i understand that we have got to change the law, but i am hoping that we can change it in a constructive way. opening up the sale of stocks and securities to everyone who can pull up a chair and open a laptop is not in the best interests of investors across america. it's certainly not in the best interests of many americans who would find themselves losing their life savings and any investment funds that they might have in the process. making certain that the people who sell these stocks are in fact registered and credible, making certain that the statements they make can be backed up with hard evidence as opposed to a promise, making sure as well that we have in the process of this undertaking, the safeguards in place so that there won't be excessive -- as i said yesterday -- irrational exuberance that leads to the failure of any marketplace of securities. that to me is the best thing that we can achieve.

these two items i've entered into the record i think establish both from mary shapiro, chairman of the securities and exchange commission as well as professor coffey, the case for being careful. let's not jump on this freight train and watch it as it plows into a barricade. let's make certain what we do is thoughtful, it does engender economic growth but not at the expense of the integrity of america's financial markets or the expense of innocent investors. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent senators are permitted to speak as if in morning business for the next 90 minutes with the majority controlling the first 45 minutes with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes and the republicans controlling the final 45 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. ms. klobuchar: i'm honored to be here today with the women

senators to talk about the reauthorization of the violence against women act. a law that has a history of passing this chamber with broad bipartisan support. i would note that there are many authors of this bill. i think up to something like 58 authors currently and the women that are speaking today include myself and senator feinstein, senator hagan, senator mikulski, mr. senator murray, senator boxer, also intorg the bill are senator collins and snowe and senator mccaskill, stabenow and gillibrand. the bill is led by senator leahy and senator crapo so we're here to pledge our support for this bill and ask our colleagues to move forward for this bill. the violence against women was a landmark bill when it first became law in 1984. back then it started a sea change in it is a tiewdz and sent a strong message to the

country saying that sexual assault and domestic violence are serious offenses that will not be tolerated. we heard that message loud and clear in my state, and i'm proud to say that our state has always had a strong tradition of standing up against these crimes. in fact, no conversation in our state about domestic abuse would be complete without mentioning former senator paul wellstone and his wife sheila, who we miss dearly. the wellstones put so much time and energy into bringing these issues out of the shadows into taking a subject that many people considered at the time a family matter and saying, you know, what? domestic violence isn't just something we can sweep under a rug. it's a crime, it hurts families, it hurts children, and we're going to do something about it. and while i led the prosecutor's office in hennepin county, minnesota for eight years, we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and atlantic the

children's needs in domestic violence cases. because it doesn't take a bruise or broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. kids who witness domestic violence are victims, too. we had a poster up on the wall in our office, madam president, a poster of a woman with a band-aid on her nose holding a baby, it said beat your wife, your kid goes to jail. you know why? the statistics show kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence themselves. it's a sobering number, and over all, the statistics for these kinds of crimes are staggering. more than one in three women in the united states have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. and every year, close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. so once again, this is not just a family matter.

this is a matter of life and death, and not just for the victims but oftentimes for the law enforcement officers who are all too often caught in the line of fire. i've seen this in my own state. in fact, i saw it just a few months ago when i attended the funeral of sean schneider, a young police officer in lake city, membership. he died after responding to a domestic violence call. a 17-year-old girl was being abused by her boyfriend. when officer schneider arrived at the scene he was shot in the head. he literally gave his life to save another. i attended that funeral, madam president, and i still remember those three little children, the two boys and the little girl with the blue dress with stars on it going down the aisle of the church. and he you see -- when you see that, you realize the victims of domestic violence not aren't just the immediate victims, it is an entire family, it is an

entire community. so we know all too well just how dwast stais stating domestic -- devastating domestic violence can be to victims and entire communities. six years ago we passed a a reauthorization bill out of the judiciary committee, and the bill has the support of 58 senators, including six republicans. i'm glad that this bill has continued to attract bipartisan support. i wish it was unanimous. just seven years ago, in fact, the reauthorization bill passed the house by a vote of 415-4 and it passed the senate by unanimous consent with 18 republican cosponsors. i know that this year some of my republican colleagues on the judiciary committee are not supportive of this bill, but it is my hope that while they may disagree with the bill, they will not stop this bipartisan bill from advancing. combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue that we should all be able to agree on. many of the provisions in the

reauthorization bill made important changes to the current law. the bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. it provides flexibility by adding more purpose areas to the list of allowable uses. it has training for people providing legal assistance to victims and takes steps to address the high rates in native american communities. the bill also fills some gaps in the system and i'm pleased to say it includes the legislation that i introduced with senator kay bailey hutchison to address high tech stalking where stalkers use the internet, video surveillance and bugging to stalk their victims. the bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. just as with physical stalk, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. we need our tools for our law

enforcement to be as sophisticated as those who are breaking the law. now, i can tell you i want to end with this, i snow senator feinstein is coming -- i know senator feinstein is coming soon and a number of women who will be speaking today but i want to remind everybody in this chamber that domestic violence takes its toll. one of the most memorable cases i had in our office when our office prosecuted a case of a woman dmild eden prairie, minnesota. she was a russian immigrant, her husband was a russian immigrant, didn't have many friends in the communities. she was most likely a domestic violence victim for many, many years. one day this man killed his wife. he then took her body parts down to missouri. he left some of the body parts there and the entire time he had their 4-year-old daughter in the car with him. he then drove back to minnesota, confessed to the crime. and when they had the funeral,

there was only me, our domestic violence advocate, and the grandparents that had come to russia and this woman's identity twin sister. what had happened at the airport when they arrived was that this little 4-year-old girl who had never seen her aunt, who had never seen her mother's identity twin sister, ran down that hallway when she saw her aunt the first time and hugged her and said mommy, mommy, mommy, because she thought that her mom was back. it reminds us all that domestic violence isn't just about one victim. it's about children, it's about family, and it's about a community. and we all know that this bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. the women of the senate know it, there are already three republican women on this bill and many others, i hope to come. we believe in this bill, we ask our colleagues to support this

bill. i see that my colleague, senator feinstein, is here, and i know that as a member of the judiciary committee she and i are the only two women members of the judiciary committee. she that has taken a lead on this issue for many, many years. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i want to thank the senator from minnesota for her remarks. for a long time i had been the only woman on the judiciary committee, and i'm just delighted that she is there as well. and that we share the same point of view with respect to this bill. i rise today to urge the republican leadership of the senate to allow this piece of legislation that protects american women from the plague -- and it is a plague -- of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence, and sexual assault, to come to the floor of this

senate for a vote. i was in the judiciary committee, i voted for the original violence against women act. it was authorized for six years. we reauthorized it. it served another six years. and now the bill is up for reauthorization. it came out surprisingly from the judiciary committee on a split vote. and, unfortunately, that was a split party vote. i might say i was stunned by this vote because never before had there been any controversy in all of more than a decade and a half, in all of this time about this bill. this act is the centerpiece of the federal government's effort to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. and it has actually impacted positively response to these

crimes at the local, state, and federal level and i hope to show this. the bill authorizes a number of grant programs administered by the department of justice and health and human services to provide funding for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. as a matter of fact, i was thinking last night when i was mayor of san francisco back in the early 1980's, i started the first home for battered women, which was casa de las madre sanch and it was such a critical need. women being battered had no place to go and often stayed in the home there where they were battered again and again. this bill also provides support for state agencies, rape crisis centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable

women. and american women are safer because we took action. today, more victims report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53% since this bill went into effect in 1994. these figures are from the department of justice. so here we have a 53% decrease in the rate of nonfatal partner violence. the need for the services was highlighted in a recent survey by the centers -- centers for disease control which found on average 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the united states. 24 a minute by an intimate

partner in the united states. over the course of the year now that equates to more than 12 million women and men. in california, my state, 30,000 people access crisis intervention services from one of california's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and 2011. these centers primarily rely on federal violence against women act funding, not state funding, to provide services to victims in communities. in 2009 alone, there were more than 167 -- excuse me, 167,000 cases in california in which local, county, or state police officers were called to the scene of a domestic violence complaint. 167,000 cases. that's many. despite the fact that the

underlying bill has 58 cosponsors from both parties, not a single republican member of the judiciary committee voted to advance the legislation. now, the bill that came out of judiciary does have some changes, and i want to talk about them for a moment. it creates one very modest new grant program. it consolidates 13 existing programs. it reduces authorization levels for all other programs by nearly 20%. and the savings, 17%, the bill is reduced in cost by 17%. that's $136 million. it encourages effective enforcement of protective orders, and that's a big probl problem. women get protective orders and they're violated because they're

want enforced -- not enforced. and it reduces the national backlog of untested rape kits, a real problem if a jurisdiction can't test a rape kit. yet there's some who refuse to support it because it now includes expanded protections for victims. and let me put this on the table. the bill includes lesbian and gay men. the bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. the bill gives native american tribes authority to prosecute crimes. in my view, these are improvements. domestic violence is domestic viems violencviolence. i ask my friends on the other side. if the victim in a same-sex relationship is the -- is the violence any less real, is the

danger any less real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? i don't think so. if a family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, well, you're illegal, i'm sorry, you don't deserve any protection? 911 operators, police officers don't refuse to help a victim because of their sexual orientation or the country where they were born or their immigration status. when you call the police in america, they come, regardless of who you are. the violence against women reauthorization act of 2011 is supported by 50 national religious organizations, including the presbyterian church, the episcopal church, the evangelical lutheran church, the national council of jewish women, the national council of catholic women, and united church of christ, and the united

methodist church. so i go back to my days as mayor and seeing over and over again, up-close and personal, in a city what happens because of domestic violence. i see police getting killed when they go into a domestic violen violence. we had a number of funerals of police officers in oakland which i attended, and it all stemmed from domestic violence. so to defeat this bill is almost to say, we don't need to consider violence against women. it's not an important issue. it is. it's not a partisan issue. it never has been in this body. , which is why, candidly, i'm surprised that i find myself on the floor urging that this bill be brought to the floor, because it's been historically, through two reauthorizations, a

bipartisan bill. you can't help but notice this isn't the first time when a policy that would specifically imperil the health and safety of american women has compelled some of us to come to this floor and speak out on behalf of american women. i hope that this bill is not part of a march and that march, as i see it, over the past 20 years has been to cut back on rights and services to women. and i mean that most sincerely. i have never seen anything like it. when i came here, there were discussions over roe v. wade. when i first went on the judiciary committee, which was in 1993, i heard it, there were debates over supreme court opinions, casey et al. then there were debates over partial-birth abortion.

then this year we fought against the blunt amendment, which would have effectively allowed employers to arbitrarily combine four pages -- decline to provide four pages of critical preventive health care services for wet. you know, we've had to fight for the simplest thing. i think young women forget that it took until 1920 for women to get to vote in this country, and it was only because women fought for it. and we have fought since the country was established for the right to -- to vote, for the right to inherit property, for the right to go to school. and now we fight for our rights to have sufficient service from the government with respect to our health. so now i'm here to fight for a bill that strengthens laws and protects women against domestic violence and sexual assault. to me, this bill is a no-brain

no-brainer. it has the support of both sides of the aisle. it's bipartisan. it saves lives. it is a lifeline for women and children who are in distress, who have no place to go o other than to stay and to submit to domestic violence abuse. and no one can say i'm exaggerating. trust me, i have seen it. i've seen the bruised bodies up-close and personal. and this bill has reduced the number of assaults, domestic assaults, on women. the record indicates that. it should be continued. it's a no-brainer. i hope it's brought to the flo floor. i hope we maintain a bipartisan vote, and i hope it's reauthorized. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, senator feinstein. we've now been joined by the senator from washington, senator murray, who's been longtime

fighting for domestic violence bills. thank you. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, thank you so much. and i want to thank my colleague from california, senator feinstein, for her longtime advocacy on this. and to our colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar, for leading the effort this year to reauthorize this critically important bill to protect women in this country from violence. i was very proud to be here with the senator from california back in 1994 when we first passed the violence against women act or vawa, as we call it, which created this national strategy for dealing with domestic violence. and since we took that first historic step, vawa has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates and social service providers and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence. this law has helped provide lifesaving assistant to hundreds of thousands of women and their

families. it's been supported by democrats and republicans along with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victims' service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. vawa has attained such broad support for one reason -- it's worked. since it became law 18 years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 53%. and while incidents have gone down, reporting of violence and abuse has gone up. more victims are finally coming forward and more women and families are getting the support and the care they need to move themselves out of dangerous situations. as a result of the language in this law, every single state has made stalking a crime and they've all strength ends criminal rape -- strengthened criminal rape statutes. madam president, we have made a lot of progress since 1994 but

we still have a long way to go. every single minute, 24 people across america are victims of violence by an intimate partner. more than 12 million people a year. 45% of the women killed in this country die at the hands of their partner. and in one day last year, victims of domestic violence made more than 10,000 requests for supports and services that could not be met because programs didn't have the resources. that's why i was so proud to cosponsor and strongly support the violence against women reauthorization act, and it's why i join my colleagues today in prouding expressing our hope that we can move this critical legislation when possible. this is a bipartisan bill that will advance our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assaults, and stalking. it will give our law enforcement agencies the support they need

to enforce and prosecute those crimes, and it will give communities and nonprofits the much-needed resources to support victims of violence. and most importantly, to keep working to stop violence before it ever starts. madam president, this bill was put forward in a bipartisan fashion. it is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations that deal with this issue every day. it consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs. it adds accountability to make sure tax money is well spent. it builds on what works in the current law, improves what does not, and will help our country continue on the path of reducing violence towards women. and, madam president, it should not be controversial. we reauthorized this law last time here in the senate unanimously by voice vote, and president bush signed it into

law with democrats standing there with him. so i am really hopeful that the bipartisan approach to this issue continues today as we work to reauthorize this law once again, because, madam president, this shouldn't be about politics. protecting women against violence should not be a partisan issue. so i want to thank the democrats and republicans who've worked together to write this bill. i'm very glad it passed through committee. i stand ready to support this bill when it comes to the floor. and i truly hope we can get president obama for his signature in a timely fashion so women and families across this country can get the resources and support that this law will deliver. finally, madam president, i just have to say, many of us women have come to this floor so many times over the last few weeks to fight back against attempts to turn back the clock when it comes to women's health care, as the senator from california just talked about. i'm disappointed that these issues keep coming up. but i know i stand with millions of men and women across america

who remain ready to defend the gains we have made over the last 50 years and who think we should be moving forward protecting and supporting more women and families, not moving backwards. that's what this bill does. thank you, madam president. thank you for your leadership. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina is recognized. mrs. hagan: i want to thank our presiding officer or bringing this forward and the other comments from the senator from washington and the senator from california are really highlighting the issue as that we're talking about. but i am proud to join my colleagues to support the violence against women reauthorization act. and i stand here today, during national women's history month, to urge my colleagues to take swift action on a bill that's critical to the well-being of women, our families, and our country. as hillary clinton declared more than 15 years ago in beijing at the fourth world conference on women, "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are

human rights." if we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families, too. it is disheartening in the last several months that petty partisanship and gamesmanship has held up policies critical to women's health, including this act. since its original passage in 1994, the bill has made tremendous progress in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. the bill has transformed our criminal justice system and victim support services. it has encouraged collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals, and community organizations to prevent and respond to domestic partner violence. and it has funded programs, such as services training officers, prosecutors. it is training officers and prosecutors, and these are

called stop grants, and they are used to train personnel, training, technical assistance and other equipment to better apprehend and prosecute individuals who commit violence, crimes against women. unfortunately, until congress takes action on the violence against women reauthorization act, the well-being of women across our country hangs in the balance. i see this as a serious lapse in our responsibility as u.s. senators. and as a mother of two daughters, i am here to tell you that this reauthorization cannot wait. the rates of violence and abuse in our country are astounding and unacceptable. according to a 2010 c.d.c. survey, domestic violence alone affects more than 12 million people each year. in the year leading up to the c.d.c.'s study, 1.3 million women were raped. and this study shows that women are severely affected bisexual violence -- affected by sexual

