bonhoeffer was a great theologian but he decided in the midst of the and a great theologian he wanted to get ordained as a lutheran pastor. and then one day at age 24 he went to america to spend a year in new york city where i live with my wife and daughter and he went to study at union theological seminary but one day a fellow student named frank fisher, an african-american from alabama invited bonhoeffer to harlem to a church called abyssinian baptist church. bonhoeffer went with him and for the first time in his life in that church he saw something that was clearly not phony religion. he saw people worshiping a living god, people who understood suffering and whose worship was real. bonhoeffer said in new york and america he did not hear the

gospel proclaimed. he visited many churches. he did not hear the gospel proclaimed except in his words in the negro churches. that was the only place he saw the true gospel. he saw true faith leaders the living faith, people living it, preaching the gospel of jesus bleecker living the gospel of these is. he saw this among the suffering in harlem and it changed his life. when he got back to germany people could see was different. he is not intellectually different but his heart had been changed. he began to speak about the bible as the living word of god to which god who is alive wishes to speak to was so he understood from the black church in harlem the idea of a press or faith that god is alive and wishes to speak to you. it had a political component because now it is 1932. the nazis are rising.

bonhoeffer begins to say things he would not here in germany even in the churches. he spoke of jesus as the man for others. whoever does not stand up for the jews have no right to sing gregorian chants. god is not fooled. his whole life was about this idea that you have to have a living relationship with god and it must lead you to action, you must obey god that you will look different. of course dead religion demonizes others. i just said that. apart from god's intervention that is what we do. don't think that you won't do that. you will do that. we are broken fallen human beings. that is what we do. we don't think we are better than the germans. do you think you are better than the germans in that era? you are not. we are the same. we are capable of the same horrible things. wilberforce saw what the people didn't see and we celebrate in fort. bonhoeffer saw what others did

not see. we celebrate him for it. how did they see what they saw? just one word that will answer that is jesus. he opens our ideas, our eyes to his ideas which are different from our own and are radical. personally i would say the same about the unborn. apart from god we cannot see that they are persons as well so those of us who know the unborn to be human beings are commanded by god to love those who do not yet see that. [applause] we need to know, we need to know that apart from god we would be on the other side of that divide fighting for what we believe is right. we cannot demonize our enemies to save you believe abortion is wrong. you must treat those on the assault with the love of jesus. today if you have a biblical view of sexual already you will be demonized by those on the other side who will call you a

bit. jesus commands us to love those who call us bigots. to show them the love of jesus. if you want people to treat you with dignity treat them with dignity. finally jesus tells us that we must love our enemies. that, my friends, is the real difference between dead religion and a living faith in the god of the scriptures. wilberforce had political enemies but he knew that god commanded him to treat them with civility and he had been saved the day she was not morally superior to the people on the other side of the aisle. martin luther king told the people on the bus that you must not fight back. you must be bling to turn the other cheek or get off the bus. branch rickey told jackie robinson if you want to win the battle do is jesus commanded and be strong enough to not fight back. that is how your enemies will know that there is someone

standing behind you. that it is not just you. if you can see jesus in your enemy, in your enemy, then you can know that you are seeing with god's eyes and not your own. so can you love your enemy? if you cannot pray to those on the other side, if you cannot feel the love of god for your enemies, political and otherwise, my friends, that is a sure sign that your being merely religious. that you have bought into a moral system but you do not know the god who has forgiven you. only god can give us that supernatural of for those with whom we disagree. it is an impossible standard apart from the grace of god. we all fail that test but thank god for the grace of god. the grace of god is real. got wants to shed it in every heart.

not just on some. on every heart. it is the only thing, the grace of the living god that can bring left and right together to do the right thing. can we humble are still enough to actually ask him in a real flair to show himself to was, lead us to do what is right. can we do that for our country, for the world? this is bonhoeffer moment. if we will humble ourselves. ask god, cried out from the heart, lord, lead us. will you ask him to help you? the amazing grace of god. the amazing grace of god is there for everyone. jesus is not just for so-called christian. jesus is for every one. for everyone and the grace of god is for everyone. i hope you know that. when i was 21 years old i worked

at the boston opera house and garrison keeler showed up and gave a talk and at the end of his talk he asked the audience if the audience wanted to sing. they didn't. but he made them anyway. he led them in a song called amazing grace. that are capella rendition have stuck with me my whole life and i thought maybe someday people will do that. not to they of course. but then i thought if the president can sing our green's -- [laughter] [laughter and applause] maybe you can sing with him. we are going to try this and if it goes well i will leave with

my head up. are you ready? you don't know the lyrics, pretend that you do. i want to hear harmony. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> god bless you.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you. you have indeed blessed us. you got our attention and gave us spiritual food. not it is my honor to introduce the president of the united states. mr. president, we thank you for your 100% support you have given to this prayer breakfast. being here every single year. and when you were just a member

of the senate. mr president, i personally want to thank you for the way you strive for the betterment of all americans. you give your life to that. it was abraham lincoln who first used the phrase that we are a nation under god. if we are going to be a nation under god then we have to recognize the precious worth of every single person. thank you for your leadership. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. thank you. please. everybody have a seat. good morning, everybody. it is good to be with so many

friends united in prayer. and i begin by giving all praise and honor to god bringing us together today. i want to thank our cochairs, mark and jeff, my dear friend, the guy who always has my back, vice president joe biden and all the members of congress. joe deserves a hand. [applause] of the members of congress and by cabinet who are here today, distinguished guests who have traveled a long way to be part of this. i am not going to be as funny as eric but i am grateful that he shared his message with us. michele and i feel truly blessed to be here. this is my third year coming to the prayer breakfast as president. as jeff mentioned, before that i came as senator.

i have to say it is easier coming as president. i don't have to get here quite as early. but it is always an opportunity that i have cherished. chance to step back for a moment. for us to come together as brothers and sisters and do god's thing together. at a time when it is easy to lose ourselves in a rush and clamor of our own lives or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today. these moments of prayer slow us down. they humble us. they remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our title, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels. we could all benefit turning to

our creator and listening to him. avoiding phony religiosity. listening to him. this is especially important right now when we are facing big challenges as a nation. our economy is making progress as we recover from the worst crisis in three generations but too many families are still struggling to find work or make the mortgage to pay for college or in some cases by food. our men and women in uniform have made us safer and more secure and we are eternally grateful to them but war and suffering and hardship remain in too many quarters of the globe and a lot of those men and women who we celebrate, veterans day and memorial day come back and

find when it comes to find a job, we are not always there the way we need to be. meeting these challengess requires sound decisionmaking progress will smart policies, our personal would just leave alone can't dictate our response to every challenge we face but in my moments of prayer i am reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems. in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks and opening our minds and hearts to the needs of others. we can't leave our values at the door.

