to arlington and performance metrics against which ita will be measured, they do not specifically address ita's contract management roles and responsibilities in support of arlington requirements. although officials told us that they clearly understand their responsibilities, the question is, what happens in the future when there are new personnel in place? going forward, sustained attention on the part of arlington and its partners will be important to insure that contracts of all types and risk levels are managed effectively. third, with respect to dedicated contract staffing arrangements three contract specialist positions have been identified for arlington but have not yet been filled. arlington is presently receiving support from the fort belvoire

contracting office in the form of ten positions, five of which are funded by arlington and five by fort belvoire. .. >> for the most part, dod agreed that there is me to take action and have provided time frames for doing so. we will continue to monitor their progress.

madam chair and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my short stay to be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, ms. martin. mr. laporte? >> thank you, madam chairman. madam chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present our findings region oversight and management of arlington national cemetery. as you know we issued our report on december 15, and my testament today will be based on our report. i will make two points today. first i will discuss the policies and procedures the current leadership team at arlington has put in place to manage the cemetery and i will again by some of our recommendations to assist in that endeavor. and second, i will discuss some factors affecting the feasibility and advisability of transferring arlington from the army to the department of veterans affairs, the da. here is the bottom line. i think it is fair to say the

current leadership team at arlington has taken many positive steps to address the deficiencies at the cemetery and make improvement. the army has made progress in a range of areas including improving chain of custody procedures to ensure proper accountability over remains, better providing information assurance, and improving procedures to address inquiries from the families and the public. however, we believe further steps are needed to ensure that changes are institutionalized and will prove long lasting, long after the spotlight has stated. therefore, we have made recommendations in six areas. first, they should complete the enterprise architecture to guide new investments and information technology to ensure the investments are aligned with future operational requirements. second, an updated workforce plan to ensure the workforce is properly sized and trained. third, an interim assessment program to gauge how the cemetery is doing and to make

any improvements that may be warranted. fourth, improving coordination with the cemetery's operational partners, the military district of washington, the military service honor guards and the joint base might henderson hall to ensure, for example, scheduling conflict are avoided and a ride on the guards are available in needed. fifth, a strategic plan or campaign plan with expected outcomes, performance metrics and milestones. and six, written policies explain how to assist families when assistance is warranted. the cemetery leadership as generally concurred with our recommendation, and begun to implement them. we are encouraged by this. now, my final point. the question of feasibility and advisability of transferring arlington from the army to the va. it is certainly feasible. action of the congress transferred more than 80 army managed cemeteries to the va in the 1970s. however, several factors could

affect the advisability of theirs. such a change could have potential costs and benefits, lead to so important transition challenges and affect the characteristics that make arlington unique among our national cemeteries. thus it may be premature to change jurisdiction since the army has significantly improved its management of arlington. here are some of the specific challenges that could arise in a jurisdictional change. first, identify the goals of the transfer them. why is the transfer to be made? second, the army and the va have their own staff processes and systems to determine burial eligibility and scheduling and managing burials. arlington has more restrictive eligibility for an ground burial and va, for example. third, arlington's appropriations structure is different than vas and congress might need to address that in a that there is to be a change. fourth, the army provides military funeral honors but not

the va. fifth, arlington hosts many special ceremonies throughout the year, including some involving the president and visiting heads of state. and, finally, six, arlington is one of the most visited tourist destinations in washington posting over 4 million visitors a year. finally, we do think there are some opportunities for the army and navy to collaborate more for the mutual benefit of both organizations, but most importantly for the benefit of our servicemembers, our veterans and their families. here are some examples. the va has staff dedicated to establishing eligibility and burial in their cemetery and a central scheduling center that could assist arlington, if necessary. conversely, the officials are examining whether geographic information system, or global positioning system technology, should be used in their cemeteries but the army already provide such services and could assist the va if that is deemed appropriate. since no formal mechanism yet

exist to identify collaboration opportunities, we recommended that the two departments and establish one, and they agree. in conclusion, we believe the army has worked to the crisis and taken steps to put arlington national cemetery on a sustainable path to ensure effective cemetery operations. our recommendations are offered in the spirit of helping this process along so that we never have to come before you again to have this conversation. madam chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks and i would be happy to answer any questions that you and the other members of the subcommittee may have been a thank you. ms. condon? >> madam chairman and distinguished winners of the committee, thank you for the opportunity today to provide an update on the progress we have made at arlington national cemetery. i want to state up front that we still have work to do, asked to crack some of the remaining challenges we have at arlington, as was just discussed by the colleagues after hearing with me today.

but i want you to know that i and the united states army except those challenges, and all are dedicated to restore the dignity and honor that our veterans and their families so rightly deserve. significant progress has been made. our contracting practices now bring the cemetery in compliance with federal acquisition regulations. in the implementation of state-of-the-art technology, now make the hallowed ground of arlington won the most technologically advanced cemeteries in the nation. a different perspective than 19 months ago when the cemetery lacked fiscal stewardship, with a paper-based operations were called not answer, and the workforce was not properly manned, trained or equipped. in the accountability report recently submitted to the congress, we examined and soldiers from the old guard photograph 259,978 great sites,

ditches and markers. in the accountability task force, couple those photos with existing cemetery burial information, that for the first time consolidated 147 years of cemetery records, records created from entries, paper-based records of great cards, and computerized burial records. we now have them in an accountable database. since the submission of the report, the total validated great sites without any burial discrepancies evidence is now 210,076. and we are working diligently to close the remaining 19% of those cases to bring our efforts to completion. the creation of a single, complete, verify database will soon allow families and other stakeholders with internet access to search for and produce a picture of any marker in the cemetery and review publicly

available information about the graveside through our state of the art website. in the area of contracting we've made significant progress in contract management, transferring our contracting activities to position the army national cemetery programs for long-term sustainment. the army has resource our contracting support and oversight adding skills acquisition personnel to support my staff and proper retraining the workforce in the acquisition process. madam chairman, i.t. believe that arlington has made a monumental changes in the last 19 months. but we continue to move forward each and every day capturing our progress with repeatable processes and predictable results. in order to orchestrate the many activities required to effectively run arlington, we develop the army national cemeteries program campaign plan which codifies in one strategic document the long-term vision for the operation of arlington and the soldier and airman homes

senator degette is a vehicle that i in the superintendent will use to ensure that we achieve our vision for the cemetery. it incorporates the significant guidance, support and recommendations that we have received from secretary of the army, the gao, the army inspector general, the army audit agency, the northern virginia technology council, and to distinguish memories of congress, in particular members of the subcommittee coupled with the campaign plan we're developing our enterprise architecture and technology acquisition roadmap which will serve as our i.t. blueprint and assure that our i.t. investments are effectively and efficiently meeting the needs of the organization well into the future. in conclusion, i personally want to take this committee for its leadership, its guidance, support, and encourage it for helping us restore the faith indignity once again to arlington national cemetery. i look forward to your

questions. >> thank you, ms. condon. let's start come so that people realize i think when i talked about my opening statement about the old guard, it sounds like when you say this cemeteries old guard people to realize that these are in fact active members of the army that are assigned to the cemetery. and while they're called the cemeteries old guard, they're anything but old. these are young men and women have been assigned to do the work at the cemetery that we all think of. the honor guard, the caissons, and i do want to point out as a begin asking questions that it was, in fact, these young men that came to the cemetery when i went out there in november and i the opportunity to thank a number of them. day, besides their other duties, many of them showed up at midnight and worked through the night until five or six in the

morning with cell phones and/or cameras, and individually went through the cemetery and photographed over 259,000 great sites. and while some people might think of that work as something that was less than honorable, it was remarkable in talking to these young men, our proud members of military, proud soldiers, how honored they were to have been engaged in this, and this test. and i want to point that out because once again, it confirms in my mind what of it over and over and over again as a matter of the armed services committee, this country is incredibly blessed by the men and women step across the line and say take me. so let's talk about the number of crazed and the discrepancies. we had heard that there were 330,000 graves, 330,000 graves, 100,000 race at arlington. and now we know there are not

330,000 graves at arlington. where had that number come from? why was that number being used if it is off by, you know, almost 100,000 graves? >> the 330,000 number that people quote was the number that they would say, the number of people who are actually interred at arlington national cemetery. that is not the actual number of great sites. because as you know you can have a husband and spouse in the same graveside, and sometimes even dependence along with them. i can do the right now, ma'am, that was the efforts of the account of the task force will be to truly identify what the number of people who are actually interred in the cemetery, and ryan our data shows that it is over 400,000 individuals who are injured at arlington. but until we complete the results of the account of the task force will not be able to get the accurate number of them

are a people who are interred at the cemetery. >> so we now know that we have at least 70,000 more people buried at arlington and had been previously estimated? >> yes, ma'am. we do in a additional review, we've heard today that to be over 64,000 great sites that we need additional review. what does that mean? >> to give you a great example, part of our accountability task force as we said up business rules. one of our business rules was that we have to have at least two official documents to match with the photo of a headstone of a niche. what we are finding is the previous, as reported in the task force report is that there was a period where all we had was literally a record of instrument or a great card. and what that means is that we're looking at other sources of official data such as social security death index, census

records so we can truly verify the information of those interred so that's one of the examples of what that means in excel, so what you're saying is we have over 60,000 great sites we don't have sufficient backup and documentary evidence or you all to be certain? >> yes, ma'am. because as an example in section 27, which is the freedman's village section, all we have is the headstone is his citizen, and that's all the information that we have there. so that's one of the examples. >> okay. how long do think it's going to take to get through this additional 64,000 great sites where you kind that at this point speak with certainty about who is located there? >> as i stated in the report, i think because we currently have a team of 40 individuals who are now temporary employees working on that, we should probably come to closure by this summer. >> okay. let me go to contracting.