violence, intimate partner violence and stalking, with 1-4 women falling victim to severe physical violence by an intimate partner. domestic violence also haze significant -- also has a significant impact on our country's health, costing our health system alone over $8.3 billion each year. the reauthorization of this act strengthens and streamlines crucial existing programs that really protect women. in fact, title 5 of the reauthorization includes a bill that i sponsored titled "violence against women health initiative," and this legislation consolidates three existing health-focused programs while strengthening the health care system's response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. this initiative fosters public health responses to domestic violence and sexual violence. it provides training and education to help the health

professionals respond to what they're seeing from violence and abuse, and it supports research on effective public health approaches to end violence against women. since my time in the north carolina state senate where i served ten years, i have been dedicated to combating violence against women. while i was a state senator, i led the effort to ensure that local law enforcement tested rape kits to convict the perpetrators of sexual assault. it was astounding to me to discover that after a woman had been raped and she had an examination where d.n.a. was collected, that that rape kit test would actually sit on a shelf at a sheriff or a plagues plagues -- police station and would not be analyzed. sadly, the evidence would only be analyzed if a woman could identify her attacker. what other victims in america have to identify their attacker before law authorities will take action? when i first discovered this and

brought it up, i was told there was not enough money for every rape kit to be tested. well, we soon found the money, but there are states today that still have these rape kits sitting on shelves unanalyzed. so for all of the progress we have made, combating violence against women must continue to be a priority and it must be a priority in every state in the country. so as i take the floor today in support of the violence against women's reauthorization act, it is fitting to recognize one of our fiercest advocates for women's rights. my colleague and mentor, senator barbara mikulski who on saturday will become the longest female senator in history. senator mikulski has been a strong and unwavering voice for women, families and the people of her state of maryland. she shepherded through the lilly ledbetter act which helps ensure

that no matter your gender, race, religion, age or disability, one will receive equal pay for equal work and she fought tenaciously for her important amendment to the health care reform legislation ensuring that preventative care would be covered with no out-of-pocket expense. i thank senator mikulski for her mentorship, her leadership and her fierce advocacy for women's rights. i look forward to continuing to work alongside senator mikulski and my colleagues here today to promote policies that support our women, our children, our families and to put them on a path to a brighter future. madam president, the violence against women's reauthorization act is central to this goal, and i urge my colleagues to take this bill up and pass it without delay. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i am proud to be able to stand today to speak about the violence against women act in joining with some of my colleagues here on the floor. this is legislation that i have supported in the past and look forward to supporting again. as we talk about those issues that women care about, no surprise to most. we're talking about what's happening with the price of gas, what it costs to fill up the car tank. we're talking about the quality of our children's education. we're talking about the postal service in alaska. we had a military town hall. i met with some of the military spouses. and let me tell you, they were really quite concerned that some of the facilities that they access are -- are perhaps in jeopardy. we care about the security of our jobs, our spouses' jobs, our friends', our neighbors' jobs,

all that goes into working in a small business. we certainly care about our country's fiscal situation and the very dire situation that we are in. but something else that we all care about is -- is the violence, the assaults that women often endure, their sisters, their daughters, their neighbors, their friends, and the violence against women act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, that they are not alone. this is a promise that resources and expertise are available to prosecute those who would torment them, and also a reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation and transition to a more stable one. it's one of the greatest importance that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are confident that there is a safety net available to address them and their immediate

survival needs as well as the needs of their children. only on this level of confidence can one muster the courage to leave an abusive situation. these are some of the promises that are contained within the violence against women act. there are some additional reasons that i feel as strongly as i do about the reauthorization of this act, and it relates to the safety of the people in my state of alaska. unfortunately, in as beautiful a state as i live in, our statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific. they are as ugly as they come. nearly one in two alaska women have experienced partner violence. nearly one in three have experienced sexual violence. overall, nearly six in ten alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. in alaska, our rate of forcible

rape from between 2003-2009 was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. and, madam president, unfortunately, very tragically, about 9% of alaska mothers reported physical abuse by their husband or partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months prior to pregnancy. we have to do all that we can to get a handle on these tragic statistics, because as we know, they are more than just statistics. these are -- these are the lives of our friends, our neighbors, our daughters, and the violence against women act presents the tools to do so. in the villages of rural alaska, oftentimes victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence face some pretty unique challenges. many of these villages have no full-time law enforcement presence whatsoever, nobody to turn to, no safehouse, no place

to go. a single community health aide must tend to every crisis within the community, including caring for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. oftentimes, they don't have the tools that they need, they don't have the rape kits, they don't have the training. oftentimes, you will have a situation where weather can prove an impediment to getting the victim on an airplane, out of the village to one of the shelters in a rural hub. you've got to remember, in most of my communities, 80% of the communities, there is no road out, there is no way to get out. so if you have been violated and there is no law enforcement and there is no shelter and there is nowhere to go, what do you do? basically, the victim is stranded in her own community with the perpetrator for potentially days before help can arrive. the violence against women act i think is a ray of hope for those who service victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages. it devotes increased resources

to rural and isolated communities. it recognizes alaska village public safety officer program as law enforcement so that vawa funds can be directed to providing a full-time law enforcement presence in places that currently have none. and it establishes a framework to restart the alaska rural justice and law enforcement commission. this is an important forum for coordination between law enforcement and our alaska native leaders to abate, discourage domestic violence and sexual assault. madam president, i, too, believe that the senate needs to take up the violence against women act, but i do feel strongly that we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. i'm a cosponsor of this bill. i know some of my colleagues have some concerns, and i have said that we need to take these concerns into account so that we can have, we should have an overwhelming bipartisan bill. this is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it.

madam president, i know there are others who wish to speak, and i appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues in the few minutes that you have given me. thank you. ms. okeechobee: i thank the senator from alaska. we now have -- how much time left? the presiding officer: five minutes. ms. klobuchar: five minutes to be divided between senator mikulski, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i strongly urge that the violence against women act come up to the floor so that we could look at the issues and debate them in an obey and public forum, and if people have amendments to either add or subtract from the bill or improve the bill, let's do it because this is really a compelling situation. i have been here since we have passed that first bill. in 1994, the original architect was senator joe biden, now our vice president. why did we do it?

it's a compelling need. one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence. 16 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. 23 million will be victims of physical or sexual violence. 20,000 in my own state of maryland. since we created the legislation in 1994, the hotline, the national hotline has received over one million calls. when women felt that they were in danger, danger, so that one million -- those one million people had a chance of being rescued. and who was the biggest request for passing the violence against women? it is not only the women of america, it is also local police. one out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are

responding to domestic violence. they love the lethality index. when they go to a home, they have a checklist to determine how dangerous is that situation? is it simply a spat or a dispute or are they in the danger zone? madam president, we debate big issues -- war and peace, the deficit. all these are important. but we have got to remember our communities and our families, and i think if you are beaten and abused, you should be able to turn to your government to either be rescued and put you on the path and also to have those very important programs early on to do prevention and intervention. i fund this bill. i stand ready to support the passage of the bill and putting the money in the checkbook to support it. i ask unanimous consent my full statement be in the record. maryland has done such a good job. i want to leave time for other

senators. i'm going to yield the floor, but i will not yield on this issue. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act. it provides essential services to women and families across the united states, and i have seen it in my home state of new hampshire where one program that i want to talk about funds services, training officers and prosecution. it is called stop. it provides law enforcement the tools they need to combat domestic violence. this was a life-saving service for a woman from new hampshire named kathy who was in an abusive relationship for six years. she was being -- kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving her with black eyes and bruises. once her partner mark threw her down the stairs.

things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed on, and one day mark grabbed kathy by the throat, lifted her up off the floor and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of their 3-year-old child. this was the last straw. kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her call the local police. kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and mark was charged with assault. but as is often the case civil procedures overwhelmed and frustrated kathy so at times she even considered dropping the whole thing. but fortunately funding from the violence against women act made it possible for kathy to have an attorney who could help her, and thanks to this assistance from stop, from the violence against women act, kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children as well as support

payments and was ultimately able to make a fresh start free from abuse. this body should not be divided on this issue. i'm so pleased to have senator murkowski join us on the floor today to point out that this is a bipartisan issue. the presiding officer: the majority's time has expired. mrs. shaheen: by like to submit my entire statement for the record and urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: it's hard to believe we're having a debate in 2012 about protecting women sister sphr from violence but i ask unanimous consent to place my full statement in the record and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: let me return to the pending business before the senate, the jobs act. at a moment when millions of americans are looking for work, we have an opportunity to do something in a bipartisan way that will actually help job

creators and entrepreneurs. despite all the hype about economic improvements, we're still experiencing the slowest and weakest recovery since the great depression. more than 45 million americans are on food stamps. unemployed has been -- unemployment has been higher than 8% for three years. there are 700,000 fewer jobs today than when president obama took office. 700,000 fewer jobs today. and on top of that, of course, gas prices are skyrocketing. as i noted on monday, the president is painting i believe a too rosy picture of the economy when he's out campaigning. he stated there had been 24 consecutive moves of private sector job growth but i'd like to note how the numbers tell a different story. economists generally agree that for employment to just hold even, about 150,000 jobs need to be created each month in order to employ the new people, the new entrants into the job

market or the work force. and these include people like those who have recently graduated, those who have concluded military service, or other family obligations, about 150,000 each month. so that number of jobs has to be created just to stay even. so the logical question to ask is how many of the last 24 months saw job growth above 150,000? and the answer is only ten of those 24 months. in other words, job creation has been high enough to keep pace with the new force entrants only ten months out of the last two years. in fact, private sector job creation was lower this february than it was in january. this is a according to a chart on the president's own campaign web site. we clearly need better policy to put people back to work, legislation that will actually spur job creation. practically every bill that's come to the floor in the last three years has been labeled a

jobs bill but to orwellian affect, even obamacare and dodd-frank which imposed massive new costs on business were called jobs bills by their supporters. but finally with the jobs act now pending, we have a rare occasion to pass a bill that republicans and democrats agree will help create jobs. the house overwhelmingly passed the bill 3 0u9d 23 -- 390-23, majorities in both parties and the president has issued a statement endorsing the legislation. so this is something we should move forward with. the jobs act will demonstrate to entrepreneurs and job crears we -- creators we value what they do. we want them to gain access to capital and lift others up as they become successful. america has many dynamic companies and fast growing businesses with the potential to create many more. the people behind successful companies are driven by the

satisfaction that comes from creating and innovating and solving problems and in in many cases providing products or proifd services that improve our quality of life. this is a good thing. it deserves our support. good public policy hurdles to opportunity -- on the other hand, need solutions and this bill will help to solve some of this by getting those hurdles out of the way. for example, the jobs act will cut red cape that burdens startup companies. and a reduction in the costly integrity burdens contained in the sarbanes-oxley 404-b accounting rules. companies can spend less time on paperwork and more time on raising capital, growing their businesses. these are companies that have the potential to be the next groupon, yelp or linkedn and all of which had recent initial

public offerings. the jobs act would enhance capital formation needed to build new businesses, expand existing businesses and create jobs. it would put into place several important and in some cases overdue reforms that would incentivize initial public offerings or i.p.o.'s, end of quote. part of the beauty of this bill, madam president, is we don't even know who will benefit from its policy reforms. it applies to everybody. it's the opposite of the crony capitalism that provided government funds to companies like solyndra and general motors. indeed this is legislation that will demonstrate what the private sector can do when government promotes freedom and opportunity. it will show that we don't need government to try to create jobs or make ham-fisted attempts to play venture capitalist. because this is such good bipartisan legislation, it's deeply troubling to hear it's being stalled right here in the

senate. the front page headline of "congressional quarterly" this morning reads" democrats move no slow jobs bill." the article notes passage appears unlikely as democrats try to add controversial provisions to the bill which do not have broad bipartisan support. if this bill does not pass or the senate democrats add poison pills, it will be quite obvious this is part of a broader political strategy, one that relies on a do-nothing congress. that's the campaign theme the president has been running on. if congress actually does something, in a bipartisan way, that helps many americans, well, it will undermine his narrative. he's relying on congressional dysfunction to keep that narrative going. and that's why we have to rise above it. yes, this is a cynical conclusion, but if this bipartisan bill is derailed it will be hard to draw any other. it was our understanding when we

agreed to go to the bill it would be considered under regular 0 order. this bill is too important to play procedural games like filing cloture and filling the parliamentary tree and the like. i urge my colleagues not to stall this bill or to jeopardize its passage with partisan provisions. let's get this bill to the president's desk. our first priority should be helping americans get jobs, not strategizing to save the president's job. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this is sunshine week, a week that's observed annually to point out that the public's business ought to be public and that government, except in the cases of national security, should be open to public inspection. and this week coincides with the

birthday of james madison, the founding father, known for his emphasis on checks and balances in government and advocacy of open government. open government and transparency are essential to maintaining our democratic form of government. although it's sunshine week, i'm sorry to report that contrary to president obama proclamations -- and he made these proclamations when he took office three years ago -- and made them soon after he took office, in fact within hours after the swearing in, that three years later the sun still isn't shining in on the public's business here in washington, d.c. so there is a real disconnect between the president's words and the actions of his administration.

on his first full day in office, president obama issued a memorandum on the freedom of information act, and this memo went to the heads of executive agencies. in it, the president instructed these executive agencies to -- quote -- "adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in order to renew their commitments to the principles embodied in the freedom of information act and usher in a new era of open government" -- end of quote. we all know that actions speak louder than words. unfortunately, based on his own administration's actions, it appears that the president's words about open government and transparency are words that can be ignored. if not ignored by the president

and maybe well-intended on the part of the president, being ignored down to the bowels of the bureaucracy. given my experience in trying to pry information out of the executive branch, and based on investigations i've conducted, and inquiries by the media, i'm disappointed to report that president obama's statements about transparency are not being put into practice. in other words, it's a little bit like business as usual when i had the same problems when we had republican presidents, but based upon the president's pronouncements after his swearing-in, i expected things to be totally different in this administration, and i don't find them to be any different. federal agencies under control of the president's political

appointees have been more aggressive than ever in withholding information from the public and from the congress. throughout my career, i've been actively conducting oversight of the executive branch regardless of who controls the congress or what party controls the white house. when the agencies i'm reviewing get defensive and when they refuse to respond to my request, it makes me wonder what they're trying to hide. over the last year, many of my requests for information from various agencies have been turned down again and again. either because i'm ranking member or because i'm not chairman of the judiciary committee. agencies within the executive branch have repeatedly cited privacy act as a part of the rationale for their decision not

to grant requests. even though the privacy act explicitly says that it is not meant to limit the flow of information from the executive branch to the congress. this disregard by the executive branch for the clear language of the law is disheartening and it's quite appropriate that during sunshine week we bring out the truth. since january, 2011, in another example, chairman issa and i have been stonewalled by attorney general holder and other people in the justice department regarding our investigation of operation fast and furious. this deadly operation led thousands of weapons to walk from the united states into mexico. despite the fact that the department of -- the department of justice inspector general

possesses over 80,000 relevant documents, congress has received only around 6,000 in response to a subpoena from the house oversight committee. even basic documents about the case have been withheld by the justice department. yet the department insists on telling us and before they tell us, they seem to tell the press, that they are cooperating with senator grassley and congressman issa. the sun must shine on fast and furious so that the public can understand how such a dangerous operation took place, and what can be done to prevent such stupid actions of our government in the future. i've also worked hard to bring transparency to the department of housing and urban development. this is an executive branch agency that desperately needs more sunshine. over the past two years, i've been investigating rampant

fraud, waste, and abuse at public housing authorities throughout the country. i've discovered exorbitant salaries paid to executive staff, conflicts of interest, poor living conditions, and outright fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. many of these abuse investigate been swept under the rug, and housing and urban development have been slow at correcting the problems. h.u.d. cannot keep writing checks to these local housing authorities and then blindly hope that the money gets to those that congress intended to help. i'll continue to work to bring sunshine to housing and urban development as well. in april of last year, i requested documents from the federal communication commission regarding valuable regulatory waiver that it granted to a company called lightsquared.

