate his slogans and play into his electoral strategy. now, this may or may not be true. however, the stakes are greater than the next presidential election. and the implications of the president's actions will be felt well beyond any short-term political gain. the framers of the constitution foresaw the temptation by one branch of government to try to usurp the powers of the other branches. in federalist 51, james madison explained how the constitution was designed to prevent power grabs through an ingenious system of checks and balances, and he wrote this long quote -- "but the great security against a gradual concentration of

several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others. the provision for defense must in this as in all other cases be made commensurate to the danger of attack. ambition must be made to counteract ambition." end of madison's quote. of course, this assumes a desire on the part of each branch to guard its constitutionally granted powers. if some members of congress are not willing to resist an encroachment because they place party loyalty above constitutional responsibility or if members are reluctant to push back for fear of political consequences, then the system of checks and balances will not

work as it was intended by our constitution writers. all members of congress swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. that is our first obligation. i would like to be clear that this is not an argument about constitutional semantics. it is one of fundamental principle. as madison explains in federalist 51, the separation and distinct exercises of the different powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty. this also goes beyond an argument about the ends to which president obama has used to -- has used the new powers that he now claims. his agenda is controversial, to be sure, or he would not have had to bypass congress. still, even those who support this president's policies should

not be so quick to look the other way. once the walls separating the powers allotted to each branch of government are eroded, they are very difficult walls to rebuild. the most eloquent expression of the philosophy on which our nation was founded is, of course, the declaration of independence, and so i quote the all familiar -- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." based on these fundamental principles, the constitution laid out a form of government designed to protect individual rights by resisting the

concentration of power. this can be frustrating to those who would like a more activist cover. still, these features are designed to perform a very important role of preventing one faction of americans dominating another faction of americans. i am sure that president obama is convinced that his agenda is what's best for the country and that the end justifies the means in pursuing that agenda, but that is not the machiavellian ideas that any of our constitution writers had. naturally, he doesn't see any danger in concentrating power in the presidency because he believes that he will use that power very wisely. moreover, he has gone out of his way to identify himself with the school of thought that the constitutional separation of powers is an outdated barrier to change.

last month, president obama gave a speech in kansas in which he sought to link his agenda to teddy roosevelt's famous new nationalism speech at the same place in 1910. the original speech marked the beginning of roosevelt's break with many of his past policies and with the incumbent republican president william howard taft. roosevelt then went on to challenge taft in the 1912 election as heading up the progressive party ticket, and you know both roosevelt and taft lost. in that 1910 speech, which president obama paid tribute to roosevelt, described his new nationalism as -- quote -- "impatient of the impetus which springs from the overdivision of governmental power." this philosophy seeks to fundamentally transform the

united states from a nation founded on the principle that protecting the unalienable natural rights of each citizen is a paramount goal of government, to one that empowers an enlightened elite to take whatever action they deem necessary to correct perceived wrongs in society. in other words, throw the constitution out the door. this may start out with very good intentions, but there is no guarantee that once our constitutional protections are gone, future leaders will always act in the most enlightened way. in fact, the single-minded pursuit of a better society at the expense of individual rights has led some of history's -- led to some of history's worst tyrannies. moreover, not only is the concentration of power in the executive branch contrary to the

founding principles of our nation, it is foreign to the realities of american civic life with a country as large and diverse as ours, no individual can claim to speak on behalf of all americans. our constitutional system based on federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances helps ensure that each american has the opportunity to live their life as they see fit. so i return to the words of james mad son -- -- james madison -- "it is of great importance in the public not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part. the voices of all americans deserve to be heard through the elected representatives of the people.

that is what is at stake here." those of us who were elected to represent the people of our state should do just that or we deserve not to be here. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak about a courageous young man in ohio, a sheriff's deputy that grew up in my home county of richland, but i wanted to just take 60, 90 seconds to discuss a subject that the senior senator from iowa just discussed, and that is the appointment of richard cordray to the consumer bureau. and i checked with the senate historian earlier during this move through the banking committee on which the presiding officer sits. never in history has anyone said one party blocked the nomination, blocked even the vote of a presidential nominee

qualified, admittedly equalified presidential nominee only because they don't like the agency. it would be a little bit like, as senator reed from rhode island has said, refuseing to confirm an appointee to run the food and drug administration until the congress weakens food safety laws. it runs counter to everything we believe. and all we ask for is not -- i wasn't asking my senate colleagues to support -- i mean, i was. i wasn't insisting that senate colleagues all support richard cordray, the former ohio attorney general who was imminently qualified, is imminently qualified to do this job. we were just saying let it come to an up-or-down vote. instead, the minority party filibustered, stopped that. the president had no choice but to act because the agency simply couldn't do its job. and only two years ago, this agency was created, this consumer bureau, to have a consumer cop on the beat to keep wall street banks and payday

lenders and everybody in between honest. it was 60 votes in the senate, including the presiding officer and mine and 58 others, 58-plus others to say this agency should be created and the consumer bureau should be in effect. so that's really the history of that. madam president, i would just like to ask unanimous consent to separate that in the "congressional record" from the following remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to honor detective brandon moore, ohio's first recipient of the congressional badge of bravery. established in 2008, the congressional badge of bravery is an annual award from the u.s. attorney general to public safety officers who display bravery in the line of duty. earlier this month, congressman jordan, jim jordan, a republican from that part of ohio, and i had the honor of presenting the award to detective moore along with morrell county sheriffs

steven brenda a man and law enforcement -- brenaman and officers from across the state. it was an honor to hear detective moore's heroism and hear his story firsthand. 16 months ago in october, 2010, detective moore was shot multiple times, nearly killed in the line of duty during an ambush and firefight. when you hear what happened, you might be able to imagine the scene. then-deputy sheriff moore received a report of neighbors engaged in a property dispute. he went to the scene but in the course of the investigation, he suspected drug activity, criminal drug activity in one of the homes. the story quickly turned to the unimaginable. one of the neighbors came out of his house with an assault weapon and started firing. detective moore was shot in the groin, the leg, the foot and the abdomen. as detective moore described it, the normal reaction of fear, shock, doubt and panic was overwhelmed by a calmness that only highly skilled police

training could provide. severely wounded and laying on the ground, detective moore first used his belt to tie a tourniquet around his leg. he then shot and disabled his assailant from 50 yards away. he saved himself, he saved three civilians and probably other officers. his injuries were so life-threatening that he made the call to his wife, diandra, his high school sweetheart, explaining what happened, wanting her to know how much he loved her and their children alec and andrew. fortunately, help quickly arrived. detective moore was airlifted to the hospital for multiple surgeries, and he has had several since, where he stayed for a month. law enforcement from across central ohio visited the hospital to show their support, speaking to the solidarity of a sacred brotherhood and sisterhood. today detective moore is on the road to recovery well ahead of schedule. he was told it would take two or three years before he could return to work. he thistle do it in 18 months. he recently hit one of his goals, he told me, of running a