we leave our values at the door we abandon much of the moral glue that held our nation together for centuries and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. frederick douglass, abraham lincoln, james adam the, martin luther king jr. board the day, a majority of reformers in american history did their work not just because it was sound policy or they had done good analysis or understood how all to exercise their politics but because their faith and their values dictated it. and called for bold action. sometimes in the face of indifference. sometimes in the face of resistance. this is no different today for

millions of americans and certainly not for me. a week up each morning and say a brief prayer. i spent a little time with scripture and devotion. from time to time, friends like joel under court jake's will come by the oval office or call on the phone and send me an e-mail and prayed together and pray for me and my family and our country. but i don't stop there. i would be remiss if i stopped there. if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends, so instead i must try in perfectly, but i must try to make sure those values motivate me as one leader

of this great nation. so when i talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on main street, when i talk about making sure insurance companies don't discriminate against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders are not taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us i do so because i genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but i also do it because i know far too many neighbors in our country have been heard and treated unfairly over the last few years and i believe in god's command to love your neighbor as yourself. i know a version of that bolden rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs from hinduism to judy is

some to and writings of plato. when i talk about shared responsibility, because i genuinely believe in a time when many folks are struggling, in a time we have enormous deficits, it is hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income more young people with student loans for middle-class families who can barely pay the bill to shoulder the burden alone. i think to myself if i am willing to give something up for someone who has been extraordinarily blessed, give up some of the tax breaks that i enjoy i actually think that is going to make economic sense but for me as a christian it also coincides with jesus's teaching that for whom much is given much

shelby required. it mirrors the islamic belief that those who have an obligation to use those blessings to help others or the jewish doctrine moderation, consideration for others. when i talk about giving every american a fair shot at opportunity it is because i believe when a young person can afford a college education or someone who has been unemployed have a chance to retrain for job and regain the sense of dignity and pride and contributing to the economy and supporting their family that helps us all prosper. it means maybe the research lab on the cusp of a life-saving discovery or company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little better and we will all do better as a consequence makes economic sense but part of that belief comes from the idea that i am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. we rise and fall together.

i am not an island. i am not alone in my successor. i succeed because others succeed with me. when i decide to stand up for foreign aid to prevent atrocities in places like you gone or take on issues like human trafficking, it is not just about strengthening alliances or promoting democratic values or projecting american leadership around the world although it does all those things and it will make a safer and more secure, it is about the call to care for the least of these to the poor. the margins of our society. to answer the responsibility we are given in proverbs to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destined to, may reflect the jewish belief that

the virus form of charity is to do our part to hold others stand on their own. treating others as you want to be treated requiring much of those who have been given so much, living by the principal that we are our brother's keeper, caring for the poor or those in need. these values are old. they can be found in many amg ma belrsndany y faiths, nonbelievers. their values that have always made this country great when we live up to them. when we don't just give lip service to them and we don't just talk about them one day a year. they are the ones that have defined my own faith journey. these are the values i believe we have to return to in the

hopes that god will buttress our efforts. and we can earnestly seek to see these values live in our politics and policies and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values. in the words of c.s. lewis, christianity does not have a detailed political program. it is meant for all men all-time is. particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another. our goals should not be to declare our policies as biblical. it is guard who is in fallible, not us. michele reminds me of this often. instead it is our hope that people of good will should

pursue values and common ground and common good as best they know how. with respect for each other. and i have to say that sometimes we talk about respect but we don't act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates. but each and every day for many in this room, the biblical injunctions are not just words. they are also deeds. every single day in different ways so many of your living out your faith in service to others. last month it was inspiring to see thousands of young christians filling the georgia dome at passion conference to worship the god who said the captives free and worked to end modern slavery. since we have expanded and

strengthened the white house faith based initiative we partnered with catholic charities to help americans who are struggling with poverty and local organizations like world vision and american jewish world service and islamic relief to bring hope to those suffering around world. colleges across the country have answered our interface campus challenge. students are joined together to join service with others from promoting responsible fatherhood, strengthening adoptions, from helping people find jobs, serving our veterans. we are linking arms with faith based groups all across the country. we all understand these values cannot truly find the voice in our politics and our policies unless we find a place in our hearts. the bible teaches us to be doers of the word and not merely heroes. we are required to have a

living, briefing, active faith in our own lives. each of us called on to give something of ourselves for the betterment of others to live the truth of our faith not just with words but with deeds. even as we join the great debate of our age, put people back to work bleecker and how we ashore opportunity for every child, role of government in protecting this extraordinary plan that god has made for us, how we lessen the occasions of war, even as we debate and these great issues we must be reminded of the difference that we can make each day in our small interactions, in our personal lives as a loving husband or supportive parent or good neighbor or helpful colleague. in each of these roles we help

bring his kingdom to earth and as important as government policy may be in shaping our world we are reminded it is the commute -- cumulative act of kindness and courage and charity and love, the respect we show each other, generosity that we share with each other in our everyday lives will somehow sustain us during these challenging times. john tells us that if anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him how can the love of god be in him? deer children, let us not love with words or tongue about with action. mark read a letter from billy graham that took me back to one of the great honors of my life.

reverend graham at his mountaintop retreat in north carolina when i was on vacation with my family at a hotel not far away and i can still remember lining up pass, up a mountain to his home. 91 years old at the time. facing various health challenges. he welcomed me as he would welcome a family member or a close friend. this man who had great great prayers and inspired a nation. this man who seemed larger than life greeted me and was as kind as gentle as could be. we had a wonderful conversation. before i left, he started praying for me as he prayed for so many presidents before me and

when he finished praying i felt the urge to pray for him. i didn't know what to say. what do you pray for when it comes to the man who has prayed for so many? like that fierce in romans the holy spirit interceded when i didn't know what to say. so i prayed briefly but i prayed from the heart. i don't have the intellectual capacity or the lung capacity of some of my great preacher friends who have prayed for a long time. but i prayed. we ended with an embrace and a warm goodbye and i thought about that moment all down the mountain and i thought about it in many days since. i thought about my own spiritual journey. growing up in a household that wasn't particularly religious.

going through my own period of doubt and confusion, finding christ when i wasn't even looking for him so many years ago. possessing so many shortcomings that have been overcome by the grace of god. in fact, that i would never be on top of a mountain saying a prayer for billy graham, a man whose face has changed the world and sustained him through triumph and tragedy and movements and milestones, that simple fact humbled me to the core. i have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment asking god for guidance not just in my personal life and my christian walk but in the life of this nation and the values that hold us together and keep us strong. i know that he will guide us. he always has and he always

will. and i pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead. thank you very much. [applause] >> president obama at the national prayer breakfast this morning. we're going live to coverage of the u.s. senate and further debate on congressional insider trading. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend dr. joseph

vought, pastor of community lutheran church in sterling, virginia. the guest chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and glory, in whom all righteousness, peace and goodness are found, you have created us in your image, given us a world of good gifts, and the blessing of this land we call home. send your spirit of wisdom, discernment, and grace to these elected servants. take away any fear or prejudice that may keep them from civil discourse, good will, and mutual endeavor. remind them of their calling to serve. and inspire them to make decisions which promote the common good, ensure justice and liberty for all, and make this nation a beacon of hope for the world. in your holy name we pray. 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, february 2, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. reid mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 this morning. the majority will control the first half, republicans the second half. following morning business, we'll resume consideration of the stock act. mr. president, we've worked very hard until late in the evening

last night to try to come up with an agreement to complete action on this bill. i will notify senators when those votes are scheduled. we hope that can be done. would the chair announce the business for the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a myria be a periodg business until 11:00 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.