one of the things that was interesting to me in the gao report is that you'll use contracting services of various places. and that to me as someone who spends a lot of time around the subject matter, that makes a little alarm bells go off in my head. it's hard enough to contract oversight if you have one contracting source in terms of your work, but with you all using several different contracting personnel from several different agencies, i think it's really problematic that you're ever going to get the kind of control that you need. do you think you should bring it in house, or at a minimum, try to look at all the contracts either with the army corps of engineers or with the northern virginia contracting authority, or one of these various places that you're now actually executing contracts within? >> that was one of the issues i addressed immediately when taking over this executive director.

one of the first things that i did was sign an agreement with to contracting agencies, with the army contracting command for all of our service contracts and with the corps of engineers for all of our construction contracts. most of our contracts really our service contracts, and that is why our mission and insulation contracting command is the one who is a contracting support element who is supporting me in arlington national cemetery. so really, we are really, most of our contracts are channeled through, because their service contracts such as our landscaping, et cetera, so i'm very confident that we have a handle on our contracts by really going to those two agencies. the core of our major construction projects and the michigan insulation contracting command for our services contact. >> going forward those are going to contracting sources you're going to use and are clearly delineated from a management perspective that you feel confident you can keep track of its? >> i feel confident we can keep

track of the. the only other contracting is, as before we belong to have individual information technology contracts here i am now part of the headquarters department, the army support for i.t. it so i don't have to afford my requirement that i don't have to have separate contracts to support that. so uncomfortable with where we're going next. >> do you all feel, 'tis gao, martin, do you feel okay about the way they have organized a contracting at this point and i'm? >> yes, we would not take exception with the fact that they use outside sources for contracting. and as ms. condon alluded to, they have to means of doing that. one is to go to the contracting authority to identify their requirements, their oversight, et cetera. and the second means is to partner with army wide effort and they would become a task. so we don't have concerns with the. what it means is that you have come it's just as you alluded

to, thank you, you have to do more with respect to management and oversight to get that visibility into the contracts to make sure that the requirements are stated in a way that you get deliverables and that you provide adequate oversight. so it's not so much the vehicle, it's the management oversight and visibility. and i think ms. condon alluded to the fact that she took some actions to try to do that. >> great. okay, senator tester. >> thank you, madam chair. i will start with you, ms. condon but as i said to my opening statement we've got money, the trust of our nation depends upon the work that is being done at arlington and rebuild the trust is going to be a tall task. can you getting any ideas on what you are doing to help rebuild that trust? >> senator, one of the things that we have focused on is honoring the fallen and making sure that we're doing everything

we can to provide information to the families of our loved ones that we enter at arlington. and i think the greatest step forward on that is we are now having means to communicate with those who are scheduling services like just the implication of our call center. before, literally, most of the telephone calls went unanswered. now every phone call to the cemetery is andrew biggs i think we have the means to our loved ones can schedule their service. something that is a great step forward in restoring the confidence. >> okay, that is good. how about operations families that had concerned? >> what we did, every time there was an issue with an affected family member, you know, we personally work with the next of kin on each and every one of those cases so that they know, you know, we've been open, we been candid and we've been transparent with each and every one of those family members. >> so from your perspective your 100% confident that folks are

where they are said to be in their final resting place? >> server, as in a report to congress, when would you are accountability, there is still the possibility of human error in a burial at arlington, but if we do discover that there could possibly be a discrepancy, we have set procedures where we fought each and every case, we notify not only congress but also the next of kin and accommodate with the family's wishes are in case we find any. >> do you have any mechanism, i guess redundancy would be the term, to be able to determine if there is a mistake, a human error to be made? to have the ability find it quickly than what the family members would find? >> we have the ability from this day forward. we now have a six step chain of custody procedure. we implement new procedures.

and what happened prior to jun june 10, we will, we are procedures on how we'll handle any discrepancy that we find. >> that's good. i think it's critically important that, well, that every effort is made to do it right. at the first hearing we heard about millions of dollars in contracts that were not being utilized appropriately. we talked with madam chair about some the things you have done to eliminate that. we are in times of austerity here. we have an important job to do at arlington and other military cemeteries around the country, but there still are concerns about dollars. i read in this test with a recommendation to go from 102, 2201, or something like that. employees. we talked about the contract guys want to touch on contractors which is a second. the information i had is there were three contract

organizations that do with 35 contracts. i think that is gao numbers. you're saying, ms. condon, can get taken down due to contracting organizations and others to contracting organizations do with all your contracts now? >> except those contracts that are from headquarters like her i.t. with the army. and how many contracts are with the army? >> right now it's predominantly our i.t. contact. >> and how many are there? >> sir, i would have today, did the exact number for your. >> okay. the whole point is i think it goes to oversight of those contracts. and are we getting, number one, are we getting our contracting dollar out of the contracts that are given? and do you have enough oversight? and i guess i'll give you three questions come if you can hit them. the third one is, because you

have come and understand the i.t. stuff with the army, i think that's, i don't -- because it was three and and have to contracting agencies, does that require more manpower than if you just had one and went with it? which the advantage speak with the advantage of two, sir, is purely expertise. the core of engineers expertise is construction, and would use the core for construction inc. so that's one of the contract or decisions. was the other one? >> the other one is part of army contracting command. and that's for services, services such as our landscapi landscaping. >> the bottom line in your opinion, are we getting the bang for the buck? >> yes, we are. because one of the things that we have in place now that we didn't before is we now have trained contracting office representatives in each and every day we're out there holding the contractors accountable for doing the job correctly picks i think we truly are getting the bang for the buck. as a matter of fact, we

consolidate from our service contracts, when we start in the cemetery there were 26 contracts. we consolidate them down to 16 contracts. each and every one of those contracts when we recompute it came under the government estimates care and we did have cost savings by just consolidating those contracts. for an example, we have six contracts private had something to do with a tree. by consulting this context one contract were able to say the government money and be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. >> and we appreciate that. and that's exactly the point of getting to when you start insulting the contract. i think it's easier for oversight and more accountability, but i'm sitting here and you're sitting there. so you may have a different perspective at i appreciated but that's what i heard. when it comes to tech, your contracts with tech, you talk about the great sites now, they're all on a searchable database we can find out what's going on. and i think that's good.

it should've been done years ago but better late than never. the question is, as you look at a lot of businesses as they move towards technology, there's a reduction in that. i think it was a gao. correct me if i'm wrong, ms. martin number two recommended to hundreds of people. someone recommended to understaffed people for arlington. that doesn't worry me. the question is, as you look at the overall landscape, and you see the kind of changes you are making, is your manpower demand going to continue to go up or do you see a potential to become static or potentially going to? >> that was one of things that mr. hallinan and i when we came on board is we were really truly building the workforce that was required to run arlington properly, that we didn't have before. what we are also doing is looking on at our manpower that we feel the numbers that we have now are adequate come but as we

look into the future, as we get time to access the technology and operating procedures, new, are there something that we're currently putting on contract that we could do from within house. so that is one, because we do realize that the downsizing of government, et cetera, that is one of our goals is to make sure that we have the right number of people to do that. >> and i agree. although i will tell you, excuse me fo for a little more time thn it should, madam chair, i think a lot of times we use contractors to be subcontractors, i mean, regional contractors when we could be doing that. we could be doing it and getting more inefficiency from the dollar, quite frankly, and we get more money to the ground and get more money to get work done in those contractors pockets which i think is ultimately something is pretty darn important in this whole thing. so i want to thank you. i can tell you, and madam chair,

knows about this as much as anybody, the contracting that goes on in government right now, maybe with zero exception and and this has changed in the last 15 months or so, but almost every contract is investigated into, there's waste, fraud, and abuse. and i would just say thank you, as i said in opening remarks, thank you for the work you've done. thank you for the work you're going to do, you and mr. hallinan, and i very much appreciated. and that's not to take any off all of you guys. i just let you off the hook. announcement, i should've asked you guys more questions, but thank you very much, madam chair. >> senator pryor. >> thank you for having this hearing. it's very, very important and i appreciate you doing it. general, if i may start with you. in the lessons learned area, i know you spent a lot of time on arlington national senator, and i appreciate that. do you have concerns that there

maybe other arlington cemetery problems out there in the system with other national cemeteries? >> as far as the other national cemeteries concern, soldiers and airmen, national cemetery, we were pretty much focus on that and ms. condon has a plan to get after them as she works through the arlington issue. we do have 20 other cemeteries that are post-cemeteries that are out there. and quite frankly going to take a look at that as well. based on public law and the 2012 compared asked us to take a look at the service get academy symmetry for example, we can redo launch on that now. we will be participate with the department of defense take a look at a statistical sample of cemeteries that are out there by clearly from our perspective we are looking forward to take a look at what else might be out there. we have no indication at this point that there is anything, but we want to make sure that we don't have another arlington that is out of. >> you have no indications at this point? >> not at this time, no.

>> other than a gao made several recommendations, and one was enhanced collaboration between the army and the veterans affairs on waste improve operation. i understand there hasn't been any sort of formalized working group. is that they are? >> i think where we're at right now, senator, is it we have the department is looking to collaborate with the veterans affairs. ms. condon is the executive director, is in the best position to take a look at that what we need to do with a arlington national cemetery. there are some things that have gone on, however. the integration of the internment scheduled system for example, with the burial operations support system that the va runs. there is work ongoing right now to take a look at how we are going to find some of the automation digits, if you will,

to make that compatible so that information can be shared back and forth. in terms of the internal assessment program that we're so concerned with for arlington and what ms. condon has as a component of her campaign plan, the operational assessment and inspection regimen that they va uses, that's been incorporated. mr. hallinan a course with his expertise and in the superintendent there at the cemetery is taking advantage of using that document as the base document for that which you might use from his internal regiment. so there are a number of different aspects right now that are going on at a lower level, but really the intent was to start at the ground up and start where we needed to have some of that collaboration and coordination, and be pulled up over the next six months. we look for choosing something when we go back down to arlington in june, july, the summer. we have another we look we have to do in accordance with public law, and we're looking forward to seeing some of that. ms. condon, did you have any

comment on that? >> sir, we are working, we have veterans affairs, not only from integration are scheduled system with our burial operations system, but we are also have an agreement between the two, our secretary of the army and the secretary of va where we're leveraging their training. you know, we have sent several of our employees to the va training program, and we are looking at having a way where we can have interns back and forth between the cemeteries. and one of the things we're also looking at is where probably a little further ahead right now from a geo- spatial standpoint and would like to share that with va because of the steps we've already taken two -- spatially manage our cemeteries. >> one of the recommendation the gao made was in how you should interact with families. you know, sounds like there's a set of recommendations.

what is the current process for notifying a family if you guys had identified an error? what is the proper -- what do you do not? >> when we identify an error the first thing we do is we do the research to make sure that, you know, we have all of the facts from a cemetery perspective. and then the next step is to notify the next of kin. and to explain the discrepancy that we may have found, and to discuss with family how, you know, our plan for rectifying what ever discrepancy that is in the coming the families wishes on, if they would like a chaplain come if you'd like to attend if we have to do all of that. so there is a set procedure that we use for each and every case, but the bottom line is we immediately notified the next of

kin when we find a descriptive that could impact their love of. >> is that now britain policy? >> it is now written policy. >> and also just further background information, in looking at the problems at arlington, did most of these problems happened during a set period of time, or do they go back to the beginning at arlington and it's jus just a function of the age of the senator? >> sir, the issue has been the age of the entire cemetery. >> and so what happens if a family member comes to you and says hey, i think there's a problem? what is your process of? >> if a family member comes to us with a problem, the first thing we do is to research to see if there truly could have been a problem with that family member. >> okay. and if a family member, just reaches out and contact u.s. as i want to make sure that my loved one is where he is supposed to be and everything is

copacetic, same thing? do you guys have a process to? we have a process better, sir, and as you know most of our burial at arlington, our great site burials so, you know, we have a process for a family who has a concern. part of our accountability task force is that we verify not only the headstone and the records matched to the great site. >> and it been some discussion about electronic database. are you saying that you are putting every person buried in arlington in the electronic database of? >> every person buried in arlington will be in the electronic database in your working on that? >> we're working on that pic that was part of our accountability task force and as part of our geospatial effort as well, we are months away from actually having the application where you are not only be able to find your loved ones records, but we will have an application

on your smartphone smartphone technologies that will literally take you to the actual gravesite, which is why we started our accountability task force by using smartphone technology with the old guard taking photos using a smartphone. because that was our long range plan for our public facing application for the general public. >> by virtue of having a database and the attention that this issue has received over the last year or two, do you think that these problems are now fixed going forward to? >> sir, the same accountability that we are doing for the task force is how we are going to account for each and every burial that we have at arlington from this day forward. as a matter of fact, the procedures are in place. our workforce is now taking the photos of the headstones and latching that up with our automated records. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair,. >> and i will say when my visit to arlington in november, i the opportunity to look at the procedures are now in place.

and there is a lot of redundancy. it will be very hard for them to lose track of a burial site and what remains are located there based on the processes that are not in place which is a big improvement. general vangjel, i was worried about the unobligated funds issue. in a, i don't think i need to tell anybody that is testifying today that we are trying very hard but i think there is a new found sense of urgency in congress to watch every time that is spent and to be accountable for every dollar that is obligated. so imagine my concern that we have $15 million in obligations that were out there that i've never been spent. and, in fact, the army audit agency said that due to poor financial oversight by the

previous administration at the cemetery, $27 million in obligations between 2004-2010 were made and never dispersed. now, what worries me about this is that nobody noticed. that's clearly the systems were not in place, that someone wouldn't have some kind of notification that you have significant obligated funds that had never been dispersed. i know we've recovered part of them. what about the other 12 me in a dispersed funds for any of you, and what kind of reassurances, and maybe i need to talk to army audit here instead of inspector general, but if i were the inspector general, this would get my attention because i would wonder where else are there on obligated funds that are hanging out that we could pull back to the taxpayers to be put forward a more important use, or better yet, to put back in the

treasury. >> i couldn't agree with you more, madam chair. what things will be doing this summer, as you, the army audit agency to combat and and take a look at very thoroughly with a arlington's records, existing contracts they had in place. in spite of the previous regime's assessment that they were short of funds, they in fact had funds that they couldn't account for. i have to give credit to the current executive director because when she came on board, the first thing she want to do was get visibility as she went to the general fund enterprise business system, that enable us to begin to account the army audit agency with the assistant secretary of the army both did program management reviews and audits. they were able to uncover some 15 million that essentially has been reconciled and put to good use because ms. condon did not want to submit a budget request until she nailed where the money

was. that's good stewardship from our perspective. however, what we want to do is make sure as we come down for a second look this year, a third look next year, we want to make sure that we've got that pic so the army audit agency will be coming down as subject matter experts as part of the overarching ig inspection and we look so we've got a provision oversight. but your point is well made as a look to other activities that ongoing in the army, and we will most certainly take that back because there are some things as a look at oversight mechanisms right now systemically across the army can we've got to make sure that we're spending our money appropriately, wisely come in the right places, in accordance with our senior guidance. so i will take that one back, madam chair become and we will work through that with her subsequent inspections that were doing throughout the army. >> if this wasn't transparent, if this wasn't obvious, and clearly it wasn't, then i think it would be very helpful for someone at the most senior level

at the pentagon to take a look at this issue of obligated but not dispersed. and what kind of systems are in place in fairies parts of our military to make sure that we don't have this going on. i have to believe there are systems in other places, because well, for one thing i have heard too many whistleblower stories about getting a bit of stuff at the end of the budget year because if you don't spend it all than they will think you don't need it the next year, and you know, over stories about fuel being dumped and so forth so that they can ask for the full load the next year without having to admit that maybe they hadn't used it all the previous year. that goes on in every part of government, not just in the military, but this worries me. this is a troubling sign beyond the problems that were represented. and i would, i will follow up with other people within dod to

talk about that. but it is a problem. in terms of the day, i'm glad to hear that your cross-country i think that's a great idea, especially since the training for cemeteries that va does in missouri and i think it's terrific that you are utilizing the great skill set, core competencies of the veterans administration when it comes to cemetery but i visited one of those cemeteries in misery because i wanted to compare and contrast what i've seen at arlington at the height of this mess, compared to what is ongoing at a cemetery. i went to a cemetery in springfield, missouri, and i was very impressed at what they had done their in regard to tracking and maintaining. in fact, one of the things i thought was terrific is it the cemetery, the office was closed because actually a kiosk outside the building where a visitor could pull out with their name exactly where they need to go in

the cemetery to visit their loved one without having to involve any personnel of the cemetery in that question over the edge. very impressive. and i listen with a geospatial technology that you are embracing that you're envisioning not only can people do this on their smartphones, but there would be kiosks at arlington where people are facing outside business hours of the administration could ask we get that information? >> ma'am, as a matter of fact, just this past week we are in our for testing for our kiosk that we're going to put throughout the entire cemetery in interface it is centered to do exactly that where we will actually print you a copy of a map that will take you literally because of the acres that we have at arlington, literally will take you to that great site. so we did take that from what the va was doing and we're going to kiosks by sometime late spring. >> so how about gps? are you going to be able to,

let's say i arrived at arlington with my smart phone and i went on to is there going to be an application that i can download that i could go on, enter the name and then it will actually guide me like a gps to the greatly? >> ma'am, that's exactly what we're doing with our smartphone application. so we are months away from doing that. i was worried when i saw an article yesterday that they have some problems in the va system, no, isolated obviously but i'm pleased at least they're taking a look, because the scope and breadth of the va system this towards arlington. people don't realize that all cemeteries in the country in every state has some, are run by va. the only two exceptions being the two we talk about today, arlington and other cemetery that the army runs. let me do this. i want to try to leave open the

door for the next hearing that we will have on this because i'm not going to stop until whoever it is that is running arlington cemetery can say we now have a handle on every single gravesite, and we are not there yet but we made a lot of progress in 18 months. i would like each witness to state what you think the single biggest challenge facing arlington is, at the present time. what remains to think is the biggest challenge that has to be tackled and accomplished as we look towards the next 12 months of progress toward full a candidate and transparency for the sacred site. let's start with general vangjel. >> thank you, madam chairman. i think the biggest problem that exists right now is to complete the accounting for the gravesite accountability. if we're going to establish trust and maintain trust to the american people, folks want to know. they want to know that the problem is solved, that it's gonna what do i think that's the biggest thing that we face us. in order to get there, that are some sop, documents the need to

be done, documentation so that we can transfer as you mentioned a bit earlier who ever is going to be at arlington cemetery, we want to make sure the right procedures and documents are in place to facilitate any transition from the current executive director to one that would follow. those would be the two biggest and i think the other one that if i could just add one more, would be the overall long-term expansion of the cemetery to be able to accommodate the various but i think that would be one of the that we need to really make sure that we have got the right plans have been executed. but i know that ms. condon and her campaign plan has gone after that. those in my mind those are the big three. thank you, madam chairman. >> ms. martin? >> yes, i will certainly fall back to the area that i am most to me with come which is contract management and oversight, and you mentioned the fact of the funds that have not been recovered. and that's essentially, have actual contract dated because

that allows you to be able to track and identify where the funds are. in in our report we talked about the fact that arlington also has no your money. so with money that doesn't have a fiscal year kind of an ending, it is even more important speed is why is that? why do you have, isn't that arlington doesn't have a fiscal year like every other part of the government? >> well, it leads to the fund, some of the funds for the cemetery are no your funds in fy? why is that? why don't we change at? >> irish not sure in terms of why. i do think arlington or the army witness to come forth to have it changed. i'm not sure. there is some history there in terms of the fact that it is transient money back that is a doctor what led to this problem to me, setting a deficit of rows or arlington contributed to the lack of accountability at arlington for many years.