quarter of a mile without stopping. before april, his goal is to run half a mile. as difficult as the recovery has been for him, for his fellow officers, especially for his -- for diandra and the children and his parents, he remains grounded by humility and faith and sustained by the love of his family. diandra has been with with him on every step of the highs and lows of rehabilitation. alec and andrew when they are older will understand more than most people the meaning of duty and love and faith. i had the honor of meeting detective moore's parents who raised him and his siblings near my hometown of mansfield. his parents still live there. jim is a mansfield police officer. a sense of duty and faith runs deep in that family. it's not just for a father seeing his son follow his footsteps. it's also for a mother seeing both her husband and son put on a uniform to protect the public. as much as diandra must worry every day when she sends her husband off -- when he goes off to work, think about tommy whose

husband and son go off to -- put that uniform on, go off to work to protect civilians all over ohio. like much of our great state, mansfield is a place where you grow up with the values of hard work and fair play, service and community and faith. detective moore's story illustrates those values as clearly as any. we ask a great deal from our law enforcement officials to risk their lives every day and every night. while we may never guarantee their safety, in honoring their service, we give meaning to their sacrifice, to the officers and the officers' families. that's what the congressional badge of bravery reflects, the very character of our nation that honors those who serve us. we ask and as he says himself guided by faith and god and family and his fellow officers, detective moore gave and we're all humbled by that service. thank you to detective brandon moore. a proud state and a grateful

nation continue to offer our prayers for you and your family. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar 260, s. 2036. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1236, a bill to reduce the traiving of drugs and prevent human smuggling across the southwest border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the

appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. s. res. 357, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 357 commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle of mills springs and the significance of the battle to the civil war. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. 358 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: expressing support for the designation of january 28, 2012 as national data privacy day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the motion. mr. brown: i ask the preamble

preamble, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. con. res. 34 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 34 expressing the sense of congress in the honor of the life and legacy of l vaclav havel. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be greenwood, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i understand, madam president, there's a bill at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2041, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline project and provide for environmental protection and government oversight.

mr. brown: i now ask for a second reading in order to place the bill in the calendar under the provisions of rule 1 and i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. brown: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 31, following followinge prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, the morning business be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until

11:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans croilg the final half and following morning business the senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed to the stop trading on congressional knowledge act, further that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: we'll begin consideration. stock act. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. if there is no further business before the senate i i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> it would be intolerable in the hands of violent people and that is what it is, just a

handful is enough to convince me to change. i have seen the violence in that the very spirit of america. i saw that the republican convention in 1964 when governor rockefeller was shouted down. i thought in minneapolis one governor well as a man with whom i disagree, was heckled into silence and it happened to me in philadelphia. we must give notice to this violent few. there are millions of decent americans who are willing to sacrifice for change but they want to do it without being threatened and they want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black-and-white, who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to leave. >> as candidates campaign for president this year we look at the 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site c-span dos or -- c-span.org. >> our ancestors came across the ocean and ships you wouldn't go across the lake in.

when they arrive there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins and they did it with favors helping one another, not federal grants. [applause] they came here because they wanted to be free. and they wanted to practice the religion of their choice and after 200 years too many of us take those privileges for granted. >> c-span.org/the contenders. treasury secretary tim geithner was in dallas which went to announce the world economic forum. in a one-on-one interview with cnn's farid zakaria he talks about the current state of the u.s. economy and have the european debt crisis and iranian oil situation could affect it. china trade and his future with the administration if president president obama wins another term. this is half an hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a very special session with a very special person, tim geithner the secretary of treasury of the united states. we are going to do this because it will be on television as well in a slightly different format where we will have a consultation and then open it up for questions. so if you could just, for those of you watching the republican debates hold your applause so if he says something particularly controversial don't boo. it's a great pleasure to have timothy geithner, the secretary of the treasury on. let me start with an easy question. what is the united states economy going to grow into this year? >> there are no rules in economics and is still a pretty uncertain world but i think the conventional view of the u.s.

now is that we are growing between two and 3% and, think that is a realistic outcome for the united states economy as long as we see a little more progress in europe and as long as we don't see a lot of risk coming from iran and the oil front. >> does that scenario of two to 3% growth, seems a little different from what ben bernanke things growth is going to look like. if you read the statement that the fed put out it was very -- statement to be willing to almost guarantee that rates will be kept where they are until the end of 2014 suggests they don't see any growth of any robust growth for a long time. are they wrong? >> i'm not a forecaster so my view might not be worth much but actually if you look at the

professed forecast and the consensus of private forecasters among economists, people are pretty close to that area but it's still very dependent on how the world unfolds. again i think it's worth recognizing that we still face tremendous challenges as a country. we are still repairing the damage caused by devastating financial crisis that still has huge lasting impacts on the basic fortunes of most americans. unemployment is still very high. housing is still very weak, construction is still very week. people still have too much debt. they are bringing that down and that is still going to take a while to repair. that crisis came on top of a decade as you know where we saw virtually no growth in income, very high levels of poverty in this country, very high levels of inequality and an erosion of people's confidence in their

mobility, their prospects over time and on top of that of course we face a more challenging world. just last year the couple combined effects of japan and the damage the debt limit debate caused those were very damaging and they slowed growth everywhere around the world at a time when again the world was still healing so we have a lot of challenges ahead in the united states and we are working very hard to try to lay the foundation for the political consensus we will need that will make progress in those things possible. >> you know there is a very well-established narrative now among the business community in the united states that there would be a much more robust recovery. the u.s. economy would be growing much more vigorously if there were greater certainties and businesses could invest and the reason they are not is a kind of tsunami of regulations, uncertainty about tax policy, and certainly about the deficit

but perhaps above all the sense that the economy is being thrown, this huge new wave of regulations and health care, finance and energy and that is what is keeping the economy back. >> addled think there is much aces for that although it is true that we are putting in place very tough reforms in the financial sector. we are trying to improve how the u.s. health care system works and we are trying to change americans energy and those are necessarily desirable and long-term goals of the united states that i think if you look at the evidence we have about how the economy is doing and how the business community is doing in particular, the reality is not justified in that sense so just look at the things you can use to measure basic health and you know profitability across the american economy is very very high. profits are higher than the pre-crisis peak. if you look at investment as a measure of confidence, private investment in equipment and

software is up more than 30% since the trough in the first half of 09. and exports are up 22%. there is broad-based strength in energy, and agriculture, in manufacturing not just high-tech manufacturing but heavy manufacturing. i was at a siemens new plant in the united states in north carolina this week which is building steam and gas turbines and generators and for export and they are doing now because they see in the basic fundamentals the products of the united states even with all our challenges pretty compelling competitive advantage compared to where else they produce. so i think if you look at the basic health of the american business sector, it's much stronger than i think anybody would have thought at the peak of our crisis and stronger than many of us hoped. what is holding the u.s. economy