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

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: are we in morning business? officer sphe yes, we are. mr. durbin: over the last several months, i have put my staff on a little mission, and i asked them to identify manufacturing companies in my home state of illinois that have not only weathered this recession but are doing well and

are hiring. i wanted to meet with these companies and find out why the recession has treated them differently, particularly when it comes to manufacturing jobs. i have been pleasantly surprised at home businesses i have found to be in that condition in my state. not to understate our unemployment rate or the impact of the recession on many businesses, the fact is there are some that have not only weathered the storm but are doing quite well. and they represent a variety of different things that they manufacture. the heartening and encourage news is that we are hearing more often that companies have decided to resource their jobs back to the united states. the president in his state of the union address spoke of one such company, mast sper lock, located in mil milwaukee, wisco, which he noted has now announced they think america is the best place to do business, to make products and do business. that is a good trend, which we

want to encourage. we know that we've lost a goodly share of manufacturing jobs over the last several years. in the year 2000, more than 17 million americans were employed in manufacturing. ten years later, the number had fallen to 11.5 million -- from 17 million to 11.5 million. more than 300 of those jobs were lost in my home state of i will nil that decade from 2000 to 2010. but american manufacturing is growing again. one of the real good-news storeries is chrysler. i'm sure the presiding officer remembers when chrysler faced bankruptcy and the prospect of literally going out of business. the president decided -- and rightly so -- that we couldn't afford to lose those jobs and so we engineered a loan with

general motors and chrysler premised on the way they did president and many critics said that was the wrong thing to do. the capitalist purists were saying, no, these things happen, companies go away and new companies emerge. general motors and chrysler should be allowed to go gently moo the night. president obama disagreed, many of us disagreed, and he put a down payment on the future of the american automobile industry, which has paid off handsomely. just this last week the major auto manufacturers -- ford, chrysler -- announced reported-breaking profits. they have restructured. they are selling a better product, and they're doing in a better way and they are now competitive and the american people are buying their products. general motors has come back strong, just by way of comparison, i recently read that if you look at the total number of employees and certain companies, it gives you an idea why some have more value overall to the economy than others.

we all know facebook. we hear about it all the time. i laughingly say when somebody asks to take my picture, do you promise you'll put it on facebook, and they laugh outloud because that's exactly what they're going to do. facebook has about 3,000 employees in america. we all know going many. we use it every day -- i do -- to find information and to access different sights. google has about 30,000 employees in the united states. how many employees in general motors direct employment? 100,000? 100,000. so when the president said we need to invest in the automobile industry, it was a decision based on the need for good-paying jobs right here in america. well, i can tell when you it comes to chrysler, it was an investment that paid off for my home state of illinois. this week chrysler is announcing that it will be adding 1,600 manufacturing jobs at its plant in belvedere, illinois. i was encouraged when i met with the c.e.o. of chrysler and he

said, it's one of the most efficient and cost-productive plants in all of chrysler corporation, and it should be expanded. in november, caterpillar, the largest exporter in my state, the larger manufacturer, announced a $600 million investment in its plants in decatur, illinois, and peoria. going to bring back hundreds of jobs in our area. american companies are starting to realize that manufacturing plants in the united states can be profitable again. manufacturing was the backbone of the american economy for decades and we may never see it return to its heyday, but we should took steps to strengthen it. in his state of the union address, president obama laid out a number of key steps to boost manufacturing and ensure that products have those three key words: "made in america." the president's legislation builds on legislation that i introduced in 2010 to reduce the

tax benefits that companies can claim what they close factories here in the united states. hard as it may be to believe, the tax code rewards and compensates those companies that decide to close down manufacturing in the united states and move it overseas. the tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving smens expenses and reduce their taxes in the united states as a result. it is a direct subsidy to move the job overseas. it is just common sense taxpayers shouldn't be helping companies cover the cost of outsourcing jobs. the president also is taking important steps to encourage in-sourcing, when companies close operations overseas and move jobs back to the united states. specifically, the president is calling for a 20% income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the united states to help companies bring jobs home. he also proposed a new credit for investments that helped

finance projects in communities that have suffered a major job loss event, and every one of our states has one. it might be the steel mill in hennepin, illinois, the appliance factory in galesberg, or the farm equipment factory in canton, i will i i will. too many communities have suffered dramatic layoffs when plants have shut down over the last several decade. we have all seen the story, we have all met the people who have seen their lives change dramatically because of those decisions. withoñ -- without new investment many of those companies will continue to struggle. the tide is starting to turn for mariana manufacturing but -- for american manufacturing. we may never return to the 1940's and 1950's, but there are some things we can do. mr. president, one of the things that i found interesting as i visited these plants that were hiring, trying to hire people in manufacturing was the obstacles they were running into. now we have a state with a lot of unemployment.

it's over 8%. and in some parts of our state over 10%. and you wonder how in the world with so many people out of work you would have good-paying jobs go unfilled. and it turns out, i found as i traveled around the state, those in manufacturing who want to hire new employees run into three obstacles. first obstacle: the person applying for the job does not have the skills necessary to work in manufacturing today. those who haven't seen it personally may not know what manufacturing looks like today. well, it's much different than the image of 30 or 40 years ago. the plants themselves are much cleaner operations, and most of them are computer-driven. unlike the old days of the steam and dirt in every direction. those aren't manufacturing plants in many instances across america today. and so what they're looking for in applicants for industrial

maintenance, for example, which is a major area of need as baby boomers age out and retire. industrial maintenance requires that the applicant have more than a passing knowledge of mathematics and computers. and if they don't, frankly, they're walking into an environment where they can't be much help. so in some areas, in dandle, for example, local manufacturing, tissle cropp teaming up with a community college to try to train students at the expense of the company so they can go to work. the same thing is true all across my state. over and over again the community college links up with the manufacturing concern and starts training the employees so that they'll be ready to fill the jobs at the expense of the company. the second obstacle: it's a psychological obstacle which i hadn't thought about. but it turns out that many parents, when the son says, listen, they're hiring out at