lightsquared was attempting to build a satellite network in a band adjacent to global positioning station. the problem is that lightsquared's network causes interference with critical g.p.s. users such as the department of defense, the federal aviation administration and nasa. now, the f.c.c. responded to my document request by saying that they don't give documents to anyone but the two chairs of the committee with direct jurisdiction over the federal communication commission. now, how idiotic, because that means that if you're in -- if you're not in -- if you're not chairman of a committee, in other words if you're in the 99.6% of the congress that does not chair a committee with direct jurisdiction, then as a member of congress you're out of

luck and you can't fulfill your responsibilities of constitutional oversight and you can't be a check as envisioned by madison writing the constitution on the executive branch of government. so in this letter to me from chairman genakowski, he told me he would make his staff available even if i didn't get the documents, so i could interview the staff. but when i took him up on his offer and asked him to review members of his staff, my request was refused. once again, actions speak louder than words. people can get away with lying, and they are stonewalling, pure and simple. it seems obvious that the f.c.c. is embarrassed and afraid of what might come from uncovering the facts behind what "the washington post" called the lightsquared debacle.

if there is nothing to hide, then why all of the stonewalling? the f.c.c. seems determined to stone wall any -- stonewall any attempt at transparency. but it's not just the executive branch that needs more transparency. the judiciary should be transparent and accessible as well. that's why over a decade ago, i introduced the sunshine in the courtroom act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal courts to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts by letting the sunshine in on federal courtrooms, americans will have an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. the sunshine effort has no better friend than whistle-blowers. private citizens and government employees who come forward with allegations of wrongdoing and cover-ups risk their livelihoods to expose misconduct. the value of whistle-blowers is the reason that i continue to

challenge the bureaucracy and congress to support whistle-blowers. for over two decades, i have learned from, appreciated and honored whistle-blowers. congress needs to make a special note of the role that whistle-blowers play in helping us fulfill our constitutional duty of conducting oversight in the executive branch. the information provided by whistle-blowers is vital to effectual congressional oversight. documents alone are insufficient when it comes to understanding a dysfunctional bureaucracy. only whistle-blowers can explain why something is wrong and provide the best evidence to prove it. moreover, only whistle-blowers can help us truly understand the problems with the culture at government agencies. whistle-blowers have been instrumental in uncovering 700 being -- $700 being spent on

toilet seats at the department of defense. these american heroes were also critical in learning about outliar, -- the f.d.a. missed the boat in approved buyouts, how government contracts were inappropriately steered at the general services administration and how inner was cooking the books and ripping off investors. like all whistle-blowers, each whistle-blower in these cases demonstrated tremendous courage. they stuck their neck out for the good of us all. they spoke the truth. they didn't take the easy way out by going along to get along or looking the other way when they saw a wrongdoing. i have said it for many years without avail, of course, but i'd like to see a president or this president of the united states have a rose garden ceremony honoring whistle-blowers. this would send a message from the very top of the bureaucracy to the lowest levels that we -- the importance and value of

whistle-blowers. we all ought to be grateful for what they do and appreciate the very difficult circumstances they often have to endure to do so, sacrificing family finances, their employability and the attempts by powerful interests to smear their good names and intentions. i've used my experience working with the whistle-blowers to promote legislation to protect them from retaliation, legislation as a whistle-blower protection act, sarbanes-oxley act and false claims act, recognize the benefits of whistle-blowers and offer protection to those seeking to uncover the truth. for example, whistle-blowers have used the false claims act to help the federal government recover more than $30 billion since congress passed my key amendments in 1986. these laws are a good step. however, more can be done. for example, the whistle-blower protection enhancement act will provide much-needed updates to federal whistle-blower protections. i'm proud to be an original

cosponsor and believe the senate should move this important legislation immediately. this bill includes updates to the whistle-blower protection act to address negative interpretations of the whistle-blower protection act from both a merit system protection board and the federal circuit court of appeals. i started out my remarks by quoting james madison, the founding father who was one of the inspirations for sunshine week. madison understood the dangers posed by the type of conduct that we're seeing from president obama's political appointees. madison explained that -- quote -- "a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring is but a prologue to a farce and a tragedy or perhaps both." i'll continue doing what i can to hold this administration's feet to the fire to protect whistle-blowers, to get the truth out and to save the taxpayers money. i hope that my colleagues will help work with me so that we can

move towards restoring real sunshine in both words and actions here in washington, d.c. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. a lot of discussion about energy going on. the president spoke about it this morning. it's nice to hear us all saying the same thing, that this congress should have an all of the above energy policy. it's a phrase that i have used for years now and i suppose that it's the highest form of flattery to have that scooped up by others and carried, but i think it is important for us to remember that policies have to translate from mere words into actions.

with the president's comments today, unfortunately, i am not convinced that he is intending to help turn our all of the above policy into reality. i think if he was really series about doing that, -- serious about doing that, he would have acknowledged that there is far more that our country can do to increase our supply when it comes to oil and oil production. i think he would admit that with oil prices that are above $100 a barrel, gasoline inching up every day, close to $4 a gallon, madam president, this is not a political opportunity for anyone. this is a legislative imperative, a legislative imperative for all of us. so the question that needs to be asked is what can we do? i would agree with the president that there is no one silver bullet, there is no oneuick fix. we can't snap our fingers and have the price at the pump go

down. but i think it is important to talk honestly about what's going on with supply and with production here in this country. much discussion over these past several months about the keystone project out of canada and that pipeline. it continues to amaze me. it makes me crazy to think that we have an opportunity to have our closest neighbor and our best trading partner to supply us with oil instead of receiving oil from opec. keystone to come online very quickly, bring oil to our refineries and to our gas tanks. if the administration supports construction of a pipeline from oklahoma to texas, as they have suggested, i don't see why we can't allow construction of a

pipeline from alberta and north dakota and then all the way down. i'm confident that there are enough construction workers that are ready and waiting to start on both ends. when you say well, it needs more consideration, more review, i would reminded people that this has been a project that has been at least four years of environmental review. so this is one of those -- those choices. i think it's pretty clear, pretty stark. most americans i believe would much, much rather get their oil from canada than from opec. and yet, the -- some of what we are seeing come out of this congress from members of the senate here, the suggestion is instead of going to canada, we should go tin cup in hand to saudi arabia and ask them for increased production. i can't imagine, i cannot imagine why it would be more preferrable to producing more

american oil or allowing more oil from canada. this is a pretty clear choice for me. but again, it's an argument that we continue to have and we don't seem to be making the necessary head work on it. earlier this week, the president said that the best thing we can do about gas prices is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which will reduce the price of gasoline over time. one year ago, he said producing more oil in america can help lower our oil prices, but again that's -- that's talk that's going on right now, and talk that's not necessarily matching reality. yesterday, i was involved in two hearings of the appropriations subcommittees. in one, we had a department of interior official who confirmed that the oil production on federal lands is down and not up. there has been a lot of conversation, a lot of discussion about how in this

country are seeing more oil and gas production than ever before. but the fact of the matter is, madam president, we are seeing an increase in oil. we are seeing an increase in natural gas, but we're not seeing it on our federal lands. we're seeing these increases on state lands and on private lands. when it comes to onshore oil, we have actually gone down by 14% from last year. when it comes to offshore oil, we have gone down from 17% last year. so to suggest that somehow we're doing astonishing when in fact the area where the federal government does have some ability to incense some production here, we're seeing production decrease. we also heard confirmation in the hearing yesterday that producers are leaving the federal lands, which are -- again, these are the only lands

that the administration has control over -- not because the resources are necessarily greater somewhere else but because of federal taxes, of the federal royalties, the bureaucracy, the permitting process that make state and private lands more attractive. it was -- it was quite clear in the testimony that it does indeed cost more to produce on federal lands, and they do worry about that migration to go to state lands and private lands. this is a chart here that i have about the number of applications for permits to drill on federal lands. if you look at the timeline here, we're going up and up and up. this is 2001. this is during the bush administration when it increased 92%. and we hit 2008, the number of permits to drill that have been approved during this administration is down 36%. and again, this is in the area where the federal government has control. so please, i think we need to

get beyond the idea that we are allowing drilling everywhere. america's largest untapped oil fields onshore and offshore, quite honestly, are still off-limits. in alaska, we have got more than 40 billion barrels of oil that are trapped beneath federal lands, and the administration is making clear that they intend to keep much of that off-limits to development.again, we've got mo, ready, able, and willing not only to advance american scum shortchanges bringing the jobs, but also bringing important revenues to our treasury. i think it is kuwait parnts that supply -- i think it is quite apparent that supply matters. i mentioned the request from one of our colleagues here that we go to saudi arabia for 2.5 million barrels per day. i don't think that that is an

appropriate policy that we should embark on. since at least the mid-1990's, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that since oil exploration takes a long time to bring online that we just shouldn't do it. it was the senior nor from massachusetts -- the senior senator from massachusetts who said in 2002, "if you open the refuge today, you're not going to see oil until about 2012, maybe a couple years earlier." well here we are at 2012. if we had started then, we wouldn't perhaps be having this discussion now. this argument has gone on for so long that even jay leno is making jokes about it on tv. it is amazing to me that we continue to say, it's going to take too long to bring on, so we shouldn't start today. i have two separate bills, madam president, that allow access to the nonwilderness section of anwr -- this is the 1002 area -- to be carefully opened for development. that field would bring on

roughly 1 million barrels of oil to market each day right now. had this not been blocked back in 1995. that would have been good for american workers, good for the price of oil, dpoo good for the federal treasury, and i believe it could have been conducted and completed without impact to the environment. when we talk about our abilities here, i think it is fair to say we do have a lot of oil here in this country, and we can bring more of it to market. if we were to increase our domestic production by 2.5 million barrels a day that has been suggested that we get from saudi arabia, if we were to access alaskan oil along with the keystone oil, that would double world spare capacity and insulate us almost entirely from opec.

so when we talk about a way that we can move ourselves as a nation away from the stranglehold that opec holds over us, i think it is important to consider what our options are. madam president, i know we'll have more to add on this later. i know some of my colleagues are coming to the floor later to speak on this. but, at this time, i will yield the floor to my colleague from louisiana, the energy breadbasket down there in the gulf, and i thank you for your attention. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i'm happy and honored to join my colleague from alaska, also both of our colleagues, senator barrasso, to talk about this vital, vital issue -- u.s. energy rin, doing something abot the price at the pump, including accessing more of the vital u.s.

energy that we've right here on our shores. as the senator from alaska has said, madam president, at least i give the president kudos for using the right language, saying the right things, even if his policies have not caught up with that yet. he's talking about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, something we have been advocating for years. he's also talking about a release from the strategic petroleum reserve. i disagreed with that policy, but at least it acknowledges that supply matters. and if we increase supply, we would lower price. now, i think the important way we need to do that, of course, is to produce more energy right here at home. madam president, a lot of americans don't realize, but we are the single-most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. no one else comes close. so when you look at all of our energy resources compared to all of the energy resources of other

countries, we are the richest country in terms of energy resources. now, why don't most americans think of ourselves that way? it's because we're the only country in the world that takes well over 90% of those resources and puts them off-limits through federal lark law, tuckly particr this become barack obama. america says, no, no, no, no, no. the obama administration says no. no, you can't drill off the east coast. 0 no, you can't drill off the west coast. no, you can't touch off the gulf right now. no, you can't touch the alaska national wildlife refuge. no we're going to do less instead of more on federal land. and, no, we're going to reexamine hydraulic fracturing which is a key process to the development of our reconcile shale resources, even though

there is no basis for the atelecommunication tack on highn hydraulic fracturing. ththe president is saying all of the above. but the policy hasn't caught up. and it has to catch up. what am i thinking of? wcialg the outer continental shelf -- well, the outer continental shelf. we are riching in resources on the outer continental shelf. yet presiden president obama's r plan which he's required to submit under law, his five-year plan for developing that outer continental heavily is only half as much as the previous five-year plan, so we're backing up, we're headed in the wrong direction, not the right direction of accessing more of our own energy. permitting in the gulf of mexico, where i live, since the b.p. disaster -- permitting first stopped and now has started again but only at a

trickle. we're still 30% to 40% below the pace of permitting compared to before the incident. we need to get back to that pace of permitting, and then surpass it. federal lands -- the area that the federal government controls most directly: production activity on federal lands is down from a few years ago. it is not up, it's down 14%, 1,, from a few years ago the keystone pipeline. it's dependable canadian energy from a strong ally. president obama is saying no to that. i'm happy to hear that his rhetoric has chanked in an election year but when are those policies going to change on the outercontinental shelf? on permitting in the gulf and

elsewhere? on federal land? on the keystone pipeline? that's what needs to change. we need to say "yes" to solid, dependable american energy. it will increase our energy newspapers. it will increase supply and stablize price at the pump. it will build great american jobs, jobs which by the way cannot be out outoutsourced to china. it will even bring more revenue into the federal government, lowering deficit and debt. let's say yes. let's say yes, yes, yes to that. i know my colleague, senator barrasso, is vitally interested in these issues as well. i had aide turn to him through the chair. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i agree with my colleague from lures lewis who is an expert in these areas and spends so much time talking about energy and the need for affordable energy. that's what people are asking for. they're noticing the pain at the

pump and saying why is this? and they don't have to look any further than the president's policies. the president's efforts to in my opinion make it harder for us to explore for energy. and what does he try to do? reuters report this morning -- u.s.-britain agree to strategic petroleum reserve. this is there for emergencies, disruption o supply, not for a political disaster. what the president has on his hands is a political disaster. the fact that the price at the pump has gone up about a penny a day for the last 30 days. so people are paying more. they realize it. if they're trying to also deal with mortgage and kids it's much, much harder. it is a direct impact on their quality of life. yet the president continues to give speeches about the gasoline

prices and to blame everyone other than himself. but it is discouraging to see the president looking to the strategic petroleum reserve. he tapped it last year, 30 million barrels. and at the time drew down our strategic petroleum reserve and still has not refilled it. so any effort to draw down from it thraid take it down -- from it today will take it down even further, putting us more at risk for a true supply disruption. those are the things that we're facing today, a president with a poorly planninged energy approach and having to rely on something that was placed there for true emergencies p. but the president continues to make his claims, as he did today, and i did last we, and you know one of the his claims is that america only has 2% of the world's oil reserves. the truth is that proven and

undiscovered oil resources total seven times that amount. the president doesn't seem to want to face that fact. the president claims an all-of-the-above energy strategy but the truth is the president's strategies truly seem to be hostile to low-cost domestic fuels, especially gasoline and other products from oil. we see this when the secretary of interior, when he was a member of the senate, said he would oppose offshore exploration even at $10 a gallon for gasoline. the president says using less gasoline will lower prices. well, isn't that a supply-and-demand issue? wcialtion the presidenwell, thes supply. we need to increase supply. one way is to explore more offshore, on federal land, and in alaska. and bringing supply from canada to the united states, with the keystone x.l. pipeline, instead of saying to canada, no, sell

that to china. the -- continuing to look at incredible needs of this nation for fuel, our ability to increase supply, and the presidenpresident's efforts to t about everything else. so people at home are concerned. i visit with people every weekend in wyoming. did i last weekend. i will again this weekend. and i hear what my colleague from louisiana is hearing, what my colleague from alaska is hearing -- is that there are lots of opportunities to increase the supply, opportunities that are available and should be used here in this country. we are so dependent on overseas supply, so dependent on opec, so dependent on long shipping routes coming through the straits of hormuz. our solution -- take care of the problem at