back still is the echoes aftershock of the financial crisis, the damage that was done to the household sector, the housing, construction and the fiscal pressures on government in particular which are a drag on -- that combined with the shocks we saw globally and that is why growth has not been stronger than it has been. but i really don't think you can realistically deliver a better outcome for the american business sector and although we recognize these reforms are tough and they will change the economics of business in this case we think they are are overall a effect on the economy is still going to be positive long-term and i don't think there is any basis for evidence that the effect of those things are hurting growth now and i'll give you an example. the heritage foundation which is a republican think-tank, one of the strongest critics of of regulations so far estimates the cost could the $20 billion over

time. that's a dramatic exaggeration of the potential cost and remember we are a 14 trillion-dollar economy and i think on the evidence we have offered ability, what the markets think about future profit growth and how companies are behaving, i don't think there is any merit to that argument. >> business profitability is up and productivity is up but unemployment still remains a huge challenge in many businesses have become more productive because they have taken costs out of the system and managed very efficiently. how do you get the american jobs machine going again? >> well, the biggest driver of how fast the unemployment rate comes down is how fast we grow and the biggest turn of how fast we grow now is really going to depend on these two fundamental factors. one is what happens in the world, meaning in europe and in the gulf because of oil, and

frankly just to be direct about it whether republicans in the congress decide they want to legislate things that are good for growth in the short-term. so we think the right agenda for the country as to to legislate a set of investment incentives, investments and things that matter for long-term growth, rebuilding america's infrastructure, more education, more spending on the patient basic science and research better skills for americans, tied to long-term fiscal reform and if we were able to legislate progress on those things in the short-term that would make a big difference for confidence and make a difference for the rate of growth of the american economy in the short run. but to be realistic, it's going to take a long time still for us to fully repair the damage particularly unemployment became as a cause of the crisis but the private sector has created 3.2 million jobs and job growth

resume. that is actually strong job growth in the private sector compared to the last two recoveries and pretty strong given the aftershocks of the crisis. we all wanted to be stronger though but the fundamental reality is how fast we grow depends on those two factors. is europe's successful in stabilizing the crisis in europe? and can we help build the political foundation in the united states for pro-growth investment tied to long-term fiscal reforms through the obvious imperative for our future? >> you negotiated with the republicans. do you think there's any chance that they will pass some of the things the president talked about in in the state of the union? >> i think we have to wait and see. they are talking little bit about infrastructure now for the first time. they said they are going to pass the payroll tax cut which has a pod is -- positive that modest but modest effect on income which is important. we feel like there is a compelling case for a target to

investment incentives that would be good for improving the economics. those things have not typically been partisan issues. they have broad support among republicans in the past and you know our view is there is nothing standing in the way of progress in those things even if it's going to take some time to work out the bigger fights on tax reform and entitlements. but that is a calculation they have to make. >> most people who look at the american tax code which is regulations and rules 10,000 pages, one of the most complicated in the world, believe that the key to reforming the tax code is wrought in the base, eliminate deductions and loopholes, lower rates. isn't the president's proposal in the state of the union taking us in exactly the opposite direction? the not at all. in fact i don't think you are going to see, well let me put it differently. the president's proposals, which are focused on a set of

investment payroll reforms in the corporate tax system, manufacturing and investment, and on a modest but necessary increase in the effective tax rate paid by the richest americans, those two things are only going to come i think realistically in the context of broad reform and what we are trying to do is lay the foundation for tax reform so that we can produce a more simple system, more simple less distortions. >> why not just proposed tax reform? >> well because you have to start with principles for a framework and what we are trying to do is be specific on who should dominate the debate so again i wish it were different for us but the basic fiscal realities of the united states now, and we have to recognize we have to govern within those limits, means that when we do tax reform we are going to have to be helping contribute to deficit reduction. we don't have the ability for the american business people, seeing a net tax cut.

that is beyond the capacity of anybody being realistic about our constraints. it is also true that fundamental to any resolution of those long-term fiscal problems is going to have to be a modest increase in the effective tax rate for the richest americans and the balance of pain and adjustment and burden that is going to have to come is going to come with those tax reforms or individuals combined with some pretty substantial changes in the trajectory of benefits that will affect middle-class americans. realistically that is what is going to come over time but it's not going to come without figuring out how to change that asic constrained republicans have put on the american economic policy debate and i think if you listen carefully, is starting to change. if you look at polls, polls are

not very reliable but the majority of republicans now and the majority of independence, very strong majority support a long-term fiscal reform package that has as part of it and increase in the effective tax rate for the richest americans. that helps a lot and if you listen carefully you are seeing democrats show more pragmatism and realism and creativity in recognizing long-term are unsustainable and you'll need those. but again to be realistic, we are going to have a big debate on those choices, and it's unlikely we are going to make significant progress with those things out of the election. those problems are not going to go away and at the end of the year in the united states you know a bunch of tax cuts and the impact of an automatic cut in spending are going to be a big motivator to trying to make progress on the fiscal front going forward. but again just to put it in

perspective, our fiscal problems are daunting for us in the long run. but they are much more manageable problems then faced by almost any major economy around the world and it's important not to lose sight of the fact that given, given the high level of unemployment, given the very bad outcomes for median income in the united states over the last 30 years, 20 years, 10 years, given the appallingly high rates of poverty in the united states, given the competitiveness challenges we face is going to require pretty significant investments in infrastructure and education and innovation. you have to take a much broader approach and we are not going to solve all the problems in the country by thinking they are centrally about how we restore fiscal sustainability. that is part of it, but it's not the dominant challenge we face as a country.

now we have the luxury because we are in a relatively strong position to spread our challenges for doing this over at period of several years, not just a period of weeks and months. >> when you look at your, mr. secretary, you look at the growth projections that are coming out, and they are lower than what are projected which means the deficits are larger, which means that the debt-to-gdp is larger, the debt-to-gdp is not because the debt has gone up but because the gdp has gone down. not that the numerator has gone up at the denominator has shrunk. does that suggest that austerity is not about the growth? >> the debate about austerity in the stimulus is mostly divorced from a much more practical reality. the proponents of stimulus i think today now realistic are probably exaggerated in its

power and its reach now and i think the people it talk about economic policies with austerity get the big things wrong. it is true however though for parts of europe for a long period of time there is going to be no alternative to very substantial adjustment in budget deficits in the size of the governance. there is no alternative to that. for those who work however they need some support and some financing and they need to be complemented by reforms that are also helpful for growth and competitiveness over time. but they will not work if there is not a stronger commitment of financial resources standing behind the european endeavor and without that, those reforms will never work and you are right countries will face a risk that

every disappointment and growth will be met with an austerity that will feed the decline and that is a cycle you have to arrest. we are making progress though and i think over the last two months in particular, they are laying the foundations for a more credible framework and making progress and reforms, changing institutions with better discipline on fiscal property. you have three new governments, which are very tough things. you have have an ecb doing what central banks have to do. you see the move to try to strengthen and sam by the financial sector but i think the europeans recognize the unfinished piece of that framework is building a stronger more credible firewall because without that we will be caught in that trap you referred to. >> if you need a credible firewall at the end of the day there are only so many funds in one proposal has been to get the

imf more involved and to ask the imf to draw lines of credit from its existing members and particularly the united states but it would be china which is setting off $320 of foreign exchange reserves. ..