such and such a business, the parent will say, wait a minute, i didn't want you to grow up working in a factory like your dad. i wanted you to have a job where you wear a coat and tie. didn't you go to community college and so forth? you ought to do better than that. it turns out there's a prejudice against working in factories, even though, as i said, they're much different and their compensation in many instances is much better than some other alternatives. what we're having is open houses at many of these factories around illinois so that families and high school counselors can see what they look like, see that they're not the image that they might have in their mind. that's the second obstacle. the third obstacle is one that is very practical. before you would put an employee in charge of a multimillion-dollar computer-tkrefpb manufacturing process -- computer driven manufacturing process, you want to make certain they're not only skilled and sober. that means drug tests. many of these applicants for

would-be manufacturing jobs fail drug tests time and again. why? they've grown up in a generation that says marijuana doesn't count and they're wrong. are they engaged in other drugs? they can't expect to be taken seriously as a job applicant if they can't pass a drug test. those three things: basic skill and training, the attitude of families towards jobs and manufacturing, and the drug tests turn out to be the three obstacles that have been raised time and time again all across my state of illinois. we can overcome each and every one of them and should, and we can fill these jobs, good american jobs, with skill-set people who can produce for this country for many years to come. mr. president, on another topic, i would like to note that this year's political campaigns are different than just two years ago. there's a dramatic infusion of money from so-called super pacs. now we're starting to learn the identity of those who are behind it. just yesterday there were some

disclosures about the contributors. many of the names are familiar, the same very wealthy people who have time and again been engage in our political process. the new approach, of course stharbgs there's no -- of course is that there is no limitation on what they can spend and there's very little disclosure on a timely basis. there are a lot of reasons for that. one of them is a supreme court decision in citizens united. it may be as flawed a decision as that court has ever made to equate corporations and special interest groups with average americans when it comes to our political process and to say that speech is money, money is speech. and to say basically there are no rules and no limits in terms of what a special interest group or corporation can spend in our political process. i cannot think of a more corrupting influence. we know that politics and campaigns have become more expensive in this country every year. those of us who were engaged in

this business have over our political lifetime seen a dramatic evolution in terms of how money is raised and spent. i can recall in my first race in 1982 for the u.s. house of representatives, raising and spending what was then almost a record amount in a house race against an incumbent congressman of $800,000. it was a huge amount of money in that days and i believe one of the most expensive congressional races to date. i anxiously waited for a check from the democratic national convention committee. it never showed up. $25,000 was a big deal. now look where we are today. it is not unusual for candidates for congress and the senate to spend millions of dollars routinely in electing and reelecting members of the house of representatives. on our side of the rotunda, just

dramatically increase those numbers and you'll see the basic political field we play on now when it comes to political campaigns. the citizens united decision was a step in the wrong direction. it wasn't that long ago when two of our own -- republican john mccain and democrat russ feingold of wisconsin -- teamed up to end soft money in politics and to try to bring down the infusion of money from outside interests. they took years to reach their goal, and finally when they did after being challenged in court they were picked away at over the years. and now with citizens united they have been toppled completely. so now the field is wide open. whether w*e talking about the need to reduce the deficit, reform the tax code, create jobs, most everybody knows that different parties have different ideas. what many people don't know is that there are special interest groups which have their own agenda and their own ideas on these and so many other issues. it's just hard for presidential candidates and members of

congress to navigate through our round the special interests that have now become such an integral part of our campaigns, the major donors. and since citizens united decision, major force in american politics. i believe the overwhelming majority of people serving in the house and senate in both political parties are honest and hardworking. and i believe that they're guided by good intentions. but we are nonetheless stuck in a terrible corrupting campaign financing system. that decision by the supreme court two years ago made our system so much worse that i think the only thing that can save it, literally save it so that our democracy is protected is a dramatic change. after citizens united, corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to influence the presidential race as well as congressional elections and the federal and state and local elections as well. in 2010 for the first time ever spending on house and senate races exceeded $1.6 billion.

outside groups spent 335% more on congressional campaigns than just four years earlier. those numbers look like a drop in the bucket compared to this year, this election cycle. the super pac money is being used as we've already seen in the republican presidential primary to fund negative, deceptive ads in support of candidates that are loosely, albeit not officially or formally connected to those running super pacs. i think of the situation with former speaker of the house gingrich. one man and his wife have literally financed gingrich's campaigns in two states with $5 million contributions in each of those states, as i understand them. that, to me, is a corruption of this process. you can bet that big business isn't going to be shy about engaging in the citizens united strategy of spending money to influence the outcome of elections. and you can bet it's going to have an impact on those of us who serve in the senate and

house. you know every single day as you vote that there is the potential of some special interest group out there deciding that is the breaking point, and from that point forward they're going to do tphefrg their power to defeat you. and they can spend as much as they want to get the job done. it's a humbling, sobering reality since the citizens united decision. well, let me tell you there's an alternative. one of them is bill -- i should say resolution that's been offered by the presiding officer that i'm cosponsoring, and that's a constitutional amendment that would basically reverse citizens united. we know how uphill that struggle will be, but at least we have staked out a position to say we have got to overturn this decision. we have got to go back to the days of accountability and manageability when it comes to financing campaigns. i think that is a move in the right direction. i applaud the presiding officer, the senator from arizona, for his leadership. pardon me. the senator from new mexico for his leadership on that issue.

there is another issue too and one that i think we should continue to bring up and discuss. it's called fair elections now. the fair elections now act is a bill which i've introduced many congresses. it would dramatically change the way congressional campaigns are funded. it would make super pacs irrelevant. the bill will allow candidates to focus on the needs of the people they represent, regardless of mr. those people are wealthy, whether they donate to a super pac, attend a fund-raiser or try to find special access to a candidate. candidates in the fair election systems wouldn't need a dime from lobbyists, not a penny, or corporations to run their campaigns. under the system, qualified candidates for congress -- and to qualify, you would need to raise small contributions in volume in the state that you're running in. those qualified candidates would receive grants, matching funds and television broadcasting vouchers from the fair elections fund to help them run the competitive campaigns. in return, candidates who

voluntarily participate in the fair elections system would agree to only accept campaign donations from small-dollar donors in their state. we'd pay for the fund by asking businesses that earn more than $10 million a year in federal contracts to pay a fee of .5% with a maximum of $500,000 per year. that would fund it and it would make certain that under the fair elections system, we would have public financing and we would put it into this money chase that i believe is not only corruption our campaign system but could someday corrupt the very government that we are proud of and represent as elected officials. it is time to reform our system. i'm afraid as i said in one gathering recently, if you're a student of history, it takes a massive scandal or a massive crisis to create a massive reform. i hope that that doesn't happen. i hope we have the good sense to move toward reform without that