home. work on energy security for our nation. the democrats' proposal, and we heard it from senator schumer from new york -- they said, we well, just ask saudi arabia to produce moshings 2 million barrels more a day. rely hon on a country far away. organization of petroleum companies that are not necessarily our own. that is not the solution the american people want. the american people want energy security which begins at home and north american energy security includes the availability of oil from canada, the availability of oil offshore on federal land in this country as well as in alaska. and it is time for the president to adopt those proposals, and those approaches, rather than talking about his approach, which leads people to listen and

listen carefully to realize that he is intentionally distorting the facts and misleading the american people in speech after speech. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: and we're in morning business, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. rubio: i want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor today and talking about the issue of energy and energy independence and rising cost of energy. it is critically important. i wanted to come for a few minutes and talk about something else for a few minutes. i think of critical importance, of eternal importance. and that's the issue of human

rights. i think as americans we have to remind ourselves that america was founded on the principles of human rights, if you read back to the founding documents. the declaration of independence says at the outset that one of the founding principles that led to this creation of this nation, our republic, and the constitution that followed that was the notion that all of us are created equal, that every human being on the planet that has ever been born, ever be born anywhere in the world is born with certain rights. the source of those rights is our creemple creator. you think about that for aempt mo. that is not a comong belief. for all of human history, people believe that our rights as people come not from our creator, they come from the government, they come from our leaders. our rights are what the government allows us to v that's not what founded our country. our country was founded on the idea that the source of our rights and our value as a human being come from our creator. of course that manifested itself

in all sorts of things in this country. a constitution that in recognition of those rights create add system of government that said the job of the government was to protect those rights, not to grant them. the american miracle has plenty of witnesses, myself included, and is well documented in the annals of history particularly in the last half century, the american century, the 20th century, which is shown as an example to the world. yet the issue of human rights continues to be a central one around the world. one of the places where i think the american example could make the biggest difference. one of the issues that has interested me since i got here to the united states senate, my background before i got here a year ago was in state government. and before that in local government. one of the great things about being in the senate is you have access to information, sources of information and individuals of information i didn't have before i came here. one of the issues that has fascinated me on a global scale is how human rights are still

summarily violated all over the planet and how in fact these powerful ideas that are at the core of our founding as a country are still not widely accepted in many parts of the world. as we look at the 21st century -- this is a great time of year to be in washington. people are on spring break. they are bringing their kids here to learn about our republic. it is a great time to remind ourselves of one of the things that makes us different from the rest of the world is that we are one of the few countries on the planet that really believes every single person that has ever been born has rights that they are born with. and we take that for granted. if you've been born here and lived here your whole life, you think that is the way it is everywhere. it is not. there are societies around the world where people are told you don't have rights unless we give you rights, unless your government, your leaders or your laws give you rights, you don't have these rights. in america we almost take that for granted because we believe we are born with these rights. and the american example to the world has been what can happen,

what can happen when you actually believe that every single human being has worth and value and rights that they are born with and that you have no right to deny from them. sadly, there is no shortage of examples around the world where those fundamental rights are violated. and i think no nation on this planet has a larger obligation to speak out against it than ours. and so what i intend to do over the next few weeks is come to the floor and highlight some of these egregious human rights violations because i think they go to the core of our exceptionalism. they go to the heart of who we are as a people and a nation. they go to the center of what makes us different from other countries around the world. in many respects, it's at the heart of what is in debate at this very moment in the world. because as we enter this new 21st century, there are a handful of nations across the globe that do not want the issue of human rights to be central. they don't want this issue to be at the front burner because they don't believe in these things. what they seek is a new

international order where the violation of human rights is nobody's business. you see that today in syria where you have people being murdered or unarmed civilians are being pursued and shelled by an army. or you're having horrifying examples of human rights violations on a daily basis in at least two countries, russia and china, have taken the position that it's nobody's business. and one of those countries is the topic that i want to talk about today, and that's china, an emerging power on the world stage that some people, i think falsely claim overplace america on the world stage. i think tphaofs an exaggeration. we -- i think that's an exaggeration. i think it's great news that there are millions of people in china that a decade ago were riding on a bike and now have a car, millions of people that only a decade ago were living in deep poverty and today are part of the middle class. i think that's fantastic but don't get ahead of yourself in believing that china is going to

get ahead of america on the world stage. this is still the most important economy on the planet and our people are as smart and creative as they have ever been. and that's not going to change. but i think we have to look at china because if in fact they are this rising power, if in fact they are going to be a growing influence on the international stage, we have to ask o*urbgs what is their commitment -- ourselves, what is their commitment to human rights? sadly it is not a very good one. if you look at the issue of tibet, it's a perfect example. this is a peace-loving people that have sought a certain level of autonomy. they want to preserve their culture, they want to preserve their way of life. they have gone so farce to say we're okay with being under chinese rules but we want to protect some of the things innate and indigenous to our culture and values. and china is systematically trying to erase their culture and their heritage through processes of reeducation, through the jailing of people, through the oppression of people, through the destruction of a free press and system of

communication. it manifests itself today, you've got, i think yesterday was the latest people of people in tibet setting themselves on fire. we shouldn't encourage that; horrifying to see that. we hope it stops. but it leads to an understanding of the level of desperation that kpeupts -- exists in tibet. if china is a growing influence on this planet, are these the values that are going to replace american values on the world stage? are these the values that are going to replace our belief that all individuals are created equal with certain rights that come from their creator? are we prepared to retreat from the world stage and allow that to happen without at least speaking out against it? so we should in the be surprised that china stands by and says do nothing, don't even sanction, don't even put out a nasty letter about syria. we should not be surprised because a nation that doesn't care about the human rights of their own people is never going to care about the human rights of others. and the question that we have as americans is: are we prepared to

retreat from the world stage and in fact allow nations like that to play a growing role in the world? are we prepared to silence our own voice at the expense of their voice? i hope not. and so when we debate in this chamber about issues of economic policy, we're debating issues about america's influence on the world. and i would say to you that if america is diminished opbd world stage, whether -- on the world stage, whether it be by choice or accident, if we fail to confront the issues that this nation faces and we choose to decline, it won't just be americans that pay the price, it will be people all over the world, including the people that live in tibet. because then there will be no voice on this planet that condemns human rights violations the way we do. because there will be no nation in the world that can prove that in fact you can have a functional society where the innate worth and the value and the rights that our creator gives every human being are

respected. that's what's at stake here when we debate america's influence and america's standing in the world. and over the next few weeks i hope to come to this floor and continue to highlight these egregious violations of human rights. in the weeks to come we'll talk about the problems of human trafficking that exist in our own country, in our own hemisphere and all around the world. we'll talk about the violations of religious liberties that exist in societies all over the planet. we'll talk about how women have no rights in many of these countries whatsoever. some nations where a woman is counted as one-fourth of a man in terms of their worth or their ability to speak out. we'll talk about other countries where people are systematically jailed like they are in our own hemisphere for putting out pamphlets that criticize the government. we'll talk of course about what's happening in syria, what's happening in tibet. human rights is at the core of who we are as a nation. it is at the core of our identity as a people and as a

power on the global stage. it is an issue that doesn't belong to the right or to the left, to republicans or to democrats. it is an issue on which we hope to have an effective voice in that regard in the years god permits me to serve here in the senate. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i thank the good senator from missouri for her courtesy. madam president, i rise today to express very, very strong support for the confirmation of gina maria groh to serve as united states district judge for the northern district of west virginia. gina groh is absolutely qualified for this position and

deserving of every senator's support. she has more than 22 years of legal experience of which 14 have been devoted to serving the people of west virginia first as a prosecutor and now as a trial judge. in these roles, judge groh has kpebted exhibited seer -- serious intellect. lawyers describe her as meticulously prepared as a judge and describe her as somebody who administers justice in a timely and equitable manner. because of her superior equal ni ni -- qualifications she has been reported out of the judiciary committee committee and has been waiting patiently for five months for a up-or-down vote. judge groh will be ready for the job on the day that she assumes the job, providing of course

that she passes through this body. she knows how to make tough decisions. she knows how to issue thoughtful opinions and to protect the rights and liberties that are guaranteed to all americans under our laws and our constitution. i'm very proud to urge all senators to support judge groh's nomination. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i rise today to support the nomination of michael fitzgerald as the senate prepares to vote on his confirmation to become a district court judge. i had the great privilege of recommending mr. fitzgerald to president obama for nomination. he is a respected member of the los angeles legal community. he will make an excellent

addition to the central district of california. mr. fitzgerald served as a federal prosecutor where he handled cases involving international drug rings and money laundering, including what was at the time the second-largest cocaine seizure in california history. since he's left the u.s. attorney's office, mr. fitzgerald has been in private practice handling complex criminal and civil cases. he received a rating of unanimously well qualified by the american bar association. he is an historic choice, and a vote on mr. fitzgerald's nomination is long overdue, because he was voted out of the senate judiciary committee unanimously 133 days ago, on november 3, 2011. it really shouldn't take this long to confirm such a highly-qualified nominee like

mr. fitzgerald, especially because this seat has been designated a judicial emergency. so we have a seat that's been designated a judicial emergency. we have a highly qualified gentleman who is ready for this challenge, who was voted out of the committee unanimously last year, 133 days ago. i want to close with great hope that we will confirm mr. fitzgerald. and with that, i want to in advance, and i hope i'm proven right, congratulate him and his family on this momentous day. and i urge my colleagues in the senate to join with me in voting for this highly qualified nominee. i thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor and i do note 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 iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following

nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, gina marie groh of west virginia to be united states district judge. michael walter fitzgerald of california to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 15 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the -- what is the order? i had understood i was to be recognized at 1:45. am i incorrect? the presiding officer: there will be 15 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: thank you. let me open that, madam

president. in light of the agreement that we reached between the leaders, the senate will finally be allowed to consider the nomination of judge gina groh of west virginia. i should talk a little bit about her. she served for eight years as state prosecutor, nine years in private practice. her nomination which has the support of both of west virginia's senators, senator rockefeller and senator manchin, was reported with the support of every democrat and every republican on the judiciary committee last october. she had been waiting for this confirmation vote now for five months. her nomination has been stalled along with so many others. i'm glad we're finally getting to this woman's nomination, a woman strongly supported by everybody in the committee.

and then the senate will also be finally able to consider the nomination of michael fitzgerald, a fellow judicial emergency vacancy in the central district of california. again, with the diversity of confirmed, he will be the first openly gay man confirmed to the federal bench in the state of california. he has worked in private practice for more than two decades. before that, he served as a federal prosecutor. the a.b.a. standing committee of the federal judiciary gave him the highest possible rating they could give any candidate. again, his nomination was reported unanimously by the judiciary committee last november. he had been waiting four and a half months for this vote. i contrast these weeks and months of waiting on district judges with the 57 -- and a lot of that time, i was chairman of the senate judiciary

committee -- 57 of president bush's district court nominees that were confirmed within a week of being reported by the judiciary committee. it was during president bush's first term. these were nominees that had also gone through the judiciary committee with strong support, but they were able to be confirmed within one week. apparently, we hold a different standard for this president. you know, there is never any good reason for the senate not to proceed to one of these nominations. we should have taken cloture petitions to get agreements to schedule votes on these judicial nominees. now, among other nominees included in the leaders' agreement are two outstanding women nominated to fill vacancies on circuit courts that have been delayed since last year. stephanie dawn thankinger of

west virginia nominated to the fourth circuit, judge wynn of california nominated to fill an emergency vacancy in the ninth circuit. miss thankinger is an experienced litigation prosecutor. she has the strong support of our home state senators, senators rockefeller and manchin. judge wynn's family came to this country after the fall of south vietnam, had been confirmed unanimously to the u.s. district court in 2009. she would become the first asian pacific american woman to serve on the u.s. court of appeals. what a wonderful success story for this woman, having to flee a communist dictatorship in her country to come to ours and now become the first asian pacific american to serve on the court of appeals. both these women were reported unanimously by the judiciary committee last year. they have been waiting since

last year. they should be confirmed without additional damaging delays. in fact, all 22 of the nominees await ago vote by the senate, qualified nominees all within the mainstream of judicial thought. they are nominees supported by the home state senators, both republican and democratic, but the months of delay, this is something borne by nearly 160 million americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as senate republicans agree to an up-or-down vote on the 22 judicial nominations currently before the senate awaiting a confirmation vote. if there is somebody they don't like, vote against them. at least let them come to a vote. you don't allow a vote to come that allows you to go back home and say i vote maybe. i don't think anybody gets elected here to vote maybe. you get elected to vote yes or no. so we should continue with a

pattern that was set by yesterday's agreement to make progress beyond the 14 nominations, that agreement and beyond the 22 nominations currently on the calendar. there are another eight judicial nominees who have had hearings, who are working their way through the committee process. another 11 to hold additional hearings in the next several weeks we have been able to take action and two additional this morning, but with the exception of the judicial ranking member who was at the meeting, it was boycotted by all republican senators so we weren't able to move forward. now, by working steadily and continuing resumption of the regular consideration of the judicial nominees, i hope to understand between the leaders signal as we did in 2004 and 2008 with president bush that we can assure the federal courts of the judges they need. we -- we senators stand in the

shoes of 300 million americans. they don't like partisan gridlock. they want to see us actually act on things. vote yes or vote no, but for pete's sake, don't vote maybe. i reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, lake dishman, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 112th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this week, the judicial confirmation process was a bit off track. the 17 threatened cloture petition votes were unnecessary. i'm pleased that the majority leader determined to not move forward with that plan. the senate has now returned to its regular order of processing judicial nominations in a careful and deliberate manner.

just exactly what you ought to do when you're talking about confirming people to lifetime appointments. this means that nominees are called up, debated and voted upon just as we have been doing. in fact, we have done 131 times for president obama's judicial nominees. of course, on rare occasion, as within the tradition, rules and practices of the senate, there will be difficulty in moving forward with consent to proceed on just a very few. so i view what happened yesterday not as some deal but as a rejection of a political stunt in favor of returning to regular order like we're doing today. i have worked with the chairman and members of the judiciary committee as well as with my colleagues throughout the senate to ensure that nominees are treated fairly. i will continue to do so. in the meantime, i'm pleased that the senate has turned to

the jobs bill. it's an imperative that the senate keep its focus on what the people back at the grassroots think we ought to be working on -- jobs, economy, energy and other critical issues facing our nation. today, we turn to two judicial nominations under regular order and the procedure of the senate. gina groh is nominated for united states district judge, northern district, west virginia. michael fitzgerald, nominated u.s. district judge for central district, california. earlier this week, i heard remarks blaming the judicial vacancy rate on republican obstructions. what was failed to be discussed, not even mentioned, was that 44 of the judicial -- 83 judicial vacancies have no nominee. of the 35 judicial vacancies designated as judicial

emergencies, the president has failed to submit a nomination for 19 of those seats. so what about the other 16? what about the other 40 -- 39 of the 83 that i just mentioned? it's a fact of life. we can't proceed to process judicial nominations if the president doesn't send them up here. so the president needs to hurry up if he wants to get some consideration. now, that has been the pattern for most of this administration. failure in delay in submitting nominations to the senate. example -- look at the nomination of gina groh, a nomination we're considering here today. yes, her nomination has been before the senate for five months, but this seat became v.a. can't december, 2006. president bush submitted a nomination for this seat may 24,