if europe is able to find the political consensus to build a fire wall the night and you were going to see the of imf and the major shareholders and the emerging economies very supportive to reinforce those efforts. but not as a substitute for a more effective european response. >> you were in china recently. i'm guessing you talked about many things but the two along them chinese support for sanctions on iran. it seems as though the chinese are willing to cooperate much more than they have in the past on this issue. is it your sense that in the next year there will be a tightening moves as it were on iran? >> i think so. even over the last six months

eight months you are seeing with a substantial intensification but a broader effort to wean googled of the dependence on the iranian oil. those countries that use the oil and my sense is also that china wants to be part of that effort because china views it in china's interest not to seek iran and do the delicate balance of power that there is in the gulf, but we will have to see. we are still at this early stage of this next wave of intensified financial pressure both on leal and the financial side and i met the extent of the support we are getting and europe has been excellent thomas and the major aid to emerging economies japan and china as far as i can tell.

>> if the price of oil goes up and iran does not -- with the higher prices and at the end of the day they didn't have any confession. >> this is an international effort trying to maximize the incentives we create for iran to alter their nuclear ambitions to deter them from the nuclear ambitions, and that is the most important thing not just for the strategic industries we have in stabilizing the region but also the security of energy to so many countries. that's why we are finding so much support in building pressure. >> one final question. when you were in the china did you talk about the trade in a way that you think you will see results? because the president in the state of the union was pretty

tough on china. do you think that there is a constructive path forward? >> we measure people by their actions and china does present a really unique challenge to the global trading system because the structure of its economy even though it has more of a market economy now is still overwhelmingly dominated by the state enterprises in china systematically subsidizes the cost of the key imports, energy, access to credit capital and it's kept the exchange rate below for some time all the wood is depreciating gradually. what that means is even though in many ways it is having a world class and factoring sector is supporting that ambition with a set of policies that are very damaging to not just of the commercial and economic interest of the trading partners but the political support from the world for sustaining the open trading

system and that's why it's very important we get china to move on comprehensively not just on the exchange rate but on dhaka ailing back the subsidies and distortions. i think they are going to have to do it. we would like them to do it faster and harder and in a more compelling way and they are moving on some fronts. we will just have to see. i think china believes it is immense interest to try to make the system work. of course it depends a lot on its access to the markets around the world and we hope that provide enough incentive for them to make more progress in these reforms. >> we have a little time for questions. let's take some questions. because of the lights if you can put your hand way up so i can see it.

>> do you believe today -- what is your view on the tension between the currencies with all central banks in beijing in the quantitative easing and the commodity for the dollar basically there's a race to the bottom and they are all racing to the bottom he create more uncertainty global on the currency's. what is your view regarding this and the dollar relative to the currency? >> i'm not sure this is totally responsive but i think it's basically right. if you look at the broad exchange-rate system and the consolation of exchange rates there is really one big compelling reality which is china's currency and the currency of a bunch of other countries to tide themselves out of the ports of the currency is

still below almost all measures fundamental and over time those currencies have to continue to rise significantly further against major currencies against the dollar, the euro and the yen. it isn't simply a dollar think it's about the currency against the major currency and that's just because the strength of the productivity growth that's happening and that's going to happen no matter what. china has the interest of making sure that happens less through higher inflation over time and more so that that's why they left the exchange rate move gradually not just for the last 18 months but if you go back, the chinese currency is 45% from 40% higher but it has a way to go. it would be better for the stability of the system for that to happen more gradually. you are also right that for the major economies that have very high unemployment and very large

outlook on the unused capacity for a long period what time, that basic thrust of the macropolicy they have the room for men maneuver should be at strengthening growth in demand and that's true in the united states and its true in large parts of the continent. not everybody has the room to do that the people that have the room to do that should do that and that's necessary and desirable and healthy for the broad interest of the emerging economies, too because of course the strength in their future is still substantially dependent on how fast the rest of the world grows. >> one more question. the gentleman in the front. >> you talk quite a lot about unemployment. are you concerned in the long run about the rise of

protectionism as the country's try to protect their markets and shield their people from the unemployment rate. >> absolutely. i think anybody who sits in the policy at a time when there is that much basic damage needs to worry about that and the political pressure and around that are very high and i think we've been very successful and fortunate that relative not just to the 30 stevan relative to the 1980's -- the last time the u.s. had a pretty deep recession we've been able to prevent that huge political pressure translating into a material in the united states and the wrong door of the world. compare the 80's in that context. that's a good thing for the world and the united states, but there's a huge pressure out there and as you know it is a very bipartisan, the democrats and republicans and that's why again in some ways why it's

important we are able to demonstrate not just with china but generally countries are playing by the same roles we play by because that goes to the heart of what drives a lot of the political pressure. >> let me ask a final question. you were surprised that he made news a couple of days ago when you made clear that you were not going to serve in a second term of the obama administration. is that his choice or yours? [laughter] >> that's an excellent way to pose that question. generally anybody who takes the job seriously serves the president and at the time we face a much pressure coming in and out of the president asks you to do things you have to do them. and when were he asked me to stay and i thought it was the right time to leave i agreed i would stay until the balance of this term and he accepted that

aspiration of mine and that's where it's going to come out i think. >> what are you going to do next? >> that feels like a long way away we are living with terribly challenging and hugely consequential economic policy traces. we have a lot of unfinished business even in the financial reform side, and a lot of foundation fleeing for better policy of comes on the things better but for growth investment in the united states not just the long term fiscal, so i feel like we have a long year of hard work while, and i know it's a political moment in the united states and people are skeptical about whether we can do anything, but our judgment is we still have a chance in some of these areas to make progress and i'm going to focus on that as long as i can. >> it's a pleasure to have you. thank you. [applause]

today in the senate members voted to proceed with a measure would ban members of congress and their aides from trading stocks using nonpublic information that they acquired through official business.. the debate was 50 minutes. membe >> the consideration to prevent members of congress from using f nonpublic information derived io their officialns positions fromi the personal benefit and for ore other purposes. estimate under the previous will order the time until 5:30 p.m.dd will be divided and controlled betweeno the two leaders were there that is designees.the pred connecticut. >> first i'd like to ask unanimous consent presidential management follow on the detail to our homeland security committee be granted gd the privilege to the floor for the duration of the debate.offit >> without objection.mr. liebmaw >> thinksou mr. president. i would like to begin the debata