if it were not for brave whistleblowers we still would be we need to be. people to work at arlington knew that things were going badly, and nothing was happening. and part of that was this no year money. is there a recommendation that should be made that we should in the notion that arlington should not have fiscal year appropriation like anybody else would? >> transport we do not look at that as a part of our audit. the gao is on record. when you have no year funds and then there is more accountability involved in that. so from the perspective, for me and turns or from g. on contracting, going forward i would say the inside and the oversight in terms of contracting that is important. while strides have been made, there are still some things that need to be done. senator tester talked about the importance of looking to see, can we consolidate, ms. condon

and he her staff is certain he n do. contracts for landscaping, and now they have, you know, fewer contract. all about is important, leveraging the expertise of ita, all of those are very important steps. now it's a matter of, again, getting that inside and continued with the oversight of the contract, from our perspective is very important going forward. >> madam chairman, you asked what we thought were sort of the key things that the cemetery needs to focus on going forward. i certainly agree with what my colleagues have stated today. i might also suggest that one of the key things from where i sit is going to be in ensuring that the changes that have been made to date are sustainable and will outlive the current leadership team. and i think to their credit, the review that we did suggests they have begun that process of pivoting, if you will, from

going through the crisis, working to the crisis, and beginning to put in place the kinds of policies, procedures and systems that, if implemented fully and the campaign plan is a great example of the, if fully implemented should outlive the current leadership team so we don't ever have a situation again where it takes herculean efforts from very dedicated senior people to make this work. the whole idea here is that eventually they will bond -- move onto some other thing, some of the state of their life, and whoever the next the next generation of leaders are coming into arlington shouldn't have to reinvent the system. >> turnkey. >> a turnkey operation, or a plug-and-play operation, absolutely. it seems that the operations wind, and i think it is the issue for them right now. >> ms. condon? >> senator mccaskill, if i could address the no year money.

arlington was -- it was no year funds. but one of the first things that i did without of our secretary of the congo is to put in an accounting system and that arlington is part of the general fund enterprise business system, we're not going to be fully transparent. the community can now see how we spend each and every dollar. the benefit of having no year money was one of the benefits of being able to recoup those unliquidated obligations from prior years. is able to apply them to the project and we have ongoing right now but because of those unlimited obligation were able to start and finance, that was one and were able to put in all of those i.t. issues. were able to address and put into technology and by the right equipment to get arlington to where it is today.

so having no year money from that perspective has been a benefit for myself and mr. hallinan to truly put in the changes we need it but now that we are under congress transgressor doesn't matter if we're one year money or no year money. every dollar is now an accounting system that is being monitored at every other process in it but i'm confused. i think everyone would like no year money. we wouldn't be dumping any fuel if we had no year money because no one would feel the need to hurry and spend year-end. so there's arguments that can be made for the. on the other hand, we have been appropriations process that is a manual process, and a justification on an annual basis. and that also has a great deal of merit in terms of fiscal accountability. and i think, i understand you could use money that wasn't just with other things you needed, but most parts of government can't do that. they have to come back and

justify to congress that they have additional needs that there should be appropriations for them. i have a hard time believing that arlington would have difficulty getting appropriations, because i think this body has great respect for what that represents to our country and would want to find it appropriately. i'm just trying to figure out if we've got transparency, good, but maybe they year in fund is a discipline that everyone should have. and i'm not asking you to say yes or no. i'm just thinking i think it's something we need to take a look at. >> understood it and what we do is we do report the kerry over very similar to the working capital fund that you carry over from year to year. so we do report those numbers. you asked what is the most outstanding challenge that, from my perspective we're facing at arlington right now. as you know, man, and as you witness the incredible changes to the business processes that

we put in place at arlington and what i need right now is the patient's for us to allow, to look at those processes to make sure that we have the right metrics, that we have the systems right so that we can truly sustain the changes that we have made at arlington up until this point. so we just need to test all of the i.t. support and all of the changes we've made to the operational procedures. and so what i just need now is, my biggest challenge is patient because in this next year that's what the superintendent and i are doing is to make sure that those changes that we have put in place can be sustained for generations, not just for the immediate future. >> i want to thank all of you for the work on this. it is, it was quite an undertaking, and for those out there that are skeptical about the ability of government to fix problems, on a timetable, i

think this is a great poster child for people deciding that this work was important, and it deserves lots of eyes, and a lot of effort from a lot of people. and i think that the army, i said this to top leadership in the army, i understood that the army was more upset than anyone else about the problems at arlington. all of us can tsk tsk indigo the incompetence that occurred at it but i don't think it would but more to it in the army. i think the army responded in a way that reflects the dedication they had to the pulpit and i am impressed that the amount, the progress that has been made is substantial and significant. frankly, at lightning speed for

government. within 18 months we have a completely different protocol at arlington as it relates, relates to accountability. and i think it is good but we still have work to do, and i said from the beginning that the oversight of this committee would not end until people sat in front of this dais and said, i think challenges have been met, and i think all the processes and procedures are in place, and i see no problems that need to be addressed by additional oversight. no one said that today. so we will have another hearing. i'm sure it will be a year from now, and at that point in time, general, i'm sure you will have more information to report because i know you're planning on going back out to take another look at arlington. and i want to complement ms. condon, because even when things were discovered that were not good, her office checked in with this committee and let us

know that another problem had been discovered. i think there might of been a tendency to say, well, they will never know, let's just get it fixed. but instead there has been transmitted to come and that is very good. so congratulations for that. and most particularly, congratulations to all the men and women who have worked hard at arlington. many of them have worked many years and care deeply about reputation and the method which we take care of the problems there. and thank you to gao. will have another hearing, probably in about a year. in the meantime if problems surface combat would depend on you to continue to let us know and we'll continue to monitor the situation, and thank you for all but the progress has been made. and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin this tuesday. to begin with the general

speeches for about 90 minutes or so. lawmakers will then turn back to work on the s.t.o.c.k. act which aims to ban insider trading among congress and their staff members. the senate will break from 1230 to 2:15 to attend weekly party caucus lunches. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, you are our only safe haven. give our senators this day the

courage and strength of spirit to continue to serve you and country. reinforce within them the belief that with your help they can make a substantive difference in their nation and world. may they refuse to cower in adversity, to compromise bedrock principles, or to turn their backs on those who need them the most. restore in them an equanimity of temperament that can dispel their doubts and fears. and, lord, today we thank you for the nearly four decades of

faithful service by alan frumin, our parliamentarian, as he prepares to retire. we pray this prayer in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, january 31, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby

appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. durbin: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 today. the majority will control the first half. the republicans will control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will begin consideration of the stock act. senators will be notified bh votes are scheduled. -- when votes are scheduled. i'm told that s. 2041 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2041, a goil approve the keystone x.l. pipeline project and provide for environmental protection and governmental oversight. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to further

proceedings with respect to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: the objection, having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: mr. president, for a few weeks in march, 2010, alan frumin was one of the most talked about men in the entire city of washington. the senate was poised to send an historic health care bill to president obama's deck for him to sign -- desk for him to sign. but the usually procedural hurdles stood in the way. health care policy staffers were camped out in alan frumin's office studying senate procedure and precedent. despite the pressure, despite the national spotlight, mr. frumin remained calm and professional through what must have been one of the most tense moments of his career. for a very few weeks, every capitol hill reporter knew his name for sure. his respectable face was on

every political news blog. every political science professor talked about him. even a few folks outside the beltway learned what on earth was a senate parliamentarian, what do they do? he was briefly a washington celebrity. for those of us who work in the senate, alan frumin has always been a star, even when very few of us knew who he was or what job he did. but it didn't take us long after coming to the senate to learn that quickly. alan has served in the office of the secretary of senate since 1977. in his 18 years as chief parliamentarian, he has made countless difficult decisions with composure. he has the knowledge of complex rules that certainly would be deemed to be extraordinary. these are rules that are convoluted and the procedures are somewhat unique, and he

understands every one of them. and he is, above all, impartial to a fault. mr. president, i have been upset at alan a true times when i wish he weren't so impartial, but he has been always impartial. that's why he's the only parliamentarian ever to be hired by both democrat and republican leaders to serve in this role. he was retained in his position despite a change of senate control four times by five different majority leaders. one cannot be an effective parliamentarian without being fair-minded and judicious. but alan fry minute also brings to the -- but alan frumin also brings to the job the ability to hear every side of the issue. he has patience. i've never heard him raise his voice. i've never saw him to be agitated. he's always calm and cool and what a wonderful example he is for all of us.

the truth is, senate parliamentarians aren't simply appointed. they grow into the job. so i'm pleased that the talented elizabeth mcdonough who has worked for alan far a decade, will succeed him. she will be the sixth person to hold the job of parliamentarian since it was created in 1935 and the first woman. she steps into very large shoes. we'll miss alan's experience and guidance greatly. we wish him all the best in his retirement, but he's really not going to retire. he is is going to continue to edit rid dick's senate procedure, the official book of senate procedure, and no one is more qualified than alan to do this. congratulations, alan. thank you very much for your service. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: let plea also

add some words about -- let me also add some words about alan frumin. for those who aren't aware of what the parliamentarian does around here, he's sort of like an umpire in a ball game calling balls and strikes. it shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that we haven't always agreed on those calls, but it's not an easy job to be an u umpie for 100 senators. it isn't easy to keep up with 200 years of precedents. he never has hesitated to admit when he got something wrong. alan has a deep love for the senate and the people who make it work. from the elevator operators and the cooks to the most senior senators, he keeps up relationships with all of them. he cares a lot about this institution and he's got the service to show for it. as the majority leader indicated, alan has been here since 1974, longer than all but

just a handful of us, so he's really seen it all. we'll miss his devotion and his intellect. we're glad he'll be able to spend more wife with his wife -e time with his wife jill and his daughter ally. thank you for your service and good luck in everything that lies ahead. mr. president, on another matter, last night the senate voted to proceed to the stock act, the bill incidentally that was coauthored by two republicans. and i'm glad the majority leader is going to allow amendments for a change. up until a few years ago, the senate had been known phos a forum for open-ended debate. the minority party may not always have gotten its way, but at least it knew it would be heard. i 0 hope it doesn't prove to be

a false promise. i expect senators on both sides of the aisle will have a number of amendments to this legislation but one thing that stands out is the fact that the president is calling on congress to live up to a standard that he isn't requiring of his own employees. so i think we can expect at least one amendment that calls on the executive branch employees to live up to the same standards they would set for others. if the goal here is for everyone to play by the same rules, that shouldn't mean just some of us, and it certainly shouldn't leave out those in the executive branch who, after all, have access to the most privileged information of all. so the goal here in the course of this floor debate will be to make sure that the executive branch, those most likely to take advantage of insider information, is fully and adequately covered by this legislation.