2007. that nominee never even had a hearing but languished in committee for 19 months before being returned to the president. this is just one of the 53 nominees of president bush who were subjected to what some have characterized as a pocket filibuster for otherwise went unconfirmed. even after president obama's election, it took until may 19, 2011, for him to nominate miss groh. the president took 848 days to submit the nomination. nearly two years and four months. i have asked where was the nomination. where was the outrage of the other party during all of this time of dilly-dallying around down at the white house? again, we are moving forward under regular order and procedures of the senate. this year, we have been in session for about 28 days, including today. during that time, we have confirmed nine judges.

that is an average of about one confirmation for every three days. with the confirmation today, the senate will have confirmed 72% of president obama's judicial nominations. i will submit the remainder of my statement for the record, and it contains the biological information on the nominees that we're considering today. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: when i hear concerns that the republican delays are all the fault of president obama, it sort of makes me think of some of the dialogue from the movie "casablanca." i should tell you there are 83 vacancies, sure. several of them because the president is trying to work with home state senators including 24 vacancies involving a republican. home-state senator.

who hasn't agreed to anybody. and there are seven nominations on which the senate judiciary committee cannot proceed because republican senators haven't returned blue slips indicating their support. we had somebody else was about to have a hearing, two republican senators had returned blue slips, they withdraw -- withdrew them, we had to take that name off. so we try to protect republicans' rights in the committee and certainly we are at fault because they're blocking people who have gone through unanimously. well, none of these complaints would give any excuse for failure to move on nominees that went through every single republican, every single democrat, voting for them. instead of going through in five days like they did with

president bush, they sit here month after month after month. mr. president, i think we've reached the time for the vote. am i correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the question is on the groh nomination. mr. leahy: ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted who wish to change their votes? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 2. and the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. reid reid: mr. president, tk you very much for restoring order. first of all, we've had a good week. we've worked together on issues and gotten a lot done. we have one more vote. that will be the last vote this week. the next vote will be tuesday

before the caucus. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the fitzgerald nomination. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 6. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and senate will resume legislative session. mr. manchin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to applaud the confirmation of judge gina marie groh. as then-goafn of west virginia, i was honored to have the first female from the eastern panhandle with the highest of credentials, judge groh, brought to my attention. i was so proud to appoint her to the 23rd judicial district in 2006. and she has served with great distinction ever since. i'm also very pleased that my colleague and friend, senator jay rockefeller, saw the same qualities in judge groh that i did and recommended her for this prestigious position on the federal bench. i thank him for his steadfast support for her nomination. i just want to take this opportunity to reiterate some of judge gina groh's fine qualities and the reasons i know she will be an exceptional judge on the

u.s. district court for the northern district of west virginia. she is a respected member of her community in the eastern panhandle of west virginia as i have known her for many years. in addition, -- in addition to being the first female judge to serve in the eastern panhandle, judge groh is only the third female circuit judge to be selected in all of west virginia. prior to her circuit court appointment, judge groh served as assistant prosecuting attorney at the prosecuting attorney's offices in berkeley county and jefferson county, west virginia. during her eight years as prosecutor, she established a strong record of protecting her fellow west virginians by tirelessly pursuing convictions for such crimes as murder, robbery, rape, child abuse, drunk driving and drug-related offenses. drug groh not only excelled professionally but has risen to become a pillar of her community in the eastern panhandle of west virginia. she dedicates her times to

countless charitable foundations and sefbs on a number -- serves on a number of boards. she has worked for such programs as roads to school and the mills with love ministry and has been very involved with her alma mater, shepherd university, serving with the wellness center and a member of the alumni board. groh graduated cum laude from shepherd university in 1986 with a bachelor of science degree. she earned the university's highest academic honor. in addition to serving as editor-in-chief of the newspaper and vice president of her graduating class, judge groh went on to earn her j.d. from west virginia's college of flaw morgantown, west virginia. i believe judge groh's experience, intellect, leadership, impartiality and deep roots in the community make her a prudent choice for the vacancy in the northern district

of west virginia. she exemplifies not only the qualities of a talented jurist but the high moral character and sense of justice necessary to make a great judge. i know it has been exasperating for judge groh and her family waiting for this confirmation, knowing she came out of the senate judiciary committee without any opposition. and it has been very difficult that we as a body have gotten to the point of slowing down these nominations. and i believe very strongly that our system needs to be changed so that we can get quality judges such as judge gina groh on the bench as quickly as possible so they can work to protect the people of the united states. mr. president, i thank my colleagues for confirming an exemplary candidate for the u.s. district court of the northern district of west virginia, judge gina maria groh. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the house of representatives has just passed

h.r. 3606, which is styled as a capital formation bill. but it is fundamentally flawed. as more and more people have looked closely at the bill, they have found more and more problems. problems that could roll back key consumer protections and cause entire financial transactions and financial entities to go dark. one of the fundamental misconceptions in this bill is that you can have robust capital formation without good investor protections. my view is you can't have one without the other, that the strength of our market is the reliance that investors have that they will have the right information, they will know enough about the entity they're investing in to make judicious sound economic judgment. this proposition would roll back many of those investor

protections, would deny them critical information that is essential to make sound judgments and would ultimately not lead to the proposed goal of the bill providing for access to capital, particularly for small emerging companies. serious concerns have been raised about the cantor bill by current and former regulators in the last few weeks, the chairman of the securities and exchange commission, the north american securities administrators association, the former chairman of the s.e.c., the head of the american amex, lynn turner, former chief economist of the s.e.c. some of the largest pension plans in the entire country have been weighing in for the council of institutional investors. these are the entities most people want to have invest in their companies as long-term investors. they have real concerns about the house action.

we have been getting phone calls and letters from a variety of consumer groups such as the aarp, the consumer federation of america, the afl-cio and safer, the economist committee for stable, accountable, fair and efficient financial reform. academic experts like professor john coffee of columbia's university skaofl law have called the cantor bill the -- quote -- "bore the room act" because it will be more punch and dump consumes. two other noted securities experts from harvard university law school said the bill does more than, in their words, trim regulatory fat, parts of it cut into muscle. we need to slow down this process and get it right. h.r. 3606 can be improved and should be improved.

that is why i, together with colleagues, senators marry landrieu, carl levin, my colleague from rhode island, sheldon whitehouse, senator franken, senator durbin and others arent duesing a substitute amendment to this bill today. we hope that our legislation can serve as a base bill for the senate to discuss and amend as we move forward. so, what are some of the most serious flaws we are trying to address in the cantor bill? first and foremost, this bill is unlikely to create jobs, despite the title that the house has bestowed upon it. in fact, it may actually have the opposite effect. by weakening investor confidence, it could actually decrease the number of i.p.o.'s and lead to fewer investments in our capital markets. currently our markets are considered the most transparent and liquid in the world, which have been one of its great

strengths, the confidence that when an investor puts money into american financial products and the american market, he or she has detailed information about the current status and the prospects of that investment. under the cantor bill, our markets will become less transparent, more opaque, fewer protections will be provided to investors. this could actually lead to fewer investors shefgt in -- investing in the united states. since we are in increasing competition with global markets, hong kong and singapore, to name a few. one of the great hallmarks of our market, starting in 1933 with the securities legislation of the new deal was the feeling that investors would be protected, that there would be standards in place, information would be made available to them, and they could have confidence, as much confidence as they could

get in their investment. and when you undermine that confidence, eventually you will undermine both their appetite and capacity to invest. the cantor bill has more problems. it tries to create a way that crowd funding can be used to raise money for small enterprises, but it does this with very few protections for investors and would allow unregulated web sites to pedal stock without oversight. crowd funding is an interesting new approach to raising capital. our colleagues, senator merkley and senator bennet, spent a lot of time developing very positive legislation which balances the access to capital by tapping in to social networks and small invests, but at the same time giving those investors adequate protections. the house has not taken this

approach. they have legislation that could indeed create a situation where crowd funding is plagued by fraud, by manipulation, but people who simply want to make a quick buck, move on, hoping that they will just disappear into the internet. now the craig's list or ebay model may work to sell unwanted clothing, bikes and other goods but doesn't work for financial security that requires more careful analysis than kicking the tires. people with more credit card debt than savings will be tempted with these mass-marketed get-rich schemes to put their money, which they can't afford in many cases, into these schemes. as the economy continues to grow, stocks will rise. we've seen some interesting and very positive developments on

wall street over the last several weeks. but this ride up could be accompanied by bubbles in these types of crowd funding schemes where people are putting money in for a quick return based on perhaps the success of one or two companies, but not having the information, not having the appropriate controls on the intermediaries so that they can make a sound and valid investment. there's another aspect of the house legislation tphoeugs this crowd funding -- in addition to this crowd funding approach. the house i.p.o. on ramp. i.p.o. is initial public offering. this approach to try to streamline access to the public markets for emerging companies has great merit, but once again what has happened in the house big is that they've done this at the expense of necessary protections for investors. relaxing standards for very

large new public companies when no effort supports that idea that those standards stand in the way of these i.p.o.'s, and much evidence suggests that the standards prevent serious accounting problems, is not the way to go. the basic essence of their approach, this on-rafrpb -- on ramp approach is a very large company with up to $1 billion in revenue can for a period of five years or so avoid some of the now standard requirements for public companies. this is not an approach for small companies, companies with $1 billion in revenue are substantial economic enterprises. the protections that have been put in place over the years not only to protect the investors but also to ensure the appropriate audit procedures that are in place, to ensure appropriate managerial behavior, for a company of that size

should not be indefinitely waived or waived for a period of five years. we could go back literally roll the clock back pre-enron, pre-worldcom, where because of a lack of adequate audit procedures in the company, real abuses and the result was enron collapsed. their shareholders were left with virtually nothing. and one of the more tragic ironies is that many of their shareholders were their employees who had all of their pensions invested in the company, particularly in the case with enron. ultimately the pain to these people caused by lack of good standards, which have been put in place since then, was significant. and we, if we proceed on this, will pass, might once again have a situation where we're

repeating history and our history we've seen already. again, as the economy rebound, as stocks rise, i think there will be a variable increase in new initial public offerings, i.p.o.'s. if you look at the data the numbers of i.p.o.'s go up and down, but the most significant factor is economic activity. as economic activity goes up, new companies have opportunities, i.p.o.'s go up. in this boom, there could be the temptation for these companies, given these new very relaxed standards, to ignore the problem because they don't have to disclose them adequately. or to deliberately mislead investors because there is no real check on what's being said. the relaxed standards to the house bill could allow companies to engage in deception, to raise and waste more investment money more quickly. there is a way, i think, that we can dial back this excessive

legislation in a way that will provide capital formation, but will also provide protections to investors. and i hope we can proceed on that path. now, increasing i.p.o.'s is a valuable goal, but it should be done much more cautiously in my regard, with reforms focused on much smaller companies than those with $1 billion in annual revenues, as is indicated in the house bill -- bill. during the course of three hearings in the senate banking committee on these issues, it became even clearer that there are problems with the way shareholders are being counted. this is another aspect of the house bill. they have indicated that they would like to move beyond a number, 500, which requires a company to register under the 1934 securities exchange act with the s.e.c.

this trigger is something that should be considered in terms of present-day standards. the house bill raises this trigger point to 2,000 very quickly without dealing with the so-called beneficial owners problem. if the provision in the house bill was enforced in the past, two-thirds of current public companies would not have been required to register under the 34 act. let me say that again. if you reach a certain number of shareholders, you're required to begin to register and begin to give those shareholders required information on a quarterly basis. you are required to file other forms. you are required to be subject to other rules and regulations of the s.e.c. if this house standard was in place, two-thirds of current public companies would not have to register with the 34 act.

they would be operating in the dark. they would be operating with whatever minimal information they might be required to divulge to their shareholders under state corporate law or in some cases state securities laws. that is an astounding number of companies. most investors take for granted that when you reach a critical size, the number of shareholders, et cetera, that you will begin to report. and again, these reports are the lifeblood, if you will, of the investing community because they rely upon them for their information about what's going on in the company. they rely upon them for the standards that that company has to follow. over time, most investors as a result of registration under the 34 act are entitled to receive regular disclosures. again, these provisions, raising up the level to 2000 owners would undermine the goal which is essentially making companies

easier to go public, easier to disclose information. in fact, someone described this as sort of a bipolar piece of legislation. on the one hand, they want to relax the standards to get public and on the other hand they want to relax the standards to get private. i think we have to be careful in each incidence to ensure that investors are protected as well as capital formation is enhanced. the house would also allow companies to -- the house bill would also allow companies to advertise risky, less regulated, unregistered private offerings to the general public, using, for example, billboards along the highway, cold calls to senior living centers or other mass marketing methods. it will tear down protection that will put in place -- that were put in place after the late 1990's internet stock bubble burst that prevented conflicts of interest from obtaining the quality of research about companies. what we found in the wake of the dot-com bubble with many

protections in place that would be taken out by this legislation that there were analysts who were touting companies at the same time other parts of their business were trying to sell those companies' shares, and this interest between someone you hope is giving an objective opinion would be encouraged, not discouraged under the house bill. the kantor bill would allow banks with even hundreds of billions of dollars in assets to deregister and stop being subject to the s.e.c. oversight and critical investor protections. and finally, the kantor bill actually does include provisions that are more likely to create jobs for americans. for example, the house bill does not include authorization of the ex-im bank. time is of the essence, by the way, to get this ex-im bank reauthorized. the bank's temporary extension

expires at the end of may and is close to exceeding its operating level of $100 million by the end of this month. renewing the ex-im bank's charter with increased lending authority is the only way practically of countering the predatory financing practices above the trading nations. we spend a lot of time on this floor pointing the finger at companies that are using their sovereign institutions to undermine american jobs to get them overseas, and yet one of the major institutions in our country that helps american products to be sold overseas is in danger literally of going out of business. that's something that will in fact enhance job creation. it's not in the house bill. in fact, it's been suggested that ex-im bank activities supports almost 3 00,000 jobs in the united states every year. it also results in two other programs that result in jobs. these two programs are particularly the result of the

hard and aggressive and thoughtful work of senators landrieu and snowe. they worked on the extension and capacity of the small business administration's venture capital program, the sbic. they have proposed legislation that would allow another $1 billion in equity-like financing for smaller, fast-growing firps, and it also extends for one year the s.b.a.'s 504 refi loan program to help refinance real estate to long-term fixed rate loans. these modifications have created and saved hundreds of thousands of american jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. these are tried and true ways to increase jobs here in america without running the risk of undermining the information that investors need to make sound

choices about where to invest their dollars. now, it is very tempting to suggest that we simply have to cut a couple of regulations and jobs will expand. that was a theme that was rampant here during the bush administration. and for a while, frankly, it looked like it was working. then with a sudden and colossal collapse, we knew that was not the path to long-term sustained job creation. sound investment based on adequate information in companies that will produce jobs here in the united states is the way to proceed. we need to listen to those individuals charged with the supervision of our capital markets, the s.e.c., and now we have both the current chairman and a former chairman saying the legislation the house proposed is a threat to all of the

investors in this country. the stakes are high if we get some of these things wrong. we have been trying to focus on these issues intensively for the last few months to bring legislation to the floor that will balance capital formation with investor protections. you can't, i think, get one at the expense of the other. you have to have both. so i would encourage all my colleagues to take a very close look at the reid-landrieu-levin substitute. i believe it's a substantial improvement to the house bill. and i believe my colleague from louisiana will speak. once again, i must commend her her passion to protect investors, particularly small investors, and her passion to create jobs through the s.b.a. and other agencies is both remarkable and commendable and indeed exceptional. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i am going to give the staff just a minute to get set up here for my brief presentation, ten or 15 minutes, but i want to thank senator reed and senator levin who have helped to lead this effort to make a bill that's coming over from the house much better, much safer for investors as well as generate opportunities for more capital to flow to some of the good and solid ideas that are out there in our marketplace to create jobs, and i am pleased to join these two senators and about a dozen to date and

potentially dozens more of our colleagues as people learn the differences, and they are substantial, between the house version of what they call an i.p.o. bill and the senate version that we have worked on very diligently, carefully over the last 48 hours. the three of us are prepared to vote against the house bill as it stands now. the only hope of getting our support and many others here is to try to amend the house bill, and that's what our efforts are. we're not trying to say no to everything that is in the house bill because there are some excellent ideas, and even the president himself and the white house and some of the democrats

voted for that bill because there are some good ideas for the bill and some ideas that have come from some of the brightest entrepreneurs in our country. we're not trying to say no to those ideas. we're trying to say yes to those ideas but do it in a way that protects investors. older investors, younger investors, sophisticateed investors, and your average sort of nonsophisticated investor, because the internet has opened up a whole new opportunity. when these security laws were written 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 60 years ago and amended, the internet wasn't what it is today, and so that is why this crowd funding bill, which is really in essence a way for the internet to be used to raise capital. that is illegal generally today.