and i do so with gratitude that both of the distinguished, ranking member, senator collinsf is here and senator brown of lea massachusetts whose original legislation along with senatorfs jon rand forms the basis of thir proposal that comes out of ourbt committee. mr. president, i'm going to go back to the beginning atev president washington's farewell address seems to take more i relevant as time goes by all the wood is more than 200-years-oldl now.t i washington said in that farewell address that i quoted virtual morality is a necessary spring of popular government and we cannot look with indifference at fountion anything that shakes the foundation or if i continue the i ink we h metaphor drives the spurring. i think we have to say that in d the long proud course of american history since then there's been very few times tes

popular government have been more deride than they are in our time. i'm grateful that my colleaguefw senator mccain is no bt on thets floor now because when we get te the subject he usually says when you look at the public opinion polls on congress the numbers of people that have a favorable tt impression in the body are so ce close relatives and paid staff i and when i'm with him i had i a not so sure about all of the paid staff, but in any case, wes have an opportunity here withtin this piece of legislation to tor take a small step forward toward rebuilding public trust in congress, and if i can, to restoring those necessary

springs of popular government that trusted the people and us. this goes back just to last fall a boo andk early winter a book appeard by an author named peter schweitzer who was then interviewed on 60 minutes andt made allegations that some members of congress and theireda staff have used information gained on the job to enrichticul themselves with timely investments particularly in the stock market. those allegations, as washington might have said, certainly tried the springs of trust that we people even more than they already are. so mr. president, today i'm proud to rise to bring beforestn the senate the stock ads which they were stopped trading on thl congressional knowledge act of 2012. langu this piece of legislation put il language and reporting requirements that will make clear to the american people

that we understand being a member of congress means we hava a responsibility to the public,f a public trust and that anyere member of congress or staffhat member here who violates that trust will be punished.originall original bill out of theaffa committee on homeland security r affairs on december 13th with a bipartisan vote of seven throop 02. in advancing thisor bill as iwoy said, senator collins and i worked closely with some interest to the brand and brownd both of whom sponsored versions of the act, and senator levin who just spoke who workedhe .losely with us on thebeing fily substitute amendment that is being filed today it i want to m thank them all for theirns on ts contributions on this piece of legislation and i also want tonk see through the senate majority leader senator reid for making sure for deciding that this important piece of legislatione is one of the first items that

we are taking up in congress this year. insid mr. president, the specific rules making insider trading eagle are found in a large body of securities and exchange commission regulatory activities pursuant to section ten of the securities and exchange act ofc. 1934, and court decisions interpreting those activities. our homeland security committee held a hearing on this topic ins december ioand the securities exchange commission actually filed a statement with us for the record indicating its belief, declaring its belief law that currently there is and authority in all to investigate and prosecute congressional insider trading cases.nticer of the chief enforcement officeronl said, and i quote, trading by congressional members and theirm staff is not exempt from the

federal securities law in quoting the insider-trading prohibitions, end of quote. but other witnesses at that quote including the georgetown university professor donald and columbia law school professor w who told us that while the sec might be technically right inrkn their opinion there was ambiguity in the law and they couldn't be sure how the courtlt would rule if there was a challenge to the sec's authoritt to bring a insider-trading case bainst a member of congress or a staff member. expla that isin because as the profeso explained a person may be foundn to have violated insider-trading laws only if he or she breaks ad fiduciary duty of trust and som, confidence owed to somebody typically to the shareholders of a company or to the source of the nonpublic information. mig they argue that it's possiblehtn

judge might decide members of congress do not have a fiduciary duty in the way in which it is normally been interpreted to anyone with respect to the nonpublic information we've received while carrying out our duties. i must say that i find it hardee to see that way.t it seems to me self-evident that public office is a public trust and members of congress have a duty to the institution of e governm congress, but of course to the government as a whole and ultimately most importantly then american people not to use information gained during our--a time and converse and unavailable to p the public to r make investments for personalt profit.th but the fact is there are some w very experienced and tha intelligently will experts who told our committee that they couldn't validate, couldn't certified the judge would see if

exactly that way. and that is the purpose, the first purpose of this act. it clarifies the in the devotees and security as well as byrs ofr explicitly stating members of congress and our staff have ansu duty of trust for thehe united institution of congress come ton the united states government and to the american people. of if we trade nonpublic information we gained by the puc virtue of our public position.ts the bill also requires thegr committees of both houses of t congress to issue guidance to clarify members and staff may fm not use nonpublic information derived from our possessions ano their positions in congress toi. make a private profit. besides these changes come and r this is different and importantt our committee decided that the act should require members of congress and their staff to file

public reports on our purchasesd or sales of stocks, bonds,r commodities or other financial i transactions exceeding $1,000 io value within 30 days of the transaction. president right now is the president knowd him the trades are he reported once a year in our annual financial disclosure statement. so this proposal would change that within 30 days of the this trade. more timely reporting of this kind will allow not just the seg but the public to assess whether there is anything suspicious ore wrong about the timing of the trade and conduct in the senate and that kind of early transparency will be an additional deterrent tor. the illegal behavior.noth the bill also contains a number atportant provision. sen offered in the committee by begh

senators jon tester and markancl begich that will require the financial disclosure forms filel by members anded staff to be fi, electronically, and perhaps eveg more significantly therefore be available online for public rreview. the fact is our reports are now available for public review, but you've got to go to the office of the secretary of the senate and ask for copies of them. t there iso no sensible reason tor make someone physically come to copy of one of our financiallic disclosure forms. they are public records and the all to be easily available to the public online and this proposal will make sure thatideo that happens. mr. president, those are the proposal as i see it. it to c establish a clear ins

fiduciary duty under the insidea trading law so that it is clearc that members of congress and our staff are covered by them.ofs second, to require disclosure of trades and access of $1,000hird within 30 days and third, thatul the trades in the annual financial report will beectronia electronically filed ande therefore available online to read as we begin the second session of congress, we begin of so much distress of ourck act federal government i think a passing the stock act could help have a positive effect on how wc areei being perceived, and we wp particularly asas i hope we will pass itbi on a bipartisan basis. the stock act was passed out of the committee in exactly that ms way.and leade it has thers support of members and leaders of both parties in the house and president obama

and the senate promised to signn it as soon as it comes to his le desk. let me end by quoting again froe the first president this time from his inaugural address wherw he said the ideals for the new . government that our country would have come he said and by quote the foundations of our national policy will be laid ine the pure and immutable principles of o private moralit. and the pre-eminence of the free government will be exemplified s by all the attributes which canf win the affection of its ote. citizens and command the respecc of goldman. enacting this proposal into lawo will say to our disappointed, skeptical trusted constituents that we understand and accept as washington's wisdom. i thank the cherry and at this time i would yield to my friend the distinguished ranking membet senator collins.t?