happening. but in the meantime, what is happening to our political system is not in the best interest of democracy. if the average person who is not wealthy cannot even consider the possibility of being candidate for congress, house or senate, without the backing of huge special interest groups or without their own personal wealth, then we've lost something. a lost us have gotten engaged in public life many years arcs might never have considered it under today's rules because it is so expensive and so overwhelming. any person who now steps up and says i'm ready to run for congress, i'm ready to run for the senate, is introduced quickly to what's known as the power -- dialing for dollars. you sit them down in a chair and you say get on this phone and call this list and beg every person you can reach for at least $2,300, $2,500. and keep calling until the sun goes down and you start all over again tomorrow. there was a time when many of these candidates wouldn't be

sitting talking to the wealthiest givers in america, but would be out in their states in their district talking to the people whose votes they are soliciting and whose needs they ought to appreciate. that time has changed, and we can change it back. we need to have the support of the american public and the political will in both political parties to achieve it. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and i ask the president to let me know when i've used ten minutes. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mr. alexander: thank you. mr. president, last week we republican senators had an extraordinary experience that millions of americans have had and will have in the future. we spent a day at mount vernon, george washington's home, which is not more than about 40 minutes from the nation's capital. even in the middle of winter, it's a beautiful historic setting. it's hard to imagine why george

washington and martha washington would ever want to leave the place. touring the rooms, we could imagine what life must have been like then. and there were many things that impressed us and that impressed any of us when we visit there. one thing that especially impressed me was the fact that despite the beauty of the place and washington's love for farming, he was gone from mount vernon for eight and a half years during the revolutionary war. he never went home. he was always in the war. even while he was president of the united states for eight years, he was only at mount vernon ten times during those eight years. after his presidency, of course, he soon died. so he gave up quite a bit to be the president of the united states. there were other things that impressed me about our visit to mount vernon. one was the reminder that our revolution was a revolution

against a king. george washington as commander of chief of the continental army led a fight for independence from a king whom the signers of the declaration of independence stated -- quote -- "history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the states." unquote. those were our revolutionary founders talking. az press of the philadelphia -- as president of the philadelphia convention george washington presided over the writing of the united states constitution, which emphasizes, if it emphasizes any one word the idea of liberty in creating the system of government that we enjoy today. then there was another aspect to george washington, of which we were reminded, which would be good for us to think about today. and that was his modesty and restraint. george washington must have had remarkable presence. he never had to say very much apparently to command the

attention and respect of his countrymen. he likely could have been general of the army as long as he wished and president of the united states as long as he wished. but he chose not to do that. it was he who first asked to be called simply "mr. president" instead of some grand title. it was washington who gave up his commission when the war was over. and it was washington who stepped down after two terms and went home to mount vernon. in fact, that aspect of his character was imprinted upon the american character. that aspect of modesty and restraint on the part of the executive branch in a recognition that our system depends absolutely on checks and balances. i'm struck by that attitude and the different attitude that i see in the administration of president obama today, which has shown really disregard for those checks and balances and those limits on presidential power

that our founders and george washington felt were so important. this administration over three years has been arrogating more power to the executive branch of government and upsetting the delicate branch which the powers created for the purpose of what? for the purpose of guaranteeing to each of us as individuals the maximum amount of liberty. i remember senator byrd saying time and time again that the purpose of the united states senate, more than anything else, was a restraint upon the tyranny of the executive branch of government. that is our purpose as a senate. this president's executive excesses is illustrated -- are illustrated -- and they were first by the creation of more czars than the romanoffs had. we've always had some so-called czars in the white house. the drug czar, for example. but now we have three dozen of them. these czars duplicate and dilute

responsibility of cabinet members. they make it harder for the elected people -- us -- to have a supervisory role over exactly what they're doing. it's not only anti-democratic, it's a poor way to manage the government. equally disturbing to me has been this administration's use of regulation and litigation to bypass the congress and the will of the people when the congress have a different point of view. for example, the president's appointees at the national labor relations board and their decision in the boeing case, which has now been apparently resolved, but which was an enormous, an enormous abuse of power, in my opinion. and then the president has taken to blaming almost everyone for the pr-bs problems that we -- for the problems that we see in our lives today. first it was president bush. then it was the banks. then it was business. then it was the insurance company. then it was wall street. then it was 1% of us. and now it's the united states

congress, which of course is primarily run -- and a government that is primarily run by the president's own political party. and the president has taken to saying in his campaign speeches, in his state of the union address the other day, if congress won't act, i will. and he's begun to show that that's no idle threat. because now on top of those national labor relations board actions, we have the implementation of the consumer financial protection bureau in a way that's completely unaccountable to members of congress for the spending. the checks and balances that were placed in our constitution and that george washington so respected are being eroded by the actions of this administration. and this senate has always been the place, whether it was a democratic senate arguing about the appropriateness of president bush using war powers, this senate has always been the place that has insisted upon checks

and balances and the liberty of the people as guaranteed by those checks and balances. most recently the president has shown disregard for possibly the best and most important role of the senate -- at least it's the best known -- and that is its power of advice and consent of executive and judicial nominations as outlined in article 2, section 2, of the constitutions. this -- these actions, four appointments during a period of time when the senate, in my opinion, was not in session -- or was in session fly in the face of the principle of separation of powers, the concepts of checks and balances against an imperial president. let's look for a moment at the history and precedent that had to do with the appointment of these four individuals. the exact length is not defined in the constitution, but

according to the congressional research service -- quote -- "it appears that no president, at least in the modern era, has made an intra session recess appointment during a recess of less than ten days. both parties have relied upon the adjournment clause in article 1 of the constitution to argue that the absolute minimum recess period would conceiveably be three days. to be more specific, as of january of this year -- january 23 -- president obama made 32 recess appointments all to full-time positions. at the same point in time in his first term, president clinton had made nine recess appointments to full-time positions. president bush at about the same time had made 35. so they all made recess appointments, appointments while the senate was in recess. that's provided for specifically in the constitution as something the president could do. but president clinton never did

it when the congress was in session for less than ten days. president bush never did it when congress was in recess for shorter than 11 days. and president obama did it when we were in a period of less than three days. why is that important? well, in 2007, the current majority leader of the united states senate, harry reid, decided that the senate did not want president bush making recess appointments. that is, making appointments while the senate wasn't in session. so they refused, the senate did at that time, to enter into prolonged recesses. they invented the idea of pro forma recesses every three days. president bush strenuously objected to that, but he respected that. he respected the constitutional authority of the senate under article 1, section 5, to determine when the senate is in