and there are very specific rules about how people can raise capital for their businesses. some of those regulations are too onerous, some of them are right on, but this whole idea of oh, my goodness, now the internet is here, look what opportunities there are. we could get our ideas to the marketplace without having to go through middlemen. we have a great idea, a wonderful patent, we want to be able to raise money. we're very excited about this, but there is a right way to do this and there is a wrong way to do this. the house bill, you know that you're in a little bit of rocky ground when they don't really have the name for it. they have called it everything from an i.p.o. bill to a jobs bill to a capital expansion bill. what i'm calling it today -- and i will have a poster made over the weekend -- is an ill-advised political opportunity bill.

an ill-advised political opportunity bill. that's what i.p.o. stands for in my mind. it's ill-advised because the safeguards that are required to make sure that these new ideas happen the way they should are absent from their legislation. that's why when i found out surprisingly that the senate of the united states was getting ready to just take that bill and just adopt it whole hog, i said absolutely not. we have to slow this down, try to amend it. not kill it but amend it. and the reason is is because there are very respected groups out there that started sending letter after letter after letter to the senate urging us to do just that.

now, this isn't about a conservative-liberal fight, okay? this is about the right regulations that are necessary before we take a really good idea and mess it up. crowd funding is a good idea, it's an exciting idea. there are great entrepreneurs out there. the internet could be a very powerful tool. but everyone knows that if you enter into new territory without the caution and care, you can really fall off a cliff that you didn't even know was there. madam president, that is exactly what the house bill is going to do. now, if you don't want to take my word for it, let's talk about what aarp says about it. this is the first letter. i'm going to put a dozen letters into the record in the next ten minutes to try to get the

attention of the people on the other side of the aisle. this is all an attempt to get their attention over the weekend, and i hope that the press will write about these letters so that when they come back on monday, they can say oh, my gosh, we have a good bill that came from the house but there are some real flaws and we should fix it before we create another wall street debacle or before we see people ripped off again like we just went through in the last six years. again, how short is our memory about investors getting stripped, going bankrupt because of exactly the same thing? just not being careful. not having the right rules in place. not having the right enformats in place. -- enforcements in place. this was like yesterday. that's why when the leadership said we were just going to take up the house bill, i said wait a minute, no, no, no.

this is what the aarp said. joyce rogers, i am rieg twroig reiterate our opposition to the lack of investor protections in h.r. 3606. again, the house passed ill-advised political opportunity bill. that's what i'm calling it. that's what it is. that soon will be considered on the floor of the senate. aarp's primary concern is this legislation undermines vital investor protections and threatens market integrity. aarp doesn't urge the senate to kill the bill. aarp urges the senate to take a more balanced approach, recognizing both an interest in facilitating access to new capital for small business and preserving essential regulations. we believe the amendment to be offered by senator reid,

landrieu, and levin moves closer to achieving that balance. and it goes on to say that sometimes the people that are taken advantage of are the elderly. so wake up, senators from florida. wake up, senators from michigan. wake up, senators that have big senior populations. the aarp is against the house bill, the ill-advised political opportunity bill. north american securities administrators, they sent a letter yesterday. it's seven pages long. jack kerstein. they go into great deal on detail on behalf of the north american securities administrators association. i don't think this is a liberal think tank. i think this is a very well-respected, not left-wing,

regulate everything that moves kind of group. i think they said -- i think that's correct, and they say i'm writing to express concerns regarding several provisions most notably our strong concern with the extraordinary step of preempting state law for crowd funding that's contained in the h.r. ill advised political opportunity bill which was passed by the house. state security regulators support efforts by congress to ensure that laws facilitating the raising of capital are modern and efficient, that americans are encouraged to raise money to invest in the economy. however, it's critical that in doing so congress not disregard basic investor protections. i'm going to submit this letter, without objection, i hope to the record. now, this is the -- this is the north american securities

administration. this is the council of institutional investors, nonprofit, nonpartisan association of public, corporate, and union pension plans. let me repeat. not just union pension plans here. public and corporate pension plans. they are writing with questions about the house ill advised political opportunity bill and go into great detail. so i'm putting this into the record, hoping people will actually read the congressional record. another letter to speaker boehner and nancy pelosi, this was delivered to the house, it may be a little different than the one to the senate, so i'd like to put that into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: this letter was received yesterday. these are very important letters received just recently, that's why i'm asking people, wake up, pay attention. securities and exchange

commission, march 13, this is to chairman johnson, ranking member shelby. basically saying last week the house of representatives passed h.r. 3606 as the senate prepares to debate many of the capital formation initiatives i want to share with you my concern on some important aspects of this significant legislation, and it is signed by mary shapiro, chairman, outlike lining a -- outlining a dozen of her concerns because of course she thinks there is going to be a debate. she would expect a debate on a bill of this nature and magnitude and diversion from the ordinary. but we weren't going to have a debate. we were just going to be told to take the house bill or leave it until a few of us said no, slow this train down, no way to run a railroad, we're not trying to kill the bill, we're not trying to delay, we're trying to have

at least a two- or three-day debate on on important piece of legislation that if it's not done right is going to absolutely ruin the best chance we've had in decades to actually get capital into the hands of businesses. everyone here should now know me well enough as the chair of the small business committee to know that i have spent literally nights, daze --, days, and weekends on the floor of this senate trying to figure out ways to get capital into the hands of small business. why would i stand here and try to stop that? i've spent my whole time atsz chairman of the small business committee trying to do that. but again, there's a right way to do that and a wrong way. if we take the wrong path and fall off of a cliff, we're going to ruin the chance that we have with this new internet tool, this very exciting opportunity, and we are going to ruin our chances to get this done.

and who's going to suffer? the same people that suffer all the time. the small businesses and the exciting startup opportunities, and entrepreneurs that need our help. any bill that's a major bill can stand the scrutiny of time for the public and amendment. and if it can't stand that scrutiny, then i'd suggest there's something terribly flawed with it and that's what we're trying to provide, scrutiny. this comes from the afl-cio, from jeff howser, an e-mail, yes, america needs jobs, yet congress cannot enact such basic reauthorization as reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, which we passed but it hasn't been, he goes on to say workers' retirement savings will be at risk if the house bill is passed. once again our economy will be at risk of the folly of

policymakers promoting financial bubbles, ignoring the needs of the real economy. the afl-cio calls on congress to set aside politics of the 1%, the old games favoring wall street, and they're very strong in their language and probably a lot stronger than these organizations, but i think they have reason to be. many of their members were taken to the cleaners by scams on wall street. they've yet to recover. their 401's have yet to recover. and even last week or yesterday in the paper i saw one of the big companies that failed, i think it was m.f. -- m.f. global. did you all see that in the newspaper? they failed of course and a terrible debacle but the c.e.o. is walking away with a $7 million bonus. people that work hard all day have a very hard time understanding how we in the

congress can allow the c.e.o. to walk away with a bonus of $7 million when he bankrupted thousands of people. that's a good question. are we going to do that again with this house bill? i hope not. so let's put the afl on record saying slow down. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: this is the next message i wants to put in from the secretaries of state. i want to read off which they are. the secretary from missouri, robin carnahan. the secretary from massachusetts, william gavin. the sphrect new hampshire, william gardner. the secretary from mississippi, i believe is a republican, delbert hoesman. the secretary from north carolina, secretary of state, elaine marshall. the secretary from nevada, ross miller. the secretary of state from indiana, charles wright. and the secretary of state from

illinois, jess white -- jesse white says the same thing. beware of the house bill, it is flawed. it has some good ideas in it, but those flaws need to be corrected. that's what the reed-landrieu-levin et al does. we aren't trying to kill these wonderful ideas, exciting ideas. we're trying to fix it so it's better. and i hope that our members on the other side will join us in doing that and i'd like to submit this to the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: the last -- i'm sorry, there are two more. actually i'm sorry, four more, we've gotten so many. the next one is from my office of financial institutions from baton rouge, my commissioner, banking commissioner wrote me. he is generally in favor of some of the things in the house bill, but he said i'm writing to urge you to oppose the

preemption of louisiana law to protect investors. that, i'd like to put into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: the american sustainability business council, signed by david levin. again, i don't believe this is a left-leaning group. i think it's a pretty centrist organization. they urge us to take a hard look at the house bill. and finally, madam president, i want to put into the record -- this is really when i got nervous. when i started receiving letters in my office from crowd funders themselves. against the house bill. the people who gave the idea to start up crowd funding have now said the house bill is flawed. and what they say here is, we write in favor of the bipartisan compromise crowd fund act

proposed recently by merkley, brown, bennet and landrieu. that's the crowd funding act that's in this substitute. yesterday evening's introduction -- this was last week -- of the first bipartisan senate crowd funding bill is a big step forward in our fight to get equity crowd funding passed through congress. i've been to washington, d.c. seven times since mid november discussing this legislation. the offices of the senators on the banking committee have been very receptive to input from the entrepreneurial community and have adopted many of our suggestions. but they go on to say while the opposition is mainly -- i'm sorry, it goes on to say the latest bill is an important -- is important because unlike previous bills for the first time we have a senate bill with bipartisan sponsorship, a balance of state oversight and

federal uniformity. industrial standard investor protections and workable funding caps. this bill has a legitimate chance at quieting those who were previously trumping up fears of fraud and bad actors. to date, the main issues the opposition regarding fraud and state oversight. what they're saying is we're the ones that helped invent this concept. we don't think the house bill is where it should be. we're supporting the merkley-bennet approach which is in this bill. so launch it, we hear you, and we're trying to respond. and finally, motavi, i guess is the way, again a crowd funder advocate, people very entrepreneurial coming up with these ideas saying the same thing. could i have those into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: again just to recap so people can see on this

chart, aarp has written us against the house bill. consumer federation of america against the house bill. the afl-cio against the house bill. yes, those are some of the left-leaning organizations. but we also have central -- centrist and right-leaning organizations. talking about the former security and exchange commissioner's chief accountant. this is what they say. there are always paths to improvement for, the stock exchange included. how quickly congressmen seem to have forgotten why many such regulations were enacted in the first place. last month marked the tenth anniversary of the collapse of enron. madam president, it hasn't been ten years and we're going back to where we were when enron took money out of the pockets of

thousands of people in america. why are we doing that? regulations that prevent capital multiplying goes that want to go public from doing so are bad. ones that prevents capital destroying ones from becoming public nuisances are good. no job creation will be generated through the process of socializing capital destruction to the general public. what he's saying that the house bill goes too far. and, again, eric schulenberk, editor of ink,.com. they are have a very well respected voice in the community day. they're saying the house bill is flawed. i know we're going to be criticized by saying it's the same old left-wing groups that want more regulation and more regulation but that is not true. and that is why i'm putting all

of this in the record today, so that people can carefully consider tomorrow and over the weekend and on monday before we come back here to look and read what is beings about the house bill. and to be open and honest in our efforts to try to reform it. again, just others, for the record, mary shapiro, chairman of the securities and exchange commission, "while i recognize that h.r. 3606, the ill-advised political opportunity bill" -- those are my words -- "is the product of bipartisan effort designed to facilitate capital formation and includes certain promising approaches, i believe there are provisions that should be added or modified to improve investor protections that are worthy of the senate's consideration." and so that's what we have done. we took the bill from the house

and looked at it very carefully. and on monday, i'm going to hand this out to everyone, and we're sending it to everyone's offices now. it's kind of become a famous small business blue line that's very easy for everyone to understand. and it shows the differences between the senate bill and the house bill. and, as you can see, both bills raise the cap on regulation a offerings from $5 million to $50 million. we're happy to do that. but we improve the transparency of regulation a by requiring an audited financial statement. madam president, you don't need to have graduated from a master's program at stanford or harvard to understand that if you're getting ready to invest, whether it's $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000, having an audited

financial statement about the company you're getting ready to invest in would be kind of a basic thing to do. i think that maybe we learn about this when we're in maybe seventh or eighth grade. you don't have to go to harvard to know this. the audited financial statement, however, requirement is absent from the house bill. there is no requirement in the house bill for an audited financial statement. so we just put an audited financial statement in our bill. i don't think that's a radical amendment. it's a simple one. it's an important one. we also, you've heard about this i.p.o. onramp. and in the house bill, they exempt companies up to $1 billion in annual revenue. now, $1 billion is a lot of money, so everybody, wake up. the house bill says, if you are

less than $1 billion, that you basically don't have to adhere to most of the rules and regulations. you can just go on your merry way. now, how many -- that's great, ill-advised political opportunity. that's what i'm calling the house bill. but let me just check to see how many companies went public that were over a billion dollars last year. only 22% of companies went public last year over a billion dollars. so if my math's correct, the house bill is going to eliminate from regulation 88% -- 78% -- that's why i need the check -- 78% of the companies from regulation.

the raise money on -- in the public. now, that is going too far. it is unnecessary. we bring that number down in our bill to $350. and the author of this provision in the senate has signed on as a supporter, chuck schumer. and the reason he did is because he realizes, even as the sponsor of this on-ramp provision, that the house bill went too far. i'm not going to go into all of the rules and regulations but it's not that complicated because, one, two, three, for, , five, six, seven, eight -- there are only about eight big differences, but they're important differences. and so i'm going to wrap up here by saying, please, study the record, please, look at it. and in our senate bill, which, madam president, you've been very supportive of, as has senator cantwell -- and i want

to thank both of you publicly -- as well as senator klobuchar, we have the export-import bank in our bill, which is not in the house bill. and the chamber of commerce has written us asking us to please support the export-import bank. we also expand the sbic, which is the small business investment program, which the president included in his state of the union address, to authorize that program to move from $3 billion to $4 billion. why? because we're having such success through the sbic programs that exist in all of our states, getting money out to main street, to small businesses. so that is included in our bill. and one that you've been particularly a lead on that costs -- and that is no cost to the packs pair.

these things do not cost any additional money. the s.b.a. 504 refinancing that going to allow -- extend for one year the ability of the small business loan program that has thousands of outstanding loans to extend for another year the opportunity for them to refinance their commercial loans. so we've added three provisions to the house bill that makes it more balanced and better for small business and we've put in a couple of oversight measures into their provisions that i think in the words of many of even the advocates of this bill, make the bill better. i don't know, madam president, if we'll be successful but this is worth a try. because the damage that could be done, the damage that could be done in venturing out so far into a new way of financing without the proper safeguards

could set us back decades. we don't want to go backwards, madam president. we want to go forward. we don't want to go back to the days of enron and bernie madoff. we don't want to go back. we want to go forward. why would republicans in the fates of -- in the face of these scanldzs comscandal come up witn and i'm democrats voted for it. i'm not quite sure how that happened but we're going to find out -- why would they want to go back to those days? we want to go forward with the riot protections. i see -- with the right protections. i see my friend, senator levin, on the floor. he most certainly understands this issue better in many ways than i do on the technical side of it. he's helped write this bill. i'm hoping that he will give even a better explanation than i've been able to give. but i think i've covered it pretty broadly and he can go

into a lot more detail about the possibility of fraud in here if it's not locked down. and i'm going to end with just a word to my community banks, because i have tried to become a champion nora champion for them. i think they can appreciate it. i'm not 100% sure. i really believe in independent banks. the independent community bankers of america sent a letter supporting the house bill. i'm going to call them over the weekends and talk with them specifically about my concerns and ask them to reconsider their position. our compromise i think is very good for our community bankers. i don't know whether they will or not. i know that they want to get rid of some of the onerous requirements that were placed on them in the sarbanes-oxley

legislation. and i appreciate it. i helped sponsor some of the amendments on their behalf. but i think this house bill is going too far. i'm going to reach out to them. we will see what their view is. i do respect the views of my community bankers. but let me yield the floor now. we're going to have a lot more to talk about next week and i, again, thank senator levin and senator reid for joining with me and for senator reid leading this effort -- senator reed leading this effort, senator jack reed, to help put a bill the senate that provides balance, provides the investor protections and also opens up some exciting opportunities for capital to create new businesses in america that are the backbone of our extraordinary and not to be matched really entrepreneurship spirit in the world. we honor that but we want to do it in the right way. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, before the senator from louisiana leaves the floor, let me just thank her for her leadership in this area, the passion that she has brought to it. this is a train which has moved with great speed from the house of representatives, much too great speed, and her ability just by the expression of her will and her determination to bring this to a point where we can debate it, at least over a few days and a weekend, is critically important i believe to the future of investors in this country. there's no state that has suffered more than the -- more from the job losses of the great recession than my state of michigan, madam president, and you don't have to ask a michiganan twice if he or she believes that congress should take action to increase the speed of the jobs recovery. so i'm ready to consider any legislation that promises more opportunity for the workers of this country. but unfortunately, the legislation that the house has

sent to us, which is promoted as a job-creation bill, is no such thing. in the name of job creation, the house bill would severely weaken investor and taxpayer protections in our securities laws. in the name of putting americans to work, the house bill would hand a series of special favors to influential special interest groups. it also reflects a disturbing failure to learn the lessons of the recent and all-too-painful past. it defies belief, madam president, that after the worst financial crisis in generations, a crisis brought on by the failure to effectively police our financial markets, that congress would consider removing vital obstacles to fraud and abuse. the house bill would take a series of steps that would undermine the integrity of our financial markets. we should not go down that road. we need not go down that road in working with senator jack reed, senator landrieu, senator share

reasherrod brown and others. i've participated in an effort to make some changes in that bill that would give small, innovative companies more tools to access the capital that they need. we want to do that. we all want to do that. but we do that in our bill without putting the stability of our economy and the interest of american investors and taxpayers at risk. and i want to just lay out some of the problems with the house bill and how our reed-landrieu-levin amendment would address those problems. the house bill would lower barriers to fraud that are now present in the so-called regulation a stock offerings. these are offerings that are excepexempt from the sec registn requirements. house bill would expose retail investors -- those with no expert trees, no resources to assess the risks of participating in the unregulated market, to massive potential

fraud and abuse. bill does not even require that companies making offerings under regulation a provide audited financial statements. the regulation a process is appropriate for very small companies, but the house bill provides fuel meaningful limits to its use. instead, it would allow larger companies to avoid meaningful oversight year after year. now, i'm worked with colleagues to fix this problem by ensuring that these offerings are limited. so that they're only used once every three years. that's one of the changes we would make. that investors in the offerings get an accurate picture of the company's finances by requiring add itd financial statements. in the name of giving smaller conditions greater access to the initial public offering market, the house bill would create a new class of corporation called an emergency growthing -- an

emerging growth company and would strip from investors in such companies more than a dozen important investor protections. some of the protections involve transparency. the house bill would weaken corporate governance provisions that we enacted less than two years ago in the dodd-frank act, including disclosures on executive pay. the house bill would exempt coops from having to comply with accounting divisions. this would require financial firms to separate research analysts who advise clients on whether to invest in initial public offerings from the sales teams of those same companies.tw between those two parts of any company so that the sales teams don't take advantage of what the research teams are telling their

customers. thrtthere's too many opportunits for conflicts of interest, and front running and other things if you allow that wall to be breached. the house bill provides that companies with up to $1 billion in annual revenue would not have to get an outside ou awedder to check their internal controls. so what happens if one of these companies is cooking the books? who's going to catch it? we learned with enron and worldcom why we need meaningful checks on how companies prepare their financial statements. the vast majority of financial restatements, which are corrections to bate bad informan given to the investing public, are made by medium- and small companies. investors are should have the confidence that the financial statements on which they base their decisions are accurate. now, those provisions of the house bill are bad enough, given the chronic problem in financial markets with poor and misleading

financial disclosure. but to make matters worse, the bill would open this collection of loopholes to companies with up to $1 billion in annual revenue. now, that is a level which would include well over 80% of all i.p.o.'s. so over 80% of all the i.p.o.'s which will be issued would then be exempt from the protections under the house bill. financial regulators, association of individual investors, many of the largest pension funds in this country, securities experts, and the chamber of commerce have all raised alarm bells about that $1 billion threshold as well as the many problems that will follow from the house bill. just this week the s.e.c. took a series of enforcement actions against fraudsters seeking to victimize investors in pre pre-i.p.o. offerings. as one official notes, "the

newly emerging secondary market for pre-i.p.o. stock presents risk for even savvy investors." the house bill threatens to bring the same level of risk and instability that plagued pre-i.p.o. trading to the i.p.o. market itself, changes that rather than building support for i.p.o.'s might actually make the i.p.o. market so rick dhai it ends -- risk dhai it ends up dampening investor interest. the amendments that some of us have been working on, which is the reid-landrieu-levin, et al amount, accepts the premise that new small new companies could benefit from somewhat-relaxed benefits. but our amendment would limit these benefits to smaller companies and our amendment would not exempt these companies

from many of the critical investor protections. for example, we would not remove protections designed to protect the integrity of the research that's available to investors, nor would we exempt them from any new accounting rules, nor would we exempt them from requirements regarding important executive pay disclosures and shareholder input on executive pay packages. our amendment would provide flexibility for smaller, newly public companies to adjust to the public markets, but we would leave in place the investor protections that ensure our public markets remain the best in the world. now, the house bill would also allow companies or fraudsters posing as legitimate companies to solicit investors directly through the internet, and this is one of the really big issues that we're going to address next week. as written, the house bill would offer investors almost no protection from fraudulent

schemes and fake investment opportunities. although these web sites -- they're often called intermediaries or funding portals -- are the only entities capable of making sure that a company seeking to sell its stock on its site is real, the house exempts them -- exempts the intermediaries and the funding portals from any real regulation or liability. and the same is true with the issuing company. and that's why labor groups, seniors organizations, regulators, and security experts all warn us that this measure is an open invitation to fraud. one group calls it "the boiler room legalization act." so we have many problems with these provisions of the house bill, but we also believe that the so-called crowd funding in which small start-ups can access pools of capital from small

investors, usually over the internet, has the potential to provide opportunity for truly small businesses to get additional capital that they need to grow. this can be don done electronicy and that's why we build on the work of senators merkley and bennetbennet. but we make sure as they do that it has the necessary investor and consumer protections. in fact, legitimate crowd funding sites have made it clear to us that they, like us, are concerned about the house bill. so we have legitimate crowd funding interest groups that want to make sure that the protections are there for the investors speaking out against some of the excessive provisions in the house bill. they want the additional protections that we provide.

so our amendment makes sure that funding portals are subject to meaningful regulation and that the companies that use them to raise capital are also subject to meaningful regulation. our amendment, would unlike the house bill, require comprehensive disclosures to investors about the company and the risks of such investments. if this new way of investing in new companies is to succeed, then investor protections like the ones embodied in the merkley-bennet provisions, which we've cloud in our amendment, arevite -- we've conclude in our amendment, are vital to participation. the house bill also attempts to remove regulations on so-called private offerings by allowing issuers private o offerings to market their stock to the public whether on billboards or internet or whatever or on late-night television ads.

that provision in the house bill would dangerously lower our provisions on fraud. we have seen this before in the 1990's. regulatorrers lowered the -- regulatorrers lowered the offerings and within years reversed their error because of widespread fraud and abuse. some have complained that the existing restrictions on solicitations for private offerings are too narrow and impede business access to capital. that seems unlikely given the nearly $1 trillion a year in private offering activity. but if there are yet more worthy investments that are going unfunded because of unneeded investor protections, the s.e.c. regulations should be updated for the internet age. the reid-landrieu-levin amendment would direct the s.e.c. to revise its rules to

offer and sell shares to accredited investors. but this ten directs the s.e.c. -- but it then directs the s.e.c. that reasonable steps are taken to verify that the purchasers are actually accredited investors. it requires the s.e.c. to revise its rules to make sure that these sales tactics are appropriate, there's not going to be under our language billboards or cold calls to senior living seniors centers. i wish i could say the same thing about the house bill. madam president, there's little evidence that the reduced investor protections and invitations to fraud in the house bill will make any meaningful contribution to job growth. we do not have one study that any one of the provisions in the house bill establishes that such a job wil killer exists.

the house bill does not create jobs. in fact, former chief accountant to the s.e.c. was coat quoted as saying that the jobs bill was no jobs bill at all the. he said "this would be better known as the bucket shop and penny stock reauthorization act of 201." taken together, these and other provisions in the house bill send a false message that in order to grow the economy, we must subject our citizens to more fraud, we must put pension funds and church endowments in greater risk of fleecing, we must create mor more threats toe financial stability of american families. the america that i know and i believe in it capable of growing our economy without these unnecessary risks. indeed, it is fraud and financial abuse that have repeatedly brought our economy to its knees. we opened the door to fraud and

abuse in the savings and loan industry, we precipitated a crisis that destroyed 750 financial institutions when we did that. we cut the number of new homes built in this country by nearly half and devastated entire communities. we dropped the barriers to fraud through financial statements and in swaps markets, opening the door to the predations of the so-called smartest guys in the room. those were the criminal executives of enron. we lowered the barriers to needless risk and conflicts of interest in the financial system and we paved the road thereby to the greatest financial crisis since the 1930's. over the last ten years on a bipartisan basis, my permanent subcommittee on investigations s has issued report after report on the enron crisis, accounting and securities fraud, and the

most recent subprime mart crisis. our investigation that is disclosed how some american corporations, their accountants and banks were willing to dupe investors and even after it came to light walk away with huge paychecks while workers, investors, and the american economy at large paid the price. enron was the seventh-largest u.s. corporation before its crash bankrupted employees' pensions and investors. it lied about its earnings and did so with the help of accountants and banks. goldman sachs sold securities through public and private offerings and did not fully inform investors about what they were buying. the wrongdoing that our subcommittee has uncovered over the years is as powerful a reminder as you can get. investors deserve protection against abuses when they invest their hard-earned dollars in u.s. capital markets.

there is a rising wave of concern among market experts that the house legislation's effect might be precisely the opposite of its supporters' stated intent and that instead of boosting the ability of companies to find capital so that they can grow, that these changes would hurt the market for investing in new companies by making that market too risky. if we remove meaningful transparency and safeguards against fraud, s.e.c. chairman shapiro wrote just a few days, a "investors will lose confidence in our markets and capital formation will ultimately be made more difficult and expensive." the question for the champions of lower regulatory barriers is this: did those rollbacks of regulatory protections help our economy grow? did those rollbacks that we saw so many of and which i've just

outlined create jobs in ask a family that was wiped out in a financial crisis ask an investor that lost everything to enron, ask one of the 8.6 million workers who lost their jobs in a financial crisis created on wall street, one that we have yet to fully overcome. in november of 1999, this body debated another piece of financial legislation, one whose supporters claimed would lead toed boundless new economic opportunities for our country. the bill that we were debating repealed the glass-steagall act, lowered barriers to concentration in the financial industry. it removed the wall street -- excuse me, it removed the wall that separated investment banking from commercial banking since the aftermath of the great depression. senator byron dorgan came to this floor and he issued a warning -- quote -- "it may be

that i'm homesly old-fashioned," he said, "but i do not think we should you ignore the lessons learned in the 1930's." i also think that we will in 10 years time look back and say we should not have done that because we forget the lessons of the past." that was 1999. ten years after senator dorgan's remarks almost to the day that he predicted america's economy hit rock bottom, the lowest mark of employment during the great depression. well, old-fashioned sounds pretty good these days. i hope to be as old-fashioned as senator dorgan who warned us that lowering the barriers that protect us from financial catastrophe can only destroy jobs, not create jobs. destroy jobs. i hope the senate will turn away from the house bill that threatens more fraud, more abuse and renewed crisis. i hope the senate will embrace

reforms that are present in our substitute amendment, that give our innovative companies the chance to compete without endangering investor confidence or the stability of our economy. and, madam president, i note the absence of a quorum, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. stphaoepb intervene thank you. when i talk to small business owners in new hampshire, one thing i notice consistently is access to capital is a real challenge. while our communities banks have increased their lending, capital access from large banks and

other entities has been very hard to come by. as a result, small businesses fighting to grow and create jobs continue to be constrained in their efforts. now, i'm glad that the senate is planning to move forward with this legislation that will address capital formation and that will take some additional steps to help those small companies get the financing they need to grow. but as we take that step forward, it's equally important that we don't also take a step back. that's why i believe it's critical for the senate to extend two venues of small business financing as part of this debate. the export import bank and the small business' administration 504 refinancing program. these programs, which bring no cost to the taxpayers -- pleat say that again -- let me say that again.

these programs bring no cost to taxpayers, but provide financing options for so many small businesses in new hampshire, in west virginia and across our country. mrs. shaheen: we have an important opportunity to ensure that such important avenues to capital remain available in the coming years by extending these programs as part of the small business capital package that we're currently debating. so first, let me begin with the export-import bank, a vital agency that helps small businesses secure what they need for export deals. this is critical because exports are such an important part of the markets that are available to businesses today. you know, 95% of markets exist outside of the united states, but only 1% of small and medium-size businesses are doing business outside of the united states. so businesses need access to

these international markets. last august senator ayotte and i held a small business field hearing in new hampshire, and it was on small business exporting. we heard how difficult it can be for a small company to sell its products overseas. it is particularly challenging for a small business to get financing for its foreign deals. that's where the export-import bank makes such a significant impact. 87% of the export-import bank transactions support businesses. so i think there's a misconception about who the ex-im bank really helps. 87% of their transactions support businesses. last year alone the bank helped finance more than $6 billion in export sales from small companies in the united states t. set a goal of increasing this volume by an additional $3

billion in the coming year, and it's created a new global access for small business initiative which is designed to dramatically increase the number of small companies taking advantage of its programs. in fact, i think this new initiative is terrific. the ex-im bank came to new hampshire and unveiled this initiative, again, this bank assists small businesses at no cost to the taxpayer. unfortunately, right now this no-cost small business program is in jeopardy. unless we act soon to reauthorize the export-import bank it will hit its lending cap and be forced to cut off support for small businesses. we can't afford to let that happen. without the bank, small businesses will lose a significant amount of foreign sales and the jobs they maintain. last year the banks supported

over 288,000 american jobs. as more small companies become aware of the bank's programs, more businesses will be able to access new markets and create new jobs. so i want to give an example because as i said, last year we had the chair of the export-import bank in portsmouth, new hampshire, they unveiled their new small businesses and met with a number of businesses interested in exporting. one of those businesses is a company called skelly arcs medical equipment company based in hol list, new hampshire. -- in holly, new hampshire. they were unaware of the program the export-import bank offered. two weeks before this event skelly took out a policy with the bank. it put them in a position to

expand its sales overseas and right now skelly medical is looking to finance deals in as many as five financial markets. that's all thanks to the help of the export-import bank. without the export-import bank that kind of success story won't happen. it would be a real mistake for this senate to pass a capital access bill without this critical reauthorization. now, the second program i'd like to talk about is another no-cost program that deserves to be extended, and that's the small business administration's section 504 refinancing program. with bipartisan support, the senate passed the small business jobs act two years ago. well, about a year and a half. and that small business jobs act created this 504 program to help small businesses refinance existing loans under the

s.b.a.'s 504 lending program. again, what we're hearing as my colleagues know and as i'm sure the presiding officer knows, is that this difficult real estate market that we're in has made it challenging for many successful businesses to refinance the real estate deals. they can't get access to capital right now, particularly in the real estate industry, which has been so hard hit during this recession. what this s.b.a. program allows is for small businesses to lock in long-term stable financing so that they can free up capital to invest in their companies and hire new workers. and although this program got off to a slow start, the small business administration has made important changes to ensure that it is working better now for small businesses and for banks.

so as a result, we're starting to see a significant increase in volume. in new hampshire, lenders see this program becoming a real success in the near future. allen abraham, who is the president of the granite state development corporation in new hampshire, has said that banks and borrowers are now understanding the significant benefits of the program, and he told me -- quote -- "we are starting to field many more phone calls requesting information on the policies, and we anticipate dozens of new hampshire small businesses could benefit from extending this program." we shouldn't cut this program off at the knees just as we're beginning to see substantial returns, again without costs to taxpayers. this program is scheduled to sunset in september, and i believe it's important for the lending community to know as

soon as possible that the program will continue into 2013. that's so they can devote the resources necessary to continue this initiative's budding success, and also so that we can provide the certainty that so many companies tell us they need. now, we should extend this program. we should address the export-import bank's reauthorization, and that's why i think as we look at the landrieu-reed-levin substitute amendment, it includes these provisions. it includes reauthorization of the export-import bank and it includes extension of the s.b.a. 504 program. it also includes a number of other provisions that address some of the concerns that have been expressed by the house-passed capital formation bill. and senators landrieu, reed and

levin were on the floor earlier and really very eloquently elaborated on those changes. so i would urge my colleagues to support that substitute amendment to reauthorize the export-import bank to extend s.b.a.'s 504 loan program. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor of that landrieu-reed-levin amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: 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 ask we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the agricultural committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 473. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: an act to provide for the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of land in the ouachita national forest in oklahoma to the indian nationals council incorporated of the boy scouts of america and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the proceeding? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the will be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements put in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 886. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 886 an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 225th anniversary of the establishment

of the nation's first federal law enforcement agency, the united states marshals service. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent a boozman-pryor amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, passed and a motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 398. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 398 recognizing the 191st anniversary of the independence of greece and grating greek and american democracy. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the senate will proceed. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on

the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent question when the senate completes its business it adjourn until monday, march 19 at 2:00 p.m. morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved. following leader remarks the senate proceed to morning business until 4:30 with senators allowed to speak up to ten minutes each. following morning business the senate would resume consideration of the i.p.o. bill, further, the deadline for filing to the reed substitute amendment be 4:00 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be no votes on monday. senators should expect the next vote on tuesday morning prior to the weekly caucus meetings. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the

previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

who served in the house from 1925 to 1960. watch senator mikulski's speeches from the senate and other c-span appearances all archived and searchable on line at the c-span video library. >> congratulations to all this years winners of c-span student documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered the video on the theme the constitution and you showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the winning videos at

her web site studentcam.org and join us through april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span and we'll talk with the winners during "washington journal." you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs week days. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on but tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> house armed services committee chair howard mckeon criticized president obama's budget request wednesday, saying it will cost soldiers to get pink slips is that it is tickertape rate. he spoke about nationals national segui challenges, defense department budget cuts and the danger of sequestration at the ronald reagan presidential -- the defense budget request for 2013 is

$525.4 billion, a 1% decrease in discretionary spending. this is about half an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much john for that warm introduction and thank you for inviting me to this beautiful facility. reagan and his people knew how to do things right. the setting and the beauty of this whole structure is phenomenal. you just can't help but think about president reagan while you are here and it's timely, given the political season that one of the most famous campaign ads in history was president reagan's bear in the woods add. during the race, the reagan campaign was having trouble explaining their peace through strength foreign policy that the american people.

the electorate at the time seemed to prefer walter mondale simple deferential approach to the soviet union. so the campaign team did what reagan was best that. they simplified the message as john just so aptly put. in the ad there was an ominous reference to the soviet union as the narrator gravely warned, there is a bear in the woods. the point was that unpredictability was a dangerous -- of a dangerous enemy is a threat that must be taken seriously. today's world is rife with unpredictability and america's 21st century strategic outlook is a tangled mess. a senior military leader recently told me, in my 37 years of service, i have never seen a

time as dangerous as today. we live in a globalized economy where communication and commerce or network. violence or conflict in a remote region of the world can ripple across borders, faith and economies. i am concerned about a world where the flap of a butterfly's wings can create a tornado. that means we must make preparedness a top national security priority. the price of liberty thomas jefferson once wrote, is eternal vigilance. dwight eisenhower echoed that sentiment. everyone knows his remark about the military industrial complex. let me tell you another thing that he was famous for. he was the soldier that hated war. i quote what he said about peace. the vital element in keeping the

peace is our military establishment. our arms must be ready, must be mighty, prepared for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk its own destruction. to broad oceans once protected what reagan called the shining city on a hill. today our economy grows -- draws its strength from critical, geographical choke points. one of those, the middle east, is undergoing an historic shift. iran's quest for nuclear weapons is perhaps the gravest threat to the global order we have seen since the collapse of communism. as populism realigns the muslim world, the alliance between the sects of islam are sharpening. sunnis and shia have thought for centuries. now i ran, the world's most

prolific exporter of terrorism, wants to throw nuclear weapons into that mix. people often ask, what what would i ran dare to use nuclear weapons? i ask you, can we afford to believe they won't? can we afford to believe that china, which just this month announced a 12% increase in military spending, will allow our pacific allies to live in peace? reagan mastered the art of keeping this nation out of hostilities. but today, we tend to forget, we are a nation at war. though the mission has it been in a far off land and among an unfamiliar culture we also forget the sacrifices of a generation. are new, greatest generation that have kept us safe since the september 11 attacks. californians have led the way

both at home and in the field. duncan hunter, the son of former chairman of the house armed services committee, joined the marines right after 9/11, leaving his wife and children at home and he served three tours in iraq and afghanistan and then took his seat, his father's seat in congress, and now sits on the house armed services committee with me. men like california jeff garrell, navy officer who just returned home safely from camp leatherneck, afghanistan. we are lucky as californians and as americans, to have these men and women, who have taken the time and are defending our freedom and representing our values. fair story has been repeated over and over. citizen soldiers who have given

up time with their families and their careers to deploy into harm's way. it's tragic that their story can be subdued when a lone individual commits horrible acts. this past weekend it appears we lost a soldier to his demons and it cost many afghan civilians their lives. people that we have tried desperately to help recover for three decades of conflict. when you look at the war through that terrible violent act, it seems hopeless and lost. i know that the american people are heartsick over what has become of the afghanistan mission. i share their fear that we may be addressed and i am certain that we are suffering from a lack of commitment at the highest levels. but the reason we liberated afghanistan in 2001 was right then and it is the same reason

we fight today, to keep it liberated. and we overlooked the fact that for every one chaotic event that moves endlessly in the media, there are infinite tales of heroism and courage, selflessness and integrity that are never reported. president bush gave over 40 speeches about the war on terrorism, and the importance of victory, updating the american people. president obama has given three. we must do a better job of communicating the importance of this fight. we must do a better job highlighting the stories of courage and daring of our military and what they have edged into the stone of history. our troops have earned that honor, and our troops deserve that honor. our principles have not changed. we reject those who would kill women and children.

we reject those who use violence to intimidate free people into submission and compliance. and we reject those who would convert afghanistan back to a launching pad for terror. we reject them and when it is necessary and in our national interest, we must meet them with force. now there are risks and results take time, but asking if afghanistan is a winnable fight is the wrong question. what we should be asking ourselves is if we still believe that the greatest force on earth is american resolve. we should ask if we believe in imposing limitations on ourselves and an insurgent is the toughest kind of opponent a democracy can fight. leaving them -- weeding them out takes patience.

over the past 18 months we have not the taliban on their back sides. we have demonstrated that life in iraq, the right strategy and ample force levels can bleed the toughest insurgency drive. so we must be extremely cautious when we discuss polling surge forces out before we have secured our gains. we can still leave afghanistan with their heads held high and the taliban defeated, but it will take to resolve and patience. has president reagan demonstrated, americans excel at both. now it is worth mentioning that aside from conducting oversight of the war, one of my chief responsibilities as chairman of the house armed services committee is building the defense budget. for fiscal year 2013, the budget we received from the president was really concerning. the budget cuts $43 billion from

a wartime military. it cuts 23 ships from the navy's fleet. many senior flag officers have testified that the fleet is already too small to fulfill its operational requirements. it cuts 150 planes from the air force, despite the tragic need, urgent need, for places like afghanistan and it cuts a whopping 80,000 soldiers from the army, 20,000 marines. instead of coming home to ticker tapes, these brave men and women will come home to pink slips. instead of marching in victory parades, they will stand in unemployment lines. that is shameful. these cuts are real and we will all start feeling them soon. they will affect every american

base, installation and military unit in the world in some way, shape or form. and they will just hurt our national security. these cuts deeply damaging to our events will hurt everyone associated with the military. the families from camp pendleton that have endured extended deployments for the past decade, the teachers who educate children of deployed heroes, the civilian workers who do maintenance at edwards air force base, that taylor is off-base, who men sailors uniforms at.wish him and the assembly line workers who turned trenches on airplanes. our national defense, the most sacred and righteous responsibility of the federal government, is larger than just those who wear the uniform. but when they cut the services and support, that keeps our military potent, we hurt

ourselves in ways that defy national security. let's not forget that when we must take up the fight against freedom's enemies, it is congress's job to make sure it's not a fair fight. the cuts that i outlined take is right to the limit of acceptable risks. because the congressional supercommittee failed to reach an agreement on mandatory spending, a sequestration mechanism will kick in next january 1. sequestration takes all the cuts that i outlined and doubles them. it pushes us far past the limit of except apple risks. and will put this great country and great danger. the joint chiefs have much to prepare for the tough reductions in the budget control act but sequestration does not afford them that luxury.

the cuts are blind. that means that the defense department will have to go line by line through everything in the budget and take off eight or 12%, depending on what they do about personnel, from each line item. as one admiral testified in our committee, how do you cut 12% of a ship? if sequestration passes unscathed, we will begin the process of cutting approximately $100 billion a year from the military for the next decade. the cuts will force another 100,000 troops out of the army and the marines. it will shrink your navy to its smallest size since world war i, and the air force will be its smallest in history. we will not modernize their nuclear deterrence, which hasn't seen replacement systems in decades, and is the smallest since the early 1950's.

active-duty military, reservists, federal civilians and contractors will be laid off. some assembly lines in shipyards will close. we have submitted that around 1.5 million people will lose their jobs as a result of the defense cuts and sequestration. we will go through not one, but two rounds of base closures. southern and central california would be particularly hard hit. the economic areas around military bases, the ones that survive, will experience a decrease in business. we should all be alert and aware of what could happen to the military, our parents and grandparents built, and the armed forces that reagan refined. president eisenhower said that values -- that if people that

values its privileges over his principles is doomed to lose both. we should ask ourselves, will this be the moment right now, when america abandons its special role in the world and transforms its special -- and transforms itself from the superpower to a regional power? is this the point where americans put their privileges and entitlements ahead of their principles? in the latest budget, the ministry should increase spending in nearly every government department, while the military absorbs massive cuts. they do this knowing that our dad is thinking this nation and sinking it fast. and they think that if they tossed the military overboard, they might be able to stay afloat. that is a bunch of alone. if you cut the entire defense

department, we would still be running huge deficits. that is how much are entitlement programs cost and that is how expensive these programs have become. they now threaten our first and most sacred entitlement, the right to safety, life and liberty. despite this gloomy strategic outlook, i am not so pessimistic. i believe we can first protect and then restore our armed forces. i will not be a partner to the management of this great nation's decline. i will not be complicit in the dismantling of the reagan military. my priorities as chairman for the coming budget are straightforward. i have a three pillar philosophy towards revitalizing our military forces. they are first resolve sequestration. second, reverse these massive

defense cuts, and finally, restore and rebuild america's military. the first step in staving off the dire sequestration scenario is buying us some time to move past the election where we can look at this in a reasonable way. i have introduced a bill that would pay down the first year of sequestration by naturally shrinking the federal workforce. that workforce has grown exponentially since 2009. while the president proposes laying off more than 120,000 troops, he has hired 120,000 new federal bureaucrats. this bill does not fire federal workers, but decreases their ranks naturally. if one person quits or retires, two others must quit or retire before an agency can hire another worker.

this was actually a bipartisan solution that came from the presidents own debt commission. it pays for the most damaging year of sequestration, next year, it moves the budget debate in to calm her waters. while this is a simple, acceptable solution to a tough problem, i am open to any compromise or any plan that pays down sequestration in a responsible manner, without crippling america's with tax hikes during this fragile recovery. from there, it's my concern and hope -- my sincere hope that congress can work in a bipartisan manner on a year by year basis, thus reining in spending without cutting our national defense. the second pillar is reversing the first tranche of defense cuts that we enacted as part of the budget control act last summer.

and i voted for the pca. i did so because we were facing a government default that would have, among other things, cut off salary payments to our troops. as chairman, i could not let our military go without pay. i held my nose and voted for the bca with the hopes that we could fix the serious problems with the bill shortly thereafter. that is why one of my top priorities is getting that half a trillion dollars back. the taxpayers rightly demanded that everything should be on the table for deficit reductions. i agree. if we can't find savings and a half trillion dollar budget, shame on us. but explain to me why defense is less than 20% of the federal budget, but has accounted for half of the spending cuts to dates.

taxpayers said cut the fat out of defense. we did that. we are past cutting the fat and passed the muscle and now we are cutting into the bone. and the consequences are being felt. look no further than the historic strategic shift we were forced to adopt this year as the president gave his speech. as many of you know, they have ministry shins force reductions mean we can no longer sustain the strategy that has kept america safe for decades. because we will no longer have the forces to stay strong in critical regions the administration announced a new focus on the pacific rim. i am also working hard to ensure that the pivot to asia is not an empty one. now the administration calls it a strategic pivot. i call it eight -- a pivot implies that you have some body weight behind the

movement. though the administration says we are shifting to asia, they are actually reducing the number of ships and planes we have available to respond to crises anywhere. we will do our utmost to ensure the strategic shift is viable and does not place our troops at unnecessary risk. there is no disagreement that it's a vital region. we should be worried about china, when they just announced another double-digit increase in their defense spending. we spend about half of our base defense budget on personnel, investing in health care, education, living allowances for our troops. china buys things they shoot and they can buy far more of them for the dollar then we can. so we must do our at most a reverse the defense cuts in the budget control act. to help ensure the pivot to asia

is not a hollow one. that means reinvesting and modernization for our air force, our navy. we will seek to modernize airlifts including c-130s mc fives that predate the reagan administration. we will try to hold back the cuts to the navy's cruiser force, finding the money for our cruisers to undergo proper upgrades instead of mothballing ships. needed to sustain the shifts to asia, before those ships reach the reached the end of their lifespan. we will hold the administration accountable on the promises they have made to modernize our aging nuclear deterrence in exchange for ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. we must also allocate resources for contingencies like iran. we will be looking to place emphasis on vital weapons should the iranians determined that a peaceful nuclear fr