>> thank you. >> mr. president? m >> the senator from maine. ofur >> i'm very pleased to join the chairman of our committee, senator lieberman and theor sponsor of the bill, senator scott brown.olleag today in urging our colleaguesse to begin consideration of what this legislation is based on a bill but was first introduced ir the senate by senator scott brown and a similar one introduced by senator jalabert s and. put in place the stock act is intended to ensure that members of congress do not profit from trading on the insider information. as a co-sponsor of senatorr bro' brown's bill, i want to commends him for his leadership in this t area. i also want to predict vicean fr

chairman lieberman for moving i this important bill for word ins such an expeditious manner. mr. president, press reports on 60 minutes and elsewhere have raised questions about whetherlk lawmakers have been exempteen either legally or practicallyidr from the reach of the law t prohibiting insider trading at a time when the polls show record low public confidence inn congress, there is a strong adds desire on our part to address the concerns that underpin the public skepticism and to showpun the american people but we are putting their interest ahead ofs our own. the stock act is intended to ar affirm members of congress are s not exempt from the law

prohibiting insider trading.he while several of the witnesses r who appear before the committee's hearing on this biln testify that there is no legal exemption for the members of unr congress, confusion and uncertainty nevertheless example persist. for example, on the eve of thej" journal" published an op-ed by - yale law professor who wrote that, quote, the securities and exchange commission has lao not determined that ano insider-trading law do not apply to members of congress or to their staff, and of quote.ntradt this, however, is directlyubmitd contradicted by t the statement for the rteecord submitted to to committee by the enforcementtray director. mem irere is nobe reason why tradine by members of congress or their

staff member should be ral s considered exempt from the federal securities law including the trading positions.mriden mr. president it, would ask.e.c. unanimous consent that the sec'e statement and "the wall street e journal" op-ed be entered intomy my comment. >> without objection. the >> mr. president, to me this ovr illustrates the confusion over e this issue. so, i am pleased that the committee not only reported senator brown's bill, but unanimously adopted an amendmenc thatha i offered with german lieberman that states clearly that members and their staff are not extend to from the t insider-trading law. the need for this unambiguous statement can likely be traced back to the nature of therading insider trading law. lea as our committee has learned,

our nation's insider-trading laws are not generally speaking based on statutes passed byon congress, but rather on court of ntecedents. poi roi from indiana university pointed out during our hearing, congress has never enacted a federal securities statute without explicitly prohibits anyone from insider-trading. that statutory ban on the inside trading is entirely absent inite the u.s. security law.he rather, mr. president, this sece pursues insider-trading casesand under the general anti-fraud provision of the federal home security law most commonlyties t section ten be as the exchangead act of 1934 and 10b5 on the

antifraud rule promulgated by the commission. insider therefore what constitutes ted insider trading has largely been determined by the courtsa including the supreme court on a case by case basis.types or under the case law with two different types of the recent insider-trading violations havee developed. ins one is a classic corporate insider using information to trade on the company's stock and a second the defendant has misappropriated inside o information in violation of the, duty owed to the source of the information such as a lawyer onn advanced notice of the businessf transaction.

both types h of cases, however,f share common elements. there must be a breach of the duties such as the traditionalfy fiduciary duty or of trust and confidence. the breach must develop material information which is the type oe information a reasonable investor would consider important in making a decision the information must be recei non-publicve and the defendant must receive a personal benefit which is as the supreme court saidal may include not only financial gains but also the cot reputation all benefits. held, as the supreme court has held under section 10 be the charge of conduct must involved acontne contrivance used in connection

with the purchase or sale f securities and in the criminal prosecutions for inside tradingt under rule ten erbe five, the pn government must prove a person willfully violated the provisions with clinton's intent with. although the witnesses who cames before the committee generallyin agreed that congress enjoy is no extension from inside trading law, they also stressed the neet to clarify the relevant duty that applies to the members. ref it's reported by the committee in the language refined byirming senator levin and addressed thie issue by affirming the dutynd arising from the relationship of trust and confidence already to the congress, the united s

states government and the citizensur we serve. at a markup we clarify that this does not create a new fiduciary duty in the traditional sense ha our existing duty. amended the congressional accountability act to prohibit members and staff from using nonpublic information gained through the performance of their official duties for personalefi. benefit.imited this provision is not limited to the trading context or otherwiso tethered to the financial a transactionncs because it wasn't anchored in the financiald some transaction, i express somes concern about the potential blood of the term and theere

potential independent consequences.lembers of these concerns were echoed by several members of the committee during our consideration of the, bill. therefore, following the markup we continued to refine the bill while adhering to theshould be fundamental principle what that members of congress should bes subject to the same insider-trading law as otherp wh americans. i believe we have come up with a solution that addresses the potential problem that reallyf troubles all of us and that is public official swa using the public office for private gain.t we need however to make sure that in doing so we do not gr inhibit our ability to gather information so that we can serve our coounstituents to the best f

our ability to read the proposet substitute offered by senatortor reid, senator brown, senator the lieberman reflect some members of well as other bill sponsors. it would require your the senate ethics committee and the house committee on standards ofguidcet official conduct to issue relevn guidance on the relevant rules ofer each chamber clarifying the that members and staff may notni use nonpublic information derived from their positions in. congress to make a personal profit. this would cover inside trading and other financial transactions where nonpublic information cond could be wrongly converted into a private game. like the reported a bill, the

substitute includes a straightforward statement making it a clear that members and ther staff are not exempt from insider trading prohibition of arising from the security law. in keeping with an amendment that senator paul successfully offered at a markup, the substitute applies the samebitia framework, the clarification of the provision against using nonpublic information for the te private profit and the affirmation of the existing dut that we have to the employees of the executive and the judicial branches as well as the repor legislative branch, and like the reported bill swa, thelines substitute includes earliercial deadlines for financial g requirements and greater transparency for the d ennancial disclosureis statemenm as the chairman mentioned by

requiring that they be available wline and in a searchable i bet format. mr. president, i believe that we need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand that elective office is the place for public service,t not private and gain. a that is it is an honor and a trust by the people that we age represent.is underscoring that importantthis message is clearly the intent ot this bill, and that is why i coe support its. i urge my colleagues to vote ano yes, to invoke cloture on the ne motion to proceed and i nowsor e yield the floor to the senate to than sponsor the bill, senator brown. thank you mr. president. stomach mr. president, the senator from massachusetts. t >> thank you mr. president, iin want to thank obviously rankingr

member collins and chairmanethig lieberman for really doing something very unusual around here which is to get somethingpf out in a very short period of oe time, something that not only comes up and senator jalabert b and's bill and then you both working together to move it for a hearing and in that hearing doing very well ana coming out so quickly is unheard of and i want to thank you for that. i want to thank the leader for bringing this to the floor today as well as the ranking member collins and senator jalabertetht and. we work together to draft a that passed homeland security and government affairs by an overwhelming margin and that's appropriate because it isn't a partisan or ideological issue. p it's about cleaning up washington. abraham lincoln spoke ato gettysburg fighting to preservet