session. on november 16, 2007, senator reid said -- quote -- "with the thanksgiving break looming, the administration has informed me that they would make several recess appointments." senator reid didn't like the idea of recess appointments any more than we do. so he said, "as a result, i am keeping the senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this back on track." the presiding officer: the senator has consumed ten minutes. mr. alexander: thank you very much. would you please let me know when i've consumed three more. on november 16, senator reid said as a result i'm keeping the senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get the process back on track. we don't need a vote in recess. we'll just be in pro forma session. we will tell the house to do the same theupblg. well, mr. president, the president is restricted as senator reid indicated by article 1, section 5 of the constitution which states neither house during session of

congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. last december when the house and senate agreed to adjourn, the speaker arcs republican, and the majority leader here, a democrat, agreed the two chambers were not going to recess but would hold pro forma sessions for the expressed purpose of not going into recess. yet, the president went ahead and made his appointments. this is a dangerous trend. it is a dangerous trend. the major issue before our country is the obama economy. that is what we'll be talking about more than anything else in an election year. but liberty is also important in our country. and if the president's current actions were to extend stands as a precedent, the senate may very well find that when it takes a break for lunch, had it comes back, the country has a new supreme court justice. because we believe in the importance of that constitutional system, all of us on the republican side insist on

a full and complete debate on this issue. we intend to take this issue to the american people. we will file amicus cure aye briefs in all of the appropriate courts and will take this issue to the most important court in the land, and that is the court of the american people on election day. i don't suggest that the president will find or even should find his relationship with congress to be easy. george washington didn't. president washington once came up here to discuss a treaty and became so angry that he said, "i'll be dammed if i go there again." the separation of spars essential to the american character. we should remember that. a short trip to mt. vernon would remind us of that. the president's recess appointments not only show show disregard for the constitution, they show disregard for every individual american who chooses

liberty over tyranny, president over king. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is currently in session. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to log the actions of the house of representatives which voted to repeal the class long-term care entitlement program that was created by the health care law. the vote yesterday in the house

of representatives was 267 in favor of repeal. it was a bipartisan vote. it was a clear, i think, message that this is a piece of legislation that needs to be taken off the books, and it is a -- it was disaster in the making from the very beginning, and many of us tried to predict that this ultimately -- the program was destined to fail. and the house of representativ representatives' vote yesterday to repeal this insolvent program i hope will pave the way for senate to follow suit. my fear has been all along that if we don't get this program off the books that at some point there will be an attempt to resurrect it. that would be the worst scenario for the american taxpayer. because this is a program that even before it was voted on and added to the health care bill was predicted would fail. the congressional budget office said that it would run deficits in the out years, the actuary at the health and human sstleses department predicted that this was a program that actuarial

just would not -- was unsound and could not be viable in the long run and it was just here in the last few months that finally the secretary of the health and human sstlesz, kathleen sebelius, came out and said that i don't see a viable path forward for class implementation. that was a statement that she made back in the middle of october. and so even the person that was tasked with implementing this program has now said, there is no viable path forward for class. and so we ought to get this off the books, mr. president. it was in fact a pay-for in the health care bill. it was designed to help understate the cost of the health care bill. it front-end loaded premiums, knowing full well that when the demands for payments came later on, it was going to be upside down and it was clearly a program that i think by any account, all who observed this process closely knew just flat wouldn't work.

but it was done. it would obscure the cost of the health care bill, helped it to sort of balance out, because it was front-end loaded, saw revenues come in in the early years before the payments went out in the later years. so i am hopeful that the united states senate will take the action that was taken by the house of representatives. we've got people on both sides of the aisle who have dhom that conclusion. there was a lot of debate even in the run jurntion the lead-up to the vote on the health care bill about how this wouldn't work. i offered an amendment during the health care debate to strip it. we had 10 democrats at the time who voted with me on that amendment and many of them made statements regarding this legislation and the implications if it were to pass. in fact, the senator from north dakota, the chairman of the senate budget committee, said at that time that this is a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that bernie madoff would have been proud of.

and he vowed to block its inclusion in the senate bill. well, it ended up in the senate bill and the overall bill. so to this day it is still a part of the health care legislation but a part that needs to be stripped out if we're going to do what's in the best interest of the american taxpayer and not put yet another unfunded liebilityd on the backs of our children and grandchildren. so you've got a lot of bipartisan support for repealing it. a lot of people who have weighed in against this know that it won't work. and you've got an awful lot of outside interest as well who have observed now that this is not something that can -- that is sustainable over time. in fact, a lot of editorial pages around the country, newspapers have weighed in on this, "the washington post," a new minimum genetic that's been designed to pretend the health care reform is fully paid for was something that they said back when this was being debated -- or i'm cork "the wall street journal" known as the acronym

"class" -- "the long-term care insurance program and the like was grafted into the health care bill most mostly to hide that bill's true cost. it has been described as a budgetary time bomb." and so it just seems to make perfect sense to me, mr. president -- and i hope to many of my colleagues -- that we take the steps that are necessary to get this program off the books once and for all. it is -- in trying to justify this there are people who say that we ought to keep it on the books in case we figure out a way to go forward with it, to implement it. it just doesn't work, it can't work. that's been known from the very outset. i want to mention just something else that the actuary at the health and human services department, rick foster, said. this was prior to this being voted on. this is a pretty powerful statement. "36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require

significant federal subsidies to continue." i want to repeat that. this is from the person who studies these -- the trends and makes sure that these programs -- or tries to make sure that these programs are actuarially sound. "36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe in this program would collapse in short sord and require significant federal subsidies to continue." that was the warning that was issued way before the vote ever occurred on the class act. he described it as a classic assessment spiral or insurance death spiral -- those are words again he used to describe this. "the program is intended to be actuarially sound but at first glass this may not be possible." those are all statements that were made by the actuary. so those of us who were here at the time and were really concerned about this being included in the health care bill came to the floor and, as i said, i offered an amendment to strip it. it came close to getting the

necessary votes but unfortunately fell a couple of votes short but had broad, bipartisan spowmplet we recognized at the time that this thing was destined to fail. and now you've got all this stuff, the studies that have been done since, that validate that by the objective sort of third-party valu validaters, ifu will. it seems to me that the american taxpayers, the american people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on the class act. are they for keeping this unviable, insolvent, actuarially unsound provision in the health care bill, which now even those who are tasked with implementing it -- the health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius, has said there's no viable path forward for its implementation -- are we going to continue to keep this thing

around or are we going to have a vote here in the united states senate to put the end to this thing once and for all? and i hope that the majority leader, senator reid, will allow us to get this up for a vote. it's been passed in the house of representatives. it's very clear, based on not only all the actuarial evidence but all the -- those who have looked at this who are tasked with trying to put it into practice, that its eight just not going to work. so i would hope that before this thing goes any furlt tha furthee will get a vote here that will echo what happened in the house of representatives and do the right thing by the moron taxpayer and get rid of a program that if it is ever resurrected 0 or reincar nateed in some form could be a terrible, terrible drain on the american taxpayers not only today but well into the future and represent yet another unfunded liability that we will put on the books of our children