but let's be clear. president obama isn't interested in this bill because it would address the nation's most pressing challenges. of course it won't. he's interested because it allows him to change the subje subject. the more folks are talking about congress, the less they're talking about the president's own dismal economic record. for a president who presided over a 43% increase in the national debt in just three years and the stain of the first-ever downgrade of america's credit rating, i can certainly understand why he'd want to change the subject. i can see why he'd rather be talking about congress or the super bowl or the weather or anything other than his own failed economic policies. but the problems we face are too grave and too urgent and every day the president spends time trying to change the topic instead of changing the direction of the economy is

another day he's failing the american people who elected him. now, the president can pretend he just showed up. he can try to convince people, as he tried to do this past weekend, that the economy is moving in the right direction, but he's not fooling anybody. americans know that we're living in an economy that's been weighted down and held back by legislation he passed with the help of a big democratic majority in each house of congress. americans know that we're lisping in the obama economy now. -- that we're living in the obama economy now. we are living in the obama economy right now. and they're tired of a president who spends his time blaming others for an economy that he put in place. they want the president to lead. i've yet to see a survey in the past year that shows americans agreeing with the president on the direction of the country or the economy. the ones i've seen all say the opposite. wide bipartisan majorities believe the country is on the

wrong track and for small business orientation the people we're counting on to create jobs in this country, the numbers are even starker. according to a recent survey conducted by the u.s. chamber of commerce, 85% -- 85% -- of small business owners say the economy is on the wrong track. 84% of them say that the size of the national debt makes them unsure about the future of their businesses. 86% worry that regulations, restrictions, and taxes will hurt their ability to do business. just about three-quarters of them say the president's health care bill will make it harder for them to hire. in other words, it's a huge drag on job creation. so, if i were the president, i'd probably rather be talking about congress, too. i understand why he'd rather be talking about what congress may or may not do rather than what

he's already done. he'd rather be talking about what congress may or may not do rather than what he's already done. but he's got a job to do. he was elected to do something about the problems we face. not blame others for our problems. he was elected to take responsibility for his own actions, not pretend they somehow never happened. today the congressional budget office releases an annual report on the nation's finances. we don't know all the particulars, but i can tell you this: it won't paint a very rosy picture. our fiscal problems are serious, and every day the president refuses to address them, they become harder to solve. so my message to the white house this morning is simple. it's time to lead. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half.. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in morning business. mr. president, many years ago when i graduated from georgetown law school, i was offered a job by the lieutenant governor of illinois, paul simon. he asked if i would join his staff in springfield, illinois, in the state capital, and if i would serve as his senate parliamentarian. i jumped at the chance. i was in desperate need of a job with a wife, a baby, and another one on the way. deep in debt, i skipped my

commencement exercise to get out and get on the payroll in springfield of the illinois state senate. the first day i walked in on the job in the lieutenant governor's office, they handed me the senate rule book. it was the first time i had ever seen it and they parked me in the chair next to the presiding officer of the illinois state senate and said now you're here to give advice. i spent every waking moment reading that rule book and trying to understand what it meant. there wasn't a course like that in law school nor anything that gave me guidance as to what i was to do. i made a lot of stupid mistakes and i learned along the way what it meant to be a senate parliamentarian. it was a humbling experience in many respects to learn this new body of law and how it applied to the everyday business of the illinois state senate. it was equally humbling to be in a position where your voice was never heard but your rulings were repeated by so many.

i recalled then that many years later, some 14 years later i was elected to the united states house of representatives. after serving 12 of those 14 years in the office of the illinois state senate parliamentarian, i cannot describe to you the heady feeling when i went on the floor of the united states house of representatives, they handed me the gavel, and i actually presided over the u.s. house. after 14 years of silence as the illinois state senate parliamentarian, i was speaking before one of the greatest legislative bodies in the world. so i have some appreciation for the role of the parliamentarian, and particularly for the contribution of people like alan frumin. in some respects, it's a thankless job because you're bound to make some people upset. as the majority leader mentioned earlier, we respected alan's impartiality as senate parliamentarian, but many times would go back to our offices and be very critical of it at the

same time. we had hoped he would rule in our favor instead of the other way. but i can tell you this, he has been faithful to precedent, he has been faithful to the rules of the united states senate, and that is all we can ask of a person who serves in his position. he has had to tolerate the titanic egos that occupy this chamber. i used to say that the majority leader is the captain of a very small boat full of titanic egos, and that is the nature of this institution. and alan, i'm sure, has been called on more often than most to deal with the peculiarties of my colleagues and even myself. i wish him the best after more than 35 years of service to the congress, both the house and the senate, and his service here in the united states senate. i'm glad that he's going to continue at least on the research side to establish a body of precedent that will guide the senate and the congress in years to come.

alan, thank you so much for all the service you've given to the senate, to the congress, and to the united states. and to elizabeth mcdonough, congratulations. it is great that you're going to be coming into this new role. i'm glad that it is going to be precedent-setting in and of itself, that you'll be the first woman to serve as the united states senate parliamentarian. we all respect very much your professionalism and look forward to working with you, even when you give us disappointing rulings. mr. president, i listened to the comments made by the republican leader about how he believes that president obama is trying to change the topic, not talk about the economy, and rather talk about ethical standards in the united states congress. i have to say that this is an issue that resonates with me personally because as i mentioned earlier, i have been honored to have been brought up in public service by two

outstanding individuals: former united states senators paul simon and before him paul douglas. both of these men had integrity as their hallmark. even as people in illinois disagreed from time to time with their positions on issues, they never questioned their honesty. and that's my background. that was my training. and i've tried to continue in that tradition. i accepted the standard that was first initiated by senator paul douglas and carried on by senator paul simon of making a complete income and asset disclosure every single year. i think if i look back tphourbgs i can trace it back -- look back now, i can trace it back to my earliest campaign, and almost every year i made that full disclosure. there was embarrassment in the early years because my wife and i were broke and it showed a negative net worth because of my student loans.

we suffered some chiding and embarrassment over that. but over the years, even my poor wife got to the point where she didn't pay much attention every april 15 when i released all this information. what we're considering on the floor is a tough issue, though. the tough issue is this: when you learn something as a congressman or senator, what should you do to take care that you don't capitalize on that, that you don't turn that into part of a personal decision that might enrich you? and it's a legitimate issue, and i support the legislation that's on the floor, though i think it will be challenging to implement it. i support it. we should never capitalize on insider information, private information given to us in our public capacity to enrich ourselves. period. no question asked. and what we have before us now is an opportunity to call for more timely disclosure of those transactions that members of congress, in this case united

states senators, engage in that might or could have some relationship to information that they learn in their official capacity. but i will quickly add this is a challenge because honestly in our work in the united states senate, we are exposed to a spectrum of information on virtually every topic. people sit and talk to us, those in official capacity and unofficially about what is the future of the european community. what's going to happen there? and if the european economy goes down or up, what impact will it have on the stphupbs we learn -- on the united states? we learn these tpheupbgz -- things in meeting, we think about them as they're being discussed on the floor. drawing those lines in a careful, responsible way is going to be a challenge for us. but disclosure is still the best antidote to the misuse of this public information. i don't think it's wrong for the president to challenge us, and i

don't think it's wrong for the republican leader to challenge the executive branch at the same level. that's fair. you know i'm friendly to the president, a member of his party, a personal friend of him before he was elected and still today. he should accept the challenge from the senator from kentucky to take a look at the standards within the executive branch and see if they meet at least the minimum standard established by this legislation. and we should look at it as well in terms of our responsibility as senators. but i do take exception to the comments made by the republican leader when it comes to the state of the economy and the role of the executive. the senator from kentucky said there's been a change in the national debt since the president was elected by an increase of 43%, and i'm sure that's close to true, if not true, in detail. but look at the circumstances. look at the circumstances. when president clinton left office and turned the keys over to president george w. bush, the

senate debt was $5 trillion and the next year's budget would have been the third in a row in surplus by $120 billion. not a bad welcome gift from the outgoing president william jefferson clinton. now fast forward eight years, as president george w. bush left office and handed the keys to president obama. quite a different world. instead of a national debt of $5 trillion, eight years later it was $11 trillion, more than doubled under president george w. bush, a fiscal conservative by his own self-description. and look at what he left for president obama in his first budget, first year. $1.2 trillion deficit. not a surplus, but a deficit ten times as large as the surplus left by president clinton. that was what president obama inherited. as he said in the state of the union address, we lost three

million jobs in the six months preceding his being sworn in and another three million before his economic stimulus bill was passed and implemented. six million jobs gone, a devastating impact on the economy. 750,000 people lost their job the month that president obama was sworn in to office. and now senator mcconnell comes to the floor and says that's obama's fault. i don't think that's a fair characterization. i think president obama would accept responsibility not only for his time in office but for those decisions he's made. but to saddle him with the legacy of the previous president and his economic policies, i think is fundamentally unfair. the senator from kentucky says, and don't forget, it was on president obama's watch that a rating agency downgraded the credit rating in the united states. it's true. but if you read the downgrade, it isn't about the state of the economy. it was about the state of politics in washington. we were downgraded by standard &

poor's because they believe that we were incapable as a divided government to make important decisions for this nation. how did they reach that conclusion? perhaps it was because this divided government, with the tea party dominance in the house of representatives, had led us into a position in 2011 where we faced two government shutdowns and one shutdown of the economy in the same year. this weakened economy suffering from recession still had to worry about whether the fights between the house and the senate would lead to even more economic peril. that's why we were downgraded. don't blame the president for that. we can blame ourselves at least partially for the downgrade. let me say this too. we know that there is uncertainty about the future. people are still waiting for some certainty when it comes to the value of real estate, the future of jobs and business. i understand that. but things are moving in the

right direction. last week we learned our economy grew at a rate of 2.8% in the last three months of 2011, strongest quarter of the year and it shows the chances of double-dip recession are receding. in 2011 the employment rate from 9% to 8.5%. the private sector added more jobs in 2011 than in any year since 2005. the american manufacturing sector is growing for the first time since the late 1990's. the republicans don't want to credit this president, but they should. three million new private-sector jobs. the weakness in our unemployment figures reflects the loss of public-sector jobs. federal, state, and local employment has gone down as the revenues of government decreased. but this recovery is still fragile. and those who come to the floor -- and many have -- and argue for austerity and budget deficit concentration aren't wrong, but their timing is wrong. this is the moment when we need to strengthen this economy and move it forward.

i was on the simpson-bowles commission. understand their deficit reduction did not begin until the first of 2013. we wanted to create enough time in that commission for the economy to recover and to come out of this recession. and those who argue that we should abandon that now would sink us even more deeply into a recession instead of on the road to recovery. we need to continue to act -fblt we need to -- to act. we need to find things which will strengthen our economy: investment in education and training for our workers, investment in research whether at the national institutes of health or in other agencies of government, so that we can move forward with innovation to create jobs in areas like green and clean energy. and, third, the development of our infrastructure. it is absolutely indefensible this congress has been unable to pay a highway bill, an infrastructure bill to rebuild america. a trip i took to china last year was a stark reminder that this

nation, china, is determined to lead the world in the 21st century. they are building in china an infrastructure to do it while we nurse one that has been falling apart for decades. can't republicans and democrats agree even in a presidential election year that we need a solid infrastructure bill that will rebuild american good-paying jobs right here in america, at home? it is time for us to have a balanced plan and to work together to achieve it. the president isn't trying to avoid the topic. the president addressed it head on in his state of the union address. now it's up to congress to follow. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, last friday kevin hagan white, a four-term mayor of boston, passed away. in the city of boston, in the shadows of fanueil there is a statute today of mayor white. it stands ten feet tall, larger than life. there really could not be a more fitting tribute to a mayor and a man who was himself a huge figure in history, in the history of boston, and mayor who helped give our city the extraordinary skyline and the extraordinary spirit that it has today. he was a mayor who more importantly through four terms led the city of boston through a remarkable transition, from times of division to a time of new international and singular identity for the city. he led the transition of a great

city, but this good man and groundbreaking mayor was, frankly, much more than a transitional leader himself. he was a transform alternative figure -- transformative in a city that when it comes to history making mayors does not use that word lightly. mayor white's passing gives boston and its people a chance to reflect on how one leader, one politician could help to reshape a major city in america. to some degree fleectding his own per sewn in a -- bright and energetic. kevin white was elected to city hall in 1967, at a time when big city mayors in america were political forces. even as the days of the all powerful political machines were begibeginning to dwindle. in chicago there was richard dale dhi, in new york, john lindsey, in los angeles, sam yordie, among some of the big city mayors of our nation.

but in boston, kevin represented a new generation of yo urban leaders. he was only 38 years old, filled with optimism and energy and clear ideas of what he wanted boston to be summarized perhaps in the notion of being a world-class city. he attracted brilliant, i dealistic young people to help him achieve his goal, like barney frank, paul grogan, george regan, bo holland, dennis austin and clarence jones, all of whom saw in him a reason to dedicate themselves to public service. when kevin white moved into city hall, some people assumed that they were getting a business-as-usual mayor: irish and catholic, typical and traditional. but times were changing. the political and social climate of boss stn in the late-1960's

was hardly traditional and kevin white was anything but your typical politician. he glided effortlessly between the old world and the new. no one had ever seen a boston politician go to rhode island to get the rolling stones released into his personal custody after they were arrested and then the next night when they appeared at a concert in boston stand up and announce to a cheering crowd "the stones have been busted, but i sprung them." kevin did just that in 1972, which happened to be right after the 18-year-olds got the right to vote. kevin white opened up boston's political system to african-americans, women, jews, gay americans alike. he spearheaded rent control, decentralized the city government by forming little city halls in the neighborhoods. he made jobs for young people a priority. he organized outdoor summer

activities known as "summerthing." he refused to let interstate 95 right-of-way through the city in order to protect low-income homes and boost public transportation. but perhaps, most importantly, he spark add downtown renaissance that began with quincy market, not one of the city's top tourist atractions, and it became the heartbeat of the new boston that is his legacy. kevin white came to city hall with an ambitious plan to build a new boston, brick by brick if he had to. and that's pretty much what he did. when kevin white took office, boston was in many ways still stuck in the 1920's, virtually no new buildings in decades, a steady decline in population and jobs, flophouses in the back bay, quincy market a ramshackle warehouse of butchers and cheese

dealers. but kevin and his team hit boston like a bolt of lightning reversion the city's economic slide and laying the groundwork for the vibrant boston of today. he had a vision. boston was in kevin's blood, and so was politics. his father and maternal grandfather had been boston city council presidents, and he married katherine galvan, the daughter of another boston city council president. he was elected massachusetts secretary of state three times before elected mayor for the first time in 1967. kevin white was the right man for the job at the right time. as he proved so importantly, so poignantly, within months of taking office. on april 5, to be precise, 1968, the day after dr. martin luther king jr. was assassinated, james brown was scheduled to do a concert at boston garden that

night. and rather than allow it to be canceled, as many suggested, kevin arranged for the concert to be televised live in hopes of minimizing unrest. he even appeared on stage himself to plead for calm. he stood up there on the stage and he said, "all of us are here tonight to listen to a great talent, but we're also here to pay tribute to one of the greatest of americans, dr. dr. martin luther king king." 24 hours ago dr. king died for all of us, black and white, that we may live together in harmony without violence and in peace. i'm here to ask for your help. let's make dr. king's dream a reality in boston. no matter what any other community might do, we in boston will honor dr. king in peace." that was leadership. and it helped. cities across the country exploded in violence, but boston summoned relative restraint and

james brown called kevin "a swinging cat." of course, difficult times lay ahead. turbulent period of racial strife. but kevin white sought to shepherd boston through those difficult times and in the process he ushered in the remarkable city that we know today. he did his best to hold the city together, walking the streets by reaching out, fighting with every ounce to get boston where it is today. at one point he led a march of 30,000 people to protest racial violence. kevin white was, according to his most famous campaign slogan, "a loner in love with the city." but this self-proclaimed loaninger did love boston and boston loved him bafnlgt his wide circle of friend friends rd close throughout his life. he was devoted to his wife of 5

years, katherine, to his five children and seven grandchildren. to all of them and the rest of his family, we extend our deepest sympathy and for sharing kevin with us. the devotion of kevin's family was boundless throughout his long and valiant fight against alzheimer's disease. from his diagnosis nearly a decade ago to the end last friday, they gave him all the love and care he needed to face his debilitating challenge with the same dignity and courage with which he served the city of boston for so long. mr. president, boston is that shining city son a hill that john winthrop, one of the founders of the massachusetts bay colonies, spoke about in 1630, as he sailed to america. it is a city teaming with people of all kinds, a city of commerce and creativity, a city of grit and greatness, and kevin white helped to make it that way. i consider it a privilege to have watched his journey, to

have enjoyed his friendship, support, and counsel, and he join with so many in thanking him and his family for his service. may he rest in peace. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, i rise today in defense of the

constitution. i rise today to condemn the president for making appointments that are unconstitutional and illegal. recently the president appointed members to the national labor relations board and to the consumer financial protection agency. he did so by saying we were in recess. well, this is news to us because those of us in the senate maintain that we were never in recess. this is something where the preses has upurposed a power never previously taken by a president and has decided unilaterally he gets to decide when we're in recess. these appointments are illegal and unconstitutional, and i'm surprised -- i am surprised that no member of the majority party has stood up to tell the president so. i'm not surprised that the president has engaged in unconstitutional behavior. his health care law is brazenly

unconstitutional. his war with libya was unconstitutional. he got no congressional authority. so for a man who once gave lip service to the constitution, the president now has become a president who is prone to lawlessness and prone to unconstitutional behavior. our founders clearly intended that the president have the ability and the power to appoint advisors, but they also separated that power and gave power to the senate to advise and consent an his high-ranking officers. the president has done something that breaks with historical precedent of the it goes against the notion of checks and balances. in fact, the notion that underlies the whole idea of recess piments is mostly an -- recess appointments is mostly an historic relic. alexander hamilton explained in federalist 67 that the power was