the government of the people, by ie people and for the people. i think if the approval ratings are any indication the american people have lost faith that we are living upl, to the ideal and we need to do it better.m. they've lost faith conversecong works for them to read the believe to many members have come to washington to make themselves rich or do other things instead of taking care oy the people's business. and that congress only steps in or the most lobbying power and that b isn't right. take a small step to re-establishing the trust between the american people and congress. if we pass the, stock act this week it would send a very stront and unified message to the american people that congress does not consider itself above the law. we can start to finally addressn that deficit of trust the

president referenced in his state of thef union address.es members of congress must live by the same rules that govern every other american citizen. as we recall from the 60 minutes investigathsion only two months ago wern learned that members os congress, their staff as well as other federal employees may be s using material non-public information for their personal r gain either through stock trains to the country or other financial the activity.be everyone agrees this should be illegal or it already is as referenced by the ranking member and a full explanation of kuhl d and the problems with it but somehow despite all of theidenc, evidence, despite all of the evidence, there'ssi never been a single member of conagra's ordi. congressional staffer charged with insider trading.y i have to admit like you and many others i was shocked by we. this report. i think we all were coming and act would prohibit members andsg employees of congress from usinl

material non-public information for their personal benefit.govel when homeland security state intergovernmental affairs held a hearing on the state of insider applies to congress. one thing was very, very clear.r although as the ranking memberly collins said, they theoreticalls have the ability to prosecute members.t there's been no precedent for lw it. and the state of t law at this point is very unsettled. we to remove any and all we need to act and we need to act now.ion i addition to clarifying the inside trading as a criminal offense, we are increasing the trading activity to make suret that our investment decisionsne are out there for everyone to see, plain as day. as president ronald reagan like to say, trust but verify. in conclusion i want to say that senator coburn has a phrase i think is very accurate in this context. he talks about all of the con earmarks and contracts and thatf

in washington ends up in the hands of those people he calls,d and i quote, well-heeled and moe well-connected. in my opinion, no one is more a well connected with more access to a wide range of theublic privileged nonpublic information than the members of congress,amy their friends, employees or family members. and at a time our economy is struggling and the average american family has economic choices, congressionale members and staff shouldn't be lining their pockets on the inside information.privilne tha asserting that country is at privilege and one that i cherished very much.g field and i believe we must level the playing field and show the american people that the united states congress doesn't consider itself to be above the law thaty we expect everyone else across the country to obeyed. i think it is time to listen ton our constituency and remember that every seat in this room iss the people's seat. thank you, mr. president, and ie

yield the floor. >> senator from new york. my >> thank you very much to my colleague from massachusetts fos his strong advocacy of such an important issue. i want to recognize chairmans fr lieberman and the ranking membey collins for their leadership and their advocacy and of their work in getting the kennedy out so quickly. i urge all of my colleagues to e vote yes for cloture tonight one this bipartisan bill to ensure clearly and unambiguously thatsf all members of congress, theire staff and federal land wendy's play by ev same rule as the to american people. the american people deserve the right to know that there lawmakers on the interest is what is best for the country, it not their own financialfamili interest. shoul members of congress, their family and staff shouldn't be po able to gain personal profits for information. the access to the everyday don't middle class americans don't. r.

it's simply not right. nobody should be above tool. sen i introduced a bipartisan bill in the senate with 28 of ourtheo colleagues from both sides of the ogle to close the loophole.s the legislation is very similar to the legislation introduced by my friends in the house of l representatives congresswoman louise and congressman tim walz. ani want to thank them for theik longstanding advocacy and dedication to its importantant cause. i want to mcginn thank chairmank lieberman, randy member collins and all of the committee members for their work in acting swiftls to move this common sense bill to the floor for a vote. i also want to thank leader harry reid for his leadership ii moving this body forward to thit debate for an up or down vote that the american people reived deserve. our bill which has received the support of that least seven good government groups covers two thr important principles. shod

first, members of congress, their family and their staff should be barredelli from buyinr selling securities on the basism of knowledge and to their congressional service or fromane using the knowledge to kick off anyone else.ftc mt the sec and the cftc must be empowered to investigate the case is to provide additional aw pieces that should also be in violation of the congress's own rules to make it clear that thes activity is inappropriate. second, members should be required to disclose transactions within 30 days tona make this information available, online for their constituents to see. providing dramatically improvedt oversight and accountability from the current annual hard copy r reporting. i am pleased that the final product that passed withmmtee bipartisan supportis of the committee is a strong bill in iu this piece and it includes ensug members of congress cannot takeh off others with nonpublicmationd

information gained through theis duties and treating from theso b information will also be aules. violation of the congress'sbill ethics rules.s some critics have said that the bill was unnecessary and alreada tucovered under the currentith statute. i've spoken with experts in t the nature come and they i strongly disagree. we must make an unambiguous tham this kind of behavior is illegal. as i come state newspaper the buffalo news noted, the stock act is to insure that it's thed people's visit being attended to.state of president obama said i tn his sn state of the union send him of the bill and he will sign itit m right away. we should not delay it is time to act.t for i urge my colleagues to vote yes for cloture so we can pass thehs bill without delay.o let's take this step to beginecy rebuilding the trust necessary in congress. thank you. montana

>> mr. president, first i would ask unanimous consent that my ak office be given privileges on the floor for today. my >> without objection. >> mr. president the senate will have an opportunity to considerr banning insider trading byafter, members of congress and their is staff. weigel insider trading is and illegal for everyone in america and there's no doubt about that, but when it comes to there is n information of the folks in it congress were before the general erblic learns it there are no clear-cut rules and that is unacceptable. in congress have advancedlks in knowledge of which bills andch s issues the congress will cder. consider. k they know how thoseno bills will affect basic goods and services often and often the legislation that we pass impacts our company onnk the stock market. and i h men and women work for congressc and at the deepest respect for my colleagues.ith i would say all come to the senate with good intentions,heir carry out their dailyes witho responsibilities without

thinking about using information that they've learned for their personal financial gain and that is widening insider-trading should be an easy left. staff the fact that members of a congress and tndheir staff are s iout to buy and sell stocksis based on privileged information is incredible to me. they've restored their credit ratings for the american peoplee americ and believe many in congressievm don'tan represent them and havet forgotten what it means to be a normal american. a those folks would assumecongresd congress men and senators already can't treat stocks based on information that they get int their jobs.io but it turns out that this may s not be true. and that is just one moreor example why the american peoplee have lost faith in this insti. institution. offic as elected officials it is our duty to r tegain the trust of ts american people and have an accu obligation tont be as transpares and as accountable as possible.s everybodst member of conagra's to my schedule online forituentk heerybody to see.sc my constituents can look at my