and grandchildren. it is time to end the class act once and for all. i am going to continue to press for a vote on this. and i hope that majority leader reid will allow us to get a vote on repeal of the class act so the american people do know -- do know exactly where their elected officials stand and whether they're going to stand on the side of the taxpayer and stand on the side of common sense or stand on the side of using this budgetary gimmick to understate the cost of the health care bill and to perhaps at some point in the future put a plan in place that literally is not going to work and is only going to continue to lead us on a pathway to bankruptcy. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

mr. president, 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 republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i think it's pretty clear at this point that there's broad bipartisan support for legislation that provides greater transparency in congress. the more important question at this point is whether the executive branch is willing to play by the same rules. i mean, i think a lot of people out there want to know why a venture capitalist who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the president only to end up overseeing the administration's green energy loan program shouldn't be held to the same high standard as others. shouldn't the president's chief of staff be held to the same standard as a legislative director to a freshman senator? let's be honest, people are equally, if not more concerned, about the kind of cronyism they keep reading about over at the

white house and within the executive branch agencies like the department of energy that it controls. there's no question that congress should be held to a high standard. but if we're going to pass new standards here, the same standards should apply to the white house and to the executive agencies that spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money at the president's direction. and that leads to a larger point, which is this: as long as the white house and the agencies it controls continue to play favorites, this economy will never fully recover and the playing field won't ever be level. as long as washington has this much say over the direction of the economy, people won't ever feel like they're getting a fair shake. so, yes, let's hold congress to a high standard. but the white house must be held to the very same standard.

mr. president, 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 south carolina is recognized. mr. graham: i would ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak in morning business and have the quorum call terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: let me know when five minutes has passed. the presiding officer: actually, speaking in morning business also. mr. graham: if you would let me know when five minutes have passed, i would appreciate it. the topic i would like to address is the class act repeal being taken up by the house. i understand that labor-h.h.s. secretary has indicated that from her point of view the class act will not work, and this is music to my ears. during the obama health care debate, one of the revenue raisers was the class act where the federal government would be in the long-term health care insurance business, and supposedly we would be collecting premiums over a decade that would allow like $80 billion or something in revenue that would help pay for

obama health care, but eventually you would have to honor the payments due to people who are on the program, and senator conrad from north dakota called the class act a ponzi scheme of the first order, because what you would be doing under the program is collect premiums for an insurance product, use the money to help pay for obama health care, and when the people who are ready to get their services that they have paid for, there would be no money in the program to pay them because it's used to offset obama health care costs, and it's just not a practical idea. the costs would explode over time. there would be adverse selection. the house is moving to repeal it, the labor-h.h.s. secretary said they would not implement the program. i hope the senate will allow repeal so we can take it offer the table and it's a reason for congress to revisit the affordable health care act, obama health care because one of the components of the

legislation relied upon the revenue to be collected by the class act to offset the cost of obama health care, trying to make it revenue neutral. that is no longer a viable option, the money to be collected by the class act is never going to happen so that money cannot be used to make the legislation deficit neutral. so this is a chance for the senate working with the house to repeal the program, and i think it would be wise for us all to sit down and try to re-evaluate what does does this mean in terms of the vie viability of te affordable health care act because the asumses about the class act are never going to come true. i've been working with senator thune for a very long time to keep this program from coming about and i would like to say this is a bipartisan 340e789 where -- moment where we've stopped a program that would have devastating effectlong long-term on the country's finances and do very little to

improve health care. so i want to, one, congratulate the labor-h.h.s. secretary for understanding this program is under sound and i would like to make sure it is repealed and i think congress should be the body to do that. but this is good news for the taxpayer, and it's good news for the country as a whole that we're not going to allow a program could be created, that's unsustainable, will add to the debt and do very little to take care of our mcneeds. it was a ponzi scheme that needs to be buried politically as soon as possible. so i look forward to taking up the house-passed legislation. i hope we can get bipartisan support in the senate to make sure that what labor secretary sebelius said never happens the class act nevada becomes reality -- never becomes reality because it's unwise, poorly constructed program. this is a chance for the senate to come together and do something about it with our house colleagues. so with that i yield the floor and note 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 connecticut is recognized. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to, and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and i note the presence on the floor of the distinguished

senator from delaware, to whom i am pleased to yield. mr. coons: thank you, senator lieberman. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise to speak out on behalf of tens of thousands of delawarans affected by domestic violence each year as well as their families, their friends and their allies across our state and across our country. just a few minutes ago, my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee took up the reauthorization of the violence against women act. it has earned strong bipartisan support through the nearly two decades since its original passage and it was voted out earlier today. law enforcement agencies across this country are counting on us to move forward with the violence against women act

reauthorization depending on the training and the resources to advocate for victims and to provide critical and life-saving interventions that it funds. as i asked for input from delawarans in the last few weeks, one of the hundreds who took the time to write or call my office in strong support of the reauthorization of was a former new castle police officer. he i mailed to tell me he had seen firsthand the innovative policing methods made possible by. the violence against women act, mr. president has been extraordinarily effective with the incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50% since it was first passed yet we still have so far to go. just this week i heard from hundreds of constituents in delaware for whom this legislation has a deep and

resounding importance. from young women in their 20's to senior citizens. delawarans from all walks of life have reached out to ask us as members of the senate to take action without delay, to work with our colleagues in the house, and to reauthorize this most important bill. i quote from paul from york, delaware, who wrote to say as the father of two young daughters he worries that if the violence against women act isn't reauthorized, victims of sexual assault will once again be subject to two traumas. first, horrific attacks, and second, trying to pursue justice against their attackers. linda from new castle, delaware, had the courage to write me personally and said -- quote -- "first of all, i am a victim and i am not ashamed to say that today" unquote. linda's willingness to lift the cloud of fear and shame that enveloped domestic and dating violence, first it is important she was able and willing to do

today but she highlights the ongoing challenges we face. she described her hesitation to discuss abuse out loud and stressed the importance of talking about these crimes in the open in order to break what she called the generational curse. as a son, as a husband, as a father, i, too, am deeply concerned about this curse that has moved from generation to generation and has affected families all throughout this country's history. evils like domestic violence thrive in darkness. the violence against women act is a spotlight. and it deserves to be strengthened and sustained by this senate today and this year. the violence against women act requires -- reauthorization every five years. this signifies a belief that protecting women is so important that we must revisit it to make sure we're getting it right. each time we go through the

process of reauthorizing this bill, we learn more about what's needed and this the time around that process i believe has resulted in several critical enhancements. first, by bolstering the tools available to law enforcement, along with my friend and colleague senator blunt, i co-chair the senate law enforcement caucus and i'm concerned to ensure local agencies have the tools that they need to support victims and to prosecute abusers. this reauthorization will do just that. second, our review made clear that perpetrators find their victims throughout our society without regard for sexual orientation or gender identity. so the reauthorization that was passed out of the judiciary committee just earlier today addresses that challenge by making this the very first federal grant program to explicitly state grant recipients can't discriminate on the basis of a victim's status whether they are or are not a member of the lgbt community should be irrelevant to whether they are able to access the vital services funded by vawa.