-- this is also done in a time when congress would go out of session for months at a time to return to their farms or return to their businesses. now congress meets nearly year-round. so in other words recess appointments should only happen rarely, in extreme occurrences, if at all. there also should be agreement that we are in recess and there is no agreement that we were in recess. there is a lot of talk about bipartisan cooperation on the other side of the aisle, but i'm disappointed that not one senator has stood up to tell the president that this sets a terrible precedent, that this is a usurpation of power that is bad for the country, bad for the idea of checks and balances. i am disappointed that not one senator from the other side of the aisle has stood up to oppose this president on this unconstitutional power grab. this is an opportunity for us to

stand together in defense of the constitution. i state now unequivocally that if a republican president tries to usurp this power, in a republican president tries to define a recess and appoint people illegally, i will stand here on the floor and oppose him. this is not about being a republican or a democrat. it's about having respect for the constitution and these lawless, illegal, and unconstitutional appointments fly in the face of the respect for our constitution. this is an issue of separation of powers, of constitutional authority, and of senate prerogative. it is sad that not one member of the opposition party will stand up for the constitution, will stand up to the president. make no mistake, this is a huge breech of precedent. if the president is allowed to determine when we are in recess, nothing prevents him from making recess appointments this evening

at 8:00 or on the weekend. if this is allowed to stand, if this precedent is allowed to starntiondz nothing stops the president from appointing a supreme court justice-to-tonight at 8:00. that the kind of lawlessness we want in our country? are we going to completely abandon the advise and consent role of the constitution and of the senate? i ask today, is there not one senator from across the aisle who will stand up against this unconstitutional power grab? is there not one senator from across the aisle who will say to the president that these illegal appointments set a terrible precedent, that these appointments will encourage a lawlessness, that these appointments eviscerate the advise and consent clause of the constitution? i ask my colleagues from across the aisle, where is your concern for the checks and balances?

where is your concern for the constitution? i am greatly saddened by this, and i hope the president will reverse course. i hope the majority party in the senate will standed up for the constitution, but i'm greatly disappointed where we are in this debate. thank you, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: later today, mr. president, the debate will center on the fundamental question of whether members of congress should be responsible for upholding the same laws as the american people. mr. president, the unified answer from this congress must be an unequivocal "yes." it is no secret that congress has a track record of exempting themselves from the very laws it

writes. former senator john glenn said, "such exemptions are the rankest form of hypocrisy. laws that are good enough for everyone else ought to be good enough for us." former congressman henry hyde once quipped that congress would exempt itself from the laws of gravity if it could. i have long supported efforts to ensure that congress refuses to give into any temptation to exempt itself. when i was serving in the u.s. house of representatives, i was proud to be a leader in the effort to require members of congress and their staffs be subject to the same requirements that the obama health care bill put on all citizens. while the bad old days of congress exempting itself from major occupational safety and health and fair labor standard laws a were done away with, 10 some extent, after passage of the congressional accountability

act and other reforms in the mid-1990's, congress should not miss this opportunity to show the american people that it's willing to live by the very rules that are imposed on the american people. the people of this nation are tired of business as usual here in washington. they are tired of the congressional exemptions or carve-outs that create a chasm between the working class and the political class. my home state of nevada is currently enduring the highest unemployment rate in the country. in fact, nevada has led the nation in unemployment for more than two years. and as i travel the state, i hear from individuals who are frustrated because of public servants who are supposed to be representing them don't feel their pain. while our economy limps on, the nation's capital remains untouched by the difficulties nevadans experience every day. in light of these facts, is it

really any mystery why congress is currently experiencing its worst approval ratings in history? i am a cosponsor of the stock act because i believe confidential information acquired as a result of holding public office should not be used for private gain. the stock act would prohibit members or employees of congress and the executive branch employees from profiting from nonpublic information obtained because of their status and requires greater oversight of the growing political intelligence industry. members and employees should also be required to report the purchases, sales, and exchange of any stock, bond, or commodi commodity transaction greater than $1,000 every 30 days. as a strong supporter of transparency in congress and the federal government, i believe the stock act is an important

step for congress to take and start earning back the trust and faith of the american people. restoring that confidence will surely be a long journey because public servants have in too many cases not taken their job seriously. but through legislation like the stock act, we send an important messages to the citizens of this nation that we understand our position requires us to uphold the highest ethical and moral standards and we are willing to undergo the scrutiny required to regain that trust. members of congress should follow the same rules as every other american. no american can trade on insider information without the risk of prosecution, and congresses should be held to the same standard. congress should be held to the same standard. elected officials should take every precaution to ensure that

they do not use public information for personal gain. i hope both chambers will take the time to thoughtfully consider this legislation, send it to the president for his signature. my hope is that the american people will view passage of this legislation as an earnest, bipartisan effort to change the way washington does business. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important bill, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the state of the nation's economy. upon taking office, president obama encountered one of the worst recessions in this country's history. he faced tremendous challenges under any standard. to be sure, it would have been difficult for any president to make the kinds of reforms that would have had an immediate effect on an economy this bad, but at the end of the day, we see that although he was handed something that we can fairly characterize as an economic emergency, he, through his actions and through his policies, turned that emergency into a national tragedy. in his first two years, instead of focusing on creating jobs and creating a set of circumstances in which the private sector would bring jobs to fruition,

president obama and his substantial majorities in both houses of congress used their tremendous advantage to push for greater government control over americans' health care choices, more burdensome and debilitating regulations on businesses, and a failed stimulus package that led to record-setting annual deficits. just look at america before president obama took office and compare it to our economic situation now. for example, unemployment is up 9% from when president obama took office. the price of gasoline is up 83% compared to when he took office. long-term unemployment is up 107%. the median valve a single-family home in america is down 14%. and the u.s. national debt is up 43%. he's added over $4 trillion to

our national debt. then last year president obama created a standoff with republicans by refusing to accept a reasonable compromise on spending reforms as a condition for raising the nation's debt ceiling. he preside over the down grading of america's rating. he's taken every opportunity to block the development of america's job resources. perhaps most troubling, this president intentionally divided the country by waging vicious class warfare campaigns, separating average hardworking americans by income and then pitting them against one another. the president's record on this score has been repugnant and damaging. instead of working with congress to address our genuine economic challenges, the president has responded by starting his

reelection campaign early. in a series of taxpayer-funded campaign stops, the president sharpened his divisive message and astoundingly blamed republicans for legislative gridlock. never mind that the president's most recent budget proposal failed to attract even a single vote in the united states senate, and it was in fact senate democrats who refused to bring the president's own jobs plan to the floor for a vote. even today members of the president's own party are lining up against him to oppose his tone-deaf decision on the keystone x.l. pipeline. this project would create 20,000 american jobs. it would inject much-needed private-sector capital into our economy. and it would increase the country's energy security. but the president has chosen to block the project as an election-year nod to his friends in the extreme left wepbg of the

environment -- left wing of the environmentalist movement. president obama has put the state of our union in disarray. certainly he inherited a poor economy, but the decisions he's made and implemented since taking office are making it worse. he was handed an economic emergency, and instead of taking the challenge head on, he chose to ignore it, and then he turned it into a national tragedy. there is a void of leadership in the white house. he must end the divisiveness and start dealing directly and decisively with the needs of the country. the president has very little time left to show the american people that he can be the kind of leader who will put the country before his own personal political interests. for the sake of all americans, i sincerely hope that he uses that time wisely. thank you, mr. president.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the health of american travelers is not placed at possible risk as our airport security technology evolves. i'm very pleased to be joined by senators akaka, coburn, scott brown and levin who are cosponsoring this bill. our bill has two major components. first, it would require the department of homeland security's science and technology directorate, in consultation with the national science foundation, to commission an independent study on the possible health effects

of the x-ray radiation emitted by some of the scanning machines we see and pass through at our airports. and second, it would give airline passengers, especially those passengers in sensitive groups, such as pregnant women, clear notice of their ability to choose another screening option in lieu of exposure to ionizing radiation. some advanced imaging technology, or a.i.t. machines, rely on x-ray back scatter technology. time and time again i have expressed my concern over their use, particularly since there is an alternative screening technology available.

well, the t.s.a. has repeatedly told the public that the amount of radiation emitted from these machines is extremely small, passengers and some scientific experts have raised legitimate questions about the impact of repeated exposure to this radiation. last november, during a hearing on aviation security before our homeland security committee, the t.s.a. administrator, john pistol, agreed to my call for an independent study to address the lingering health concerns and questions about this additional and repeated exposure to radiation. shortly thereafter, however, he appeared to back away from this

commitment, suggesting that a forthcoming report by the department of homeland security 's inspector general might be a sufficient substitute for a new, completely independent, thorough study. chairman joe lieberman and i wrote to the administrator to press for more details about t.s.a.'s plans for an independent study. two weeks later, having received no reply, i sent another letter to administrator pistol asking why he believed that the i.g. report on t.s.a.'s use of back-scatter machines was a sufficient substitute for an independent study of the health impacts. t.s.a.'s response lacked any detail as to why the agency no longer believes that an independent study on the health

effects of x-ray back-scatter machines is warranted, nor did it explain how the i.g.'s review would be a sufficient substitute for an independent study. and that is why, mr. president, i've introduced this bill today. late last year the european commission announced that in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety it would only authorize the use of passenger scanners in the european union that do not use x-ray technology. this prohibition gives even more need and justification for an independent study of the safety of the i.a.t. machines. mr. president, some respected

experts have warned congress and the administration of the potential negative public health keufbgz posed by the -- risks posed by the x-ray back-scatter machines. they know that while the risk that someone might develop cancer because of his or her exposure to radiation during one screening by such an a.i.t. machine is very small, we simply do not truly know the risk of this radiation exposure over multiple screenings for frequent fliers, those in vulnerable groups, or t.s.a. employees themselves who were operating these machines. when a person is scanned by these machines, they receive a dose of radiation. what experts in the field call a direct dose.

during the scan, some of the radiation is not absorbed but it scattered in random directions from the person being scanned. experts call this the scatter dose. some experts point to anomalies between the scatter dose reportedly associated with the scanners, and the scatter dose associated with comparable medical technology. specifically, the scattered doses were these a.i.t. machines are higher in relative terms than scatter doses for comparable medical devices. what is troubling, mr. president, is that the experts are not sure why the a.i.t. scatter doses are higher. they point to possible deficiencies with the testing equipment or the poor placement

of the testing equipment as possible explanations. overall, they say that this anomaly could point to higher direct dose rates and should be yet another impetus for an independent study. additionally, some experts note that the safety mechanisms in these machines that would prevent them from malfunctioning have never been independently tested. that means that if a machine malfunctions and the safety features designed to shut the machine down in such an instance do not work, a traveler could receive a higher dose of radiation. pregnant women, children, the elderly, and as much as 5% of the adult population are more sensitive to radiation exposure. at a minimum, this suggests the

need for further independent study. mr. president, i want to share with my colleagues a tragic episode involving the daughter of two of my constituents. she underwent screening at the airport with a back-scatter x-ray a.i.t. she was pregnant and directed by t.s.a. to align for the back-scatter x-ray machine. she was completely unaware that she was entering into an x-ray-emitting machine before she stepped into t. she thought it was the more traditional magna thermometer. after which she learned she exposed her unborn child to radiation. had she realized ahead of time, she clearly would have opted for

the alternative screening methods. between weeks later she suffered a miscarriage which she attributes to the radiation she received from this scan. now, mr. president, we will never know for certain, because of this family's -- we will never know for certain the cause of this family's loss, but they believe in their hearts the back-scatter radiation is to blame. clearly, at a minimum this, young woman should have been informed by a prominent sign that an alternative means of screening was available. and that's why my bill also requires t.s.a. to have larger, understandable signs at the beginning of the screening process, not later when it is only noticed if at all after a lengthy wait in line. signs should alert passengers that pregnant women, children, and the elderly can be more

sensitive to radiation exposure. these signs should also make clear that passengers can opt out of this type of scanning. i have urged t.s.a. to move forward using only radiation screening technology, but in the meantime an independent study is needed to protect the public and to determine which technology is worthy of taxpayer dollars. surely, passengers should be well informed of their screening options. we americans have demonstrated our willingness to endure enhanced security measures at our airports if those measures appear to be reasonable and related to real risk. but travelers become frustrated when security measures inconvenience them without

cause, cause privacy or health concerns, or when this appear to be focused on those who pose little or no threat. on this particular issue, senators akaka, coburn, scott brown, levin, and i agree that we are past the time when an independent review of the scanning technology that emits radiation must be undertaken. i urge my colleagues to join us in quickly passing this legislation. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have five unanimous consents for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to and the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2038 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 3028, a bill to prohibit members of congress from using nonpublic information to derive information for their benefit and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed to s. 2038. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 301,

s. 2038, a 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. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a substitute amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1470. strike all after the enacting clause -- mr. reid: i ask that further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: on behalf of senator lieberman, i call up an amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. lieberman proposes an amendment numbered 1482 to amendment numbered 1470. on page 7, line 22, after reform, insert -- mr. reid: i ask that further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the presiding officer.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1478. the presiding officer: is there objection? if none, so ordered. the clerk will report. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the reading of amendment 1478 be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. brown, proposes amendment numbered 1478 to amendment numbered 1470. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be dispensed with, the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment 1481. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. brown, for himself and mr. merkley proposes an amendment numbered 1481 to amendment numbered 1470. at the appropriate place, insert the following --

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i thought we had a tentative, informer agreement that we were going to go back and forth, alternateing to make amendments pending and that we would do one from the democratic side, then one from the republican side and go back and forth. is there -- mr. brown: i'm fine -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the senator from maine. i was just asking that they -- that they be offered. i was going to speak on them together, but i'm certainly willing for a republican to go next and then i speak about my two amendments together, mr. president. whatever the lady -- whatever the senator from maine would like. ms. collins: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i

would then ask unanimous consent that we proceed with amendments so that we do alternate from side to side since there are a number of amendments that have been filed, and i think that would be the fairest way to proceed to make them pending. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1472, my amendment with senator mccaskill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, for himself and others, proposes amendment numbered 1472. mr. toomey: i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: mr. president, i'd like to make some comments about this amendment, but i will do it at a later time when time is more available. i just want to thank my

colleague from maine, my colleague from ohio for their helpful cooperation in this process. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i'd like to discuss for a moment detail about -- we'll do more detail about the amendments later. i want to say a few words about each of them. they are consistent first with the spirit of the underlying bill, a version which i cosponsored. i am particularly appreciative of senator gillibrand for her good work on this overall issue. the underlying stock act clarifies that insider trading laws apply the same way to members of congress as they do to the rest of the country, pure and simple. it makes sense. my amendments would also extend generally applicable laws to members of congress. one amendment would apply financial trade disclosure rules to members in the same way that they apply to others, such as corporate insiders, financial

advisors, s.e.c. employees. it would narrow the window from disclosure -- of disclosure from 30 days down to ten days. it would make member disclosure more consistent with rules that require timely disclosure of transactions by corporate directors, officers and large shareholders. we should do the same more strictly than we have in the past to do the same as they did. let's hold ourselves to the same standard of openness and shine the light of transparency on our financial trades, if we make them. the second amendment, mr. president, would extend to senators the same conflict of interest rules that currently apply to committee staff and executive branch officials. this amendment which is number 1481 is co-authored by senator merkley of oregon. members of the senate and staff would be prohibited from owning or short selling individual stock in companies affected by their official duties. we would still be permitted to invest in broad-based funds or place our assets in blind trusts

as permitted by the select armed services committee, the s.a.s. rule and federal obligations. when asked about the fact that the s.a.s. conflict of interest rules apply to staff and d.o.d. appointees, president george w. bush's deputy secretary of defense jordan england said i think congress should live by the rules they impose on other people. it's pretty simple, mr. president. we vote on a whole range of very important issues in this country. we should not only not benefit from our votes in investments that we might have, but it's important that the perception be that when we make decisions, we make them for the good of the country, not for our own financial interests. that's -- that's something the public finds pretty distasteful. these two amendments together will help fix that. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i just want -- now that we're starting to get the intake of amendments i want to reiterate what we talked about yesterday about having relate vanity amendments filed. this is a very specific issue that we're addressing which is to deal with perceived insider trading and/or members of congress having an unfair advantage in having obviously nonpublic information, confidential information that would ultimately be used for financial gain. as we're reviewing some of the amendments come in or reviewing the discussions of others that may be forthcoming, i want to remind the members that this is something that forces outside this building may not want to have happen. i feel very strongly there's something we need to do and use to re-establish the trust with the american citizens and members of congress. that being said, as members are listening or their staffs proposing amendments that are forthcoming, i would hope that

they would be relevant and relevant to the issue at hand and not get sidetracked into a discussion that will take us away from what we're trying to do here today. so i'm once again looking forward to the amendments. i know that senator lieberman, gillibrand, collins and i will be managing the floor today to try to make sure that happens and convince our members to just stay focused on this very important issue. so thank you, and i thank the president and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 1477. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota proposes amendment numbered 1477. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispend with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, this amendment would make it easier for small businesses to better access capital in order to ex 357bd and create jobs. on november 3 in 2011 the house of representatives passed a companion measure introduced by representative kevin mccarthy on a near unanimous vote of 413-11. 175 democrats in the house supported this legislation. we have an opportunity here, mr. president, to show the american people that we are

serious about creating jobs and to pass this amendment here in the united states senate. this bill would remove a regulatory roadblock, i should say this amendment would remove a regulatory roadblock to make it easier for small businesses to access needed capital to expand and create jobs. current s.e.c. registration exemption rules severely hamper the ability of small businesses to raise capital by allowing them to raise capital only from investors with whom they have a pre-existing relationship. by modernizing this rule, small businesses and startups would be more easily to raise capital from accredited investors nationwide. according to the small business and entrepreneurship council -- and i quote -- "this is a long overdue solution that will widen the pool for entrepreneurs. our economy will improve once entrepreneurs are provided the incentives they need to hire and invest -- end quote. earlier this month the s.e.c.'s

small advisory committee recommended that the agency and i quote again, "relax or modify the solicitation prohibition as a good policy to increase the amount of capital available to small businesses." in his state of the union address last week president obama called on congress to pass legislation that will help startups and small businesses access capital in order to expand and create jobs. the president said and i quoth most new jobs are created in startups and small businesses. so let's pass an agenda that helped them succeed. tear down regulations that prevent entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. both parties agree on these ideas, so let's put them in a bill and get it on my desk this year." end quote. mr. president, this is exactly what this amendment would do. and it has support from investors and entrepreneurs alike. when you've got unemployment hovering around 9% we need to pass legislation to enable our

job creators to expand and create jobs. as i said, mr. president, this legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the house of representatives. i hope that we can do the same here in the united states senate by passing this amendment. mr. president, we all talk about the importance of making it easier, making it less costly, less difficult for our small businesses and our entrepreneurs to get access to capital so that they can create jobs and get the economy growing again. so many times these are contentious, controversial differences of opinion about how best to do that. we fight over regulations, we fight over taxes. this is something where there is broad bipartisan support. almost unanimous support in the house of representatives. a vote of 413-11 in support of this legislation when it was voted on in the house of representatives. and so we have an opportunity here to do something that's very straightforward that is broadly supported by both democrats and republicans, at least it was in

the house of representatives. that the president has suggested we ought to be working on, looking for these types of approaches to freeing up access to capital for our small businesses. you've got the folks out there in the business community overwhelmingly supportive of doing away with the regulatory barrier, the regulatory obstacle this particular regulation represents in terms of access to capital for our small businesses. so it just seems like one of those things on which there should be no disagreement and i hope that will be the case. i hope that we can get a vote on this amendment, and get this put into law and put into effect so that our small businesses and our entrepreneurs in this country can do what they do best and that is create jobs. they've got to have access to capital in order to do that. this makes that process easier, does away with some of these unnecessary regulations and roadblocks and barriers that exist today. so, mr. president, i hope that my colleagues here in the senate will support this amendment and i yield the floor.

ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, earlier we agreed to alternate side to side for the offering of amendments. however, i would say to the democratic floor manager that there don't appear to be any democrats right now who are seeking recognition. therefore, i would ask today the senator from arizona be permitted to proceed at this time given the absence of a democrat on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank both the senator from new york and the senator from maine for their courtesy. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up amendment number 1471. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain for himself and others prepares amendment