schedule every day to see whyris meet with and what hearings i to attend. now we have the opportunity toy regain trust in the body by rul bringing our own rules in line, with the rest of america. by and transparency andcountabi accountability theli american people to know that working on t their behalf without considerinn personalcial financial gains. the split was the provision of senator begich and sponsored tol ensure that the annual financial disclosure forms filed by availe members of congress areelec available electronically. transe as with most transparency, fullc transparency means the publictyo has the right and the ability te see our records.t r in the 21st century there is no reason we can't do it right awab letting the disclosures in a filing cabinet somewhere in the complex is not transparency. cleaning the files on line in a searchable format is. in a time of tighter this an partisanship, this is an workher opportunity for both sides toth work together on a bill that we

surely need. there isn't a democratic or shod republican angle to this to gett every elected official should tl want to make sure thates the rui that we are held to are trapare and in line with the rest of thn nation. in fact this is a non-partisan bill from senator jalabert and,d lieberman. the bill covers each section of the political spectrum and as aa straightforward bill that isthag long overdue and the stock actd with respect towards ensuring pe when people run for congress or come to work for congress they are doing so because they are all working on behalf of theirwn american people, and not for their own personal benefit. vote i follow my colleagues from bote sides of the eye on this act sot we can start restoring faith ine congress. the with that i yield the floor and suggest -- i just knew what them floor. >> the senator from massachusetts.co

>> i was hoping i could haveatha nathaniel hoops participate in the legislative process on the floor during this debate. thi >> without objection. >> thank you. >> mr. president? >> the senator from connecticut. as i was free to reserve right e to object. m mr. hoops and proud to say got a start on capitol hill in my portunity office. mr. president we have about 20 motion occurs and obviously we are all here together, senator collins, senator brown, senator john leverett, senator tester and i to urge members to vote for cloture to take this measure up. ite would be a ray of normal lie if we pass the cloture vote debe overwhelmingly and then we can go on to believe and some people

may have amendments. obviously i presume they will if they want o to offer. h thope that in consideringendmes amendments that are our the colleagues will focus on a this legislation that led us to what senator brown, senator jalabert and toen introduce it and let or committee to produce it on a out bipartisan vote which is the cot concern that members of the and congress and the staff are notdg covered by inside treating law. this legislation makes clear by that we are covered by inside trading law and therefore can be investigated and prosecuted fore violation of law both by the sec so and the the justice department but we have t also asked the committees of both houses ofnter congress to issue interpreted guidance making nuclear that of insider trading is also a o violation of the ethics rules in

both chambers, so i'm sure that there are a lot of different things that members of congress in putting ourselves on ouris bl committee work with on this bill might have in mind to also correct problems that exist perhaps to also try to rebuild public confidence in thet i r institution of congress. but it really appealed to our di colleagues not to do so in a waf that will make it more difficult or at worst in possible to fix the wrong, the problem thatear a motivated this legislation, which is the fear that members of congress and our staff arensr not covered by the insider-trading law.r colns i pledge with senator collins o- about this. the people have other members of other ideas. please introduce them as

to t legislation to the extent thator they are forwarded to the committee we will give themry hearings and due consideration and try to approach themnd theno thoughtfully and follow the will of the majority of the memberset of our committee.ke in other words, let's not try ts make this measure so sweet that were so good that it can't pass. i would say to my colleagues a e very unusual metaphor comes to mind. dr. as i go to dr. seuss -- m [laughter] this is one of my favorite dr. seuss books i haven't read a in a while. i don't know if you rememberm, b fidwick but he was a good m natured news and through the the pages of the book, dr. seuss equated other animals in the forest want to lodge in his them enormous dampers and he welcomes them until finally there is too

much there and his antlers false wd they all fall to the ground. we don't want this wonderfuly bill, which really does accomplish some very importantls things to be loaded up that calls by the wayside like otdoes n fidwick's antlers and does not o pass. so i urge my colleagues to joinb us in the spirit of the date, but let's exercise the kind of restraint on a bipartisan basis that will allow us to have a significant bipartisan and good government accomplishment hereon at the beginning of this session of congress. i listened to a conversation a e while ago where somebody was asked why is the public opinion? of congress so bad, and they answer somebody gave is its because congress has been so bat

this hasn't been a time in the i history for the great and ts institution that i think any of us feel good about and this is an opportunity to do something r real that we can not only feel good abstout, but more importany our constituents can feel good e about, so i hope that we will have a resounding vote and i too would yield to the senator from massachusetts. you. >> the senator from and >> i concur and i've always felt this is a measure that the we american people are planning for. we need to be established theirt trust with the american people,g and this is the first step inhe doing that. ference i want to thank the chairman for referencing something that i fail to reference as well. we need to make sure and i wouly encourage my colleagues on my side of the i and my friends on the other side of the aisle tome keep all amendments germane and make sure that we move for thear

cloture and then have a free and fair and standard debate on thet issues that concern them but don't get sidetracked to theor p point where the bill gets killed. mke. oithink there would be aso i'm g travesty and a mistake and soeas i'm goingur to encourage my letr colleagues to make sure if they have a concern let's air it out ,nd take a fair vote and move yu forward. your i love hearing your stories. that's why i am reading your book.ou can because of your knowledge and history and the we you can reado things back-and-forth and that is a jury good analogy. r i come toef metcalfe concerns. as we reference many times the t needy forces beyond us who want to make sure that this doesn't sorry, come out of the chamber and go next door and ultimatelyt be signed by president. sure i want to maaske sure as you anm you and many other members of sh the co-sponsors and such want ta make sure this bill comes out i.

here for a very specific reason to address a very specific issue that m affects people quitehougt frankly in a manner that i never thought was possible.mendhe if there are other concerns, itg commend the chairman for publicly stating that let'ster d bring them up in a separate manner and in a separate bill and araddress them. msed if there are other things we fe, have missed because i have a fear and i am hoping i am wrong that by making it as you s reference to think to perfect oe to sweet could fail and i wante to smake sure that we have a vy razor sharp bill that addresses a very specific issue.rue ynd if we do it together andport work in a true bipartisan we have an opportunity right now, right now in this moment in our history in this country to do dt something special.iness, a i was sent here to do the and people's business and i do ith n each and every day and work across party lines each andemoce every day with good people andai

good democrats like you and others and i take that very, very seriously. we have an opportunity right non that the american people are yearning for. they want us to do well and be a good. they want us to be better than we've been representing ourselves to be right now.lso, so encouraging also just to reference and take a steplet's t further my colleagues do the same thing. let's put our private business aside and put these in our parta spfferences aside and push this thing through any fault full ann methodical respectful and say responsible manner that will make the american people say wow, okay.what that's a good first step. what's next. you want to the postal bill next, try to save the poster up bill?beca because we need to work in ace truly bipartisan manner.tor once again, who's here? senator lie