finally, this reauthorization recognizes our current difficult fiscal situation as a country and promotes accountability to make sure these dollars are well spent. it reduces authorization levels while protecting the programs which have been most successful. this vawa reauthorization merges 13 existing grant programs into four streamlined and consolidated programs. will prevent wasted time and effort and make the application and add minimum strafes processes more efficient. i'm honored to be joined in the gallery by a dear friend, a former countywide poftion, paulette moore, and i'm grateful to my dear friend carol post who leads the delaware coalition to end domestic violence and my friend amy barish a tireless advocate in the ongoing efforts to bring an end to dmoask violence in the state of new york. there are folks all over this

country who turn to this task week in and week out. it is long and tiring and difficult work but it is uplifting because it is part of making this a more just, more safe, and more secure nation. it is important for me to note, mr. president, that, unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see the enhancements i just referred to in this reauthorization as a reason to abandon their long-term support for it. even though they've been strong backers of vawa in the past. in fact, the vote we just took in the judiciary committee was 10-8. it only narrowly passed. i hope there are friends on the other side of the aisle will review the details of these changes one more time and see their way clear to join us in this effort to strengthen and strean the -- sustain the violence against women act. it should and should remain a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan effort. my predecessor in this seat,

our great vice president, joe biden of delaware, took an absolutely central leadership role in writing and passing the first violence against women act in one of the most enduring legacies of his 36-year senate career, representing delaware and advocating for women all over this country. his efforts broke barriers and late the groundwork for this current bill but it is up to all of us to keep pushing tirelessly for federal, state and local governments to do more to save lives and to serve victims. i urge my colleagues to come together and promptly pass the reauthorization of the violence against women act. thank you, mr. president. and thank you to the men and women of this country who work so hard to end this terrible scourge of domestic violence in our country. i yield the floor. and, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

' quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask consent the call

of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments listed employee be the remaining amendments in the bill before the senate. paul 1487, lieberman, side by side with shelby, 1491, shelby, 1491 as modified, lieberman side by side to paul, that's 1485, paul again 1485 as modified, executive and judicial, collins side by side to boxer, boxer-isakson, portman -- boxer-isakson is 1489. portman 1505, toomey toomey-mccaskill, 1472, inhofe 1500, mccain 1471, leahy-cornyn 1483, coburn 1473, demint, 1488, grassley 1493, brown of ohio 1481. as modified. that all other pending

amendments be withdrawn from -- with the exception of a substitute amendment, that the time until 2:00 p.m. be for debate on the bill and amendments with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 2:00 p.m., the senate proceed to votes in relation to amendments in the order that i have just listed. there be no amendments or points of order to any of the amendments prior to the votes other than budget points of order. that the following amendments be subject to a 50-vote affirmative threshold -- paul 1487, collins collins -- following amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative vote threshold -- paul 1487, collins side by side to boxer 1489, boxer at 1489 as modified, blumenthal 1498, toomey-mccaskill, inhofe 1500, leahy 1483, demint 1488, grassley 1493, brown 1481. further, that the coburn amendment 1473 be subject to a two-thirds affirmative vote

threshold. that there be two minutes equally divided in between the votes, that all after the first vote be ten minutes in duration. upon disposition of the amendments listed, the substitute amendment as amended if amended be agreed to and the senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i would say the mere fact that we now have rights to vote doesn't mean people have to have recorded votes. there are other ways of either rejecting or approving the votes, so i would hope that people would talk to senators lieberman and collins to find out if there needs to be a recorded vote on these matters, and i appreciate very much both sides' cooperation on this. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 2038, which the clerk will report. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the clerk: 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. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 2:00 p.m. is equally divided. the senior senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. you can see i'm eager to get going on the bill. i thank the majority leader, and i want to thank senator collins, senator brown, senator gillibrand, a lot of others who work to get us to -- worked to get us to this point where we can do two things. most important to us who worked on the stock act is that we're now -- have reached this afternoon -- in reach this afternoon of adopting a clear statement that members of congress and our staffs are covered by antiinsider trading trading -- anti-insider trading rules and that we can also provide for a fuller disclosure by members here that is more accessible to the public online. but instead of coming to a point where the system broke down again and senator reid was

forced to file a cloture petition, we have worked out an agreement here. people were reasonable and there will be votes on a number of germane amendments and some that are not germane but have agreed to a 60-vote threshold. so this is the way i think the senate is supposed to work. some of these votes are going to be controversial, some difficult, but that's why we're here. i thank everybody who was part of geting to this point. i note the presence of the -- my friend from massachusetts, senator brown, and i yield to him at this time. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i also want to stand up and commend the majority leader for allowing this process to unfold in a thoughtful and fair manner, the way it should be. we're starting the new year off correctly, allowing everybody to feel like they are participating in the democratic process, not moving for cloture, shutting off debates, filling the amendment tree, but actually allowing us

to get -- state here late, work together in a bipartisan -- truly bipartisan manner to work through the amendments, allowing me and senator collins and on their side senator lieberman and gillibrand to call the individual members and say hey, you have got four up. really, what ones do you want? is there some modification here or can we combine amendments with other amendments that are very similar? this is how it's supposed to work. this is what i have been saying for the last two years and why i have continuously moved to work across the aisle to allow that democratic process to work. so i'm thankful that we're here at this point. there are some tough votes, but you know what? we're in the united states senate and we should be taking tough votes. that's why the people sent us here. i'm thankful that we can send the message to the american people that we're trying to re-establish that trust that seems to have been lost with them by moving on the stock act. there are some other issues we're taking up, and i hope that just -- they are just as thoughtful and methodical and

respectful. i hope we will be doing the postal bill next. it's something once again that senators lieberman, collins, carper and i have spearheaded. it's a good, solid bill. it's a good framework to start. i'm looking for that process to be similar. if we allow that to move forward and everybody has their kind of say and day in the sun, we can have that one good deed as we have done today beget another good deed and so on and so forth, and who knows, maybe we'll be in double figures in terms of the approval rating pretty soon. i want to thank you for your consideration, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: