crimes in our nation's communities, and it provides intervention for those who have witnessed abuse and are more likely to be involved in this type of violence. it provides shelter and resources for victims who have nowhere else to turn. there's significant evidence that these programs are working, not just in idaho but nationwide. the u.s. department of justice reported that the number of women killed by an intimate partner decreased by 35%. in 2012 it was reported that in one day alone 688 women and their children impacted by violence sought safety in an emergency shelter or received counseling, legal advocacy or children's support. while we may not agree on all the specifics of this reauthorization -- and there are portions of it that we will continue to negotiate on and to

refine -- we do all agree on one very important idea, and that is that violence should not happen to anyone. and this critical legislation is very effective in helping to address that abuse in our society. as i said, there are parts of this legislation under which there still are concerns, and i am committed, as senator leahy is, to working with those who have concerns to make the bill better and more workable so that we can move it through to become law in this session of congress. but after we debate and after we work and define the legislation, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the authorization of this program and to continue the life-changing work that this chamber has been committed to for so many years. i see that my colleague, senator leahy, is on the floor. senator, i had to start out a little before you got here. i know you're here to open the debate on this legislation. i again thank you for your work on this issue and look forward

to working with you again in this congress as we move forward. mr. leahy: i haven joyed working with the senior senator from idaho. mr. crapo: that concludes my time. i will yield back my time. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 47 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 1, s. 47, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer. i thank the senior senator from idaho for his comments. he has been a -- not only a stalwart supporter of this, he has been essential in the drafting of this legislation.

we all -- we all share this concern of finding ways to stop violence against women, and i realize different parts of the country have different -- have different problems, different stresses. i am pleased to have a western view to go with this eastern view. but also i think, mr. president, it's a case of the best legislation in this body, the legislation that is supported by both democrats and republicans when we come together as senators, things get done. i think that's one of the reasons why we are turning to this bill, s. 47, the leahy-crapo violence against women act reauthorization act as one of our first bills because

it does have this bipartisan support. and i thank majority leader reid for making this unfinished -- majority leader reid for making this unfinished business a priority for the senate. a bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence is long overdue. our bill, mr. president, has more than 60 bipartisan cosponsors. i think this week we can finally finish what we started last year. passing a bill here in the senate, send it to the other body and having them take it up. i know i'm deeply indebted and we all are to the women and men around the country who have been working with us. they have been steadfast in their commitment to the victims, to our efforts to combat domestic violence and dating violence, stalking, sexual

assault. for those who wonder, like so many other things, there is a pressing need to update the violence against women act. the center for disease control and prevention's 2010 national intimate partner and sexual violence survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence, one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. more than half of the homicides in my state of vermont are related to domestic violence. let me emphasize that just a bit, mr. president. vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. when i look at the source of the crime, more than half the homicides are related to domestic violence. those numbers, those percentages are very high in almost every state, and that's unacceptable. while the judiciary committee is

preparing to consider legislation on the subject of gun violence at the end of this month, we can act now without delay here in the senate to strengthen the protections of the violence against women act. the provisions in our bill all passed the senate last year. in fact, nine months ago, the senate passed the leahy-crapo violence against women act with 68 votes. somebody said at a time when we sometimes think the senate would have a hard time coming together with 51 votes to say the sun rises in the east, here we had 68 votes. the members of both parties across the political spectrum voted for it. last december, we worked out with senator cornyn and senator grassley additional provisions to amend the debbie smith act which we had passed to reduce the backlog of untested rape

kits in order to provide for additional audits and reporting, to increase the capacity of state and local law enforcement and perform d.n.a. analysis, and those provisions are now incorporated into this vawa bill. so i hope that those few senators who opposed vawa last year will now join with us to enact vawa reauthorization. i think we should act quickly and decisively to pass this bill. it does have, as i said, the cornyn and grassley amendment. let's act quickly, decisively, pass the bill, send it to the house, and i know if it reaches the president's desk, from what he has told me, he will sign it without delay. our bill will support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. it's going to increase vawa's

focus on sexual assault. it will push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. it will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic and domestic violence in travel communities. a recent study found almost three in five women had been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. our bill will allow services to get to those in the lgbt community. they have had trouble accessing services in the past. and the centers for disease control and prevention released a study last week that found the rates of domestic and sexual violence in these communities are equal to or greater than those of the general population. and we also have key improvements for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. now, i did note we reintroduced

this bill at the outset of this year. there will be presently an increase in the u.v.'s for those who assist law enforcement in the comprehensive effort of reform. we're doing that because last year the house of representatives refused to consider the senate-passed bill because that u.v. provision while fully offset was seen technically to protect revenues. we removed it from the bill this year. i don't want this bill to be slowed up because of a technical excuse. somebody's being abused, they don't need to hear about technicalities. they want us to stop it and they want us to expedite action on this bill. now, i remain strongly committed to the increase, they set out trying to include it in the

immigration legislation we will be considering in the next couple of months. the reap i will do that, of course, it will benefit law enforcement and victims, and we should enact it. i have said so many times on this floor that i remember my days as a prosecutor of vermont. i remember going to crime scenes at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. i remember seeing people being taken out in an ambulance barely alive, within an inch of their life. but i especially remember those who didn't even get that far lying on the floor up against a wall, waiting for the medical examiner to come and pronounce the body dead, allow the police to collect evidence and move them. and, mr. president, during that

time, no police officer ever said is this victim gay or straight, is this victim an immigrant or native american? they have said as i have said so many times on the floor, a victim is a victim is a victim. how do we stop this from happening to somebody else? how do we catch the person who do this? law enforcement wants tools for after the fact, but they want even more who we have in here, something to stop the abuse from happening in the first place, and every day that we do not pass legislation on how to prevent this violence and assist victims, people are suffering. so i hope that all senators, democrats, republicans, independents, the majority of us us -- i have spoken often of senator crapo's long-standing commitment to victims, but also i have spoken often of the

support of senators mikulski and murkowski and murray and klobuchar and coons and collins and shaheen and franken and hagan and casey and so many others who have joined to help shape this legislation and work to pass it. i appreciate also the support and the assistance of the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women. as many member organizations whose invieght has been so critical. i thank the vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. i am so very proud of them. they have done great work helping victims in vermont with support from the vawa programs. they have been a leader in developing and supporting this legislation. in fact, mr. president, i'd ask consent to include in the record the conclusion of my statement a letter organized by the national

task force and signed by more than 1,300 national state and local organizations supporting this important bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i thank the presiding officer. since we first passed the violence against women act nearly two decades ago, states have strengthened criminal rape statutes. every state has made stalking a crime. the annual incidents of can domestic violence has dropped more than 50%. we have something here that has been a success. we have had to provide victims with critical services like housing and legal protection. we have to remember these aren't just statistics. these are thousands of lives made immeasurably better. i might say, mr. president, because of the work, these are thousands of lives that are

still lives and not statistics of people murdered. all the provisions in the bill were developed with the help of victims and with those who assist them every day. they are commonsense measures. they will help real people. every prosecutor, every support group, all will tell you it is past time for congress to enact this bill, to help provide help to victims of domestic violence and rape. we can make these concrete, important changes in the law, we can do it this week because, you know, mr. president, i have been involved in this for years. i have seen the results of what we have done. i have seen the lives that have been immeasurably better because of what we have done. i have seen the lives that have been saved because of what we have done. there is really no reason under

earth to delay further. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i urge my colleagues, as i will do, to support the motion to proceed to the violence against women act. i expect that many of my republican colleagues will also vote to proceed to the bill. there has long been bipartisan support for violence against women act. too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence. federal support for services to these women and sometimes even men has been beneficial to our country. there's overwhelming bipartisan support for 98% of what is contained in s. 47.

so i favor proceeding to the bill, offering just a limited amendments, then having a senate vote, allowing the other body to work its will, resolving differences between the bills, and then passing a compromise reauthorization bill through both houses and getting it to the president. the process on violence against women act in the last congress was very disappointing. previously, violence against women act was reauthorized unanimously. something similar could have happened again hast year -- last year, but it didn't. new provisions were brought forth into the bill, some very controversial, some even raised serious constitutional concerns. but those on the other side insisted on these provisions without any change and refused

to compromise. it appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need. last congress both the republican leader and this senator offered that the senate consent to striking a provision that violated the constitution's origination clause and then proceeding to conference. the majority spurned those efforts on both occasions, yet today s. 47 has removed the very provision that raised the blue-slip problem with the house of representatives because, as we all know, all bills raising revenue urge under the constitun must start in the house of representatives. it does this only a few months -- the majority does this only a few months after the majority refused to drop that

very same provision and proceed to conference so this bill could have been to the president last year. the willness of the majority today to -- willingness of the majority today to eliminate that very unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill to the president last year. that ought to be a terrible disappointment not only to this senator but to all the people in the senate. it is not true that unless s. 47 is passed exactly as is, various groups will be excluded from protection under the law. you know why? because current law protects all victims. vice president biden wrote the current law. every member of the senate who was a member of this body when the violence against women act last was reauthorized voted for that bill.

neither vice president biden nor any other senator passed a discriminatory bill then. it is not the case, then, unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists, without any compromise whatsoever, that any groups will be excluded. the key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning indian tribal courts. that provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts. we should focus on providing needed services to native american women. s. 47 makes political statements and expounds on north american sovereignty.

it raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for native american women while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other american citizens. even the congressional research service has raised constitutional questions with the tribal provisions in this very bill. negotiations are continuing and i'm quite confident that if we can reach an agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured, allowing a bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. if we're unable to reach agreement in the next couple of days, then i intend to offer a substitute that is much more likely to be accepted by the house and to become law. in the meantime, for this very day, all we're talking about is

getting to this bill so that we can discuss these issues. so i will vote for the motion to proceed and i ask my colleagues to do as well. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

sproeup the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: all time have been expiring, the motion for the yeas and nays -- without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the question is on the motion to proceed. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 85, the nays are 8. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

ms. landrieums. landrieu: i asks consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i know that senator harkin is on the floor with others to present civi prel new pieces of legislation or to speak on things pending. i wanted to take a moment of personal privilege to say just a few things about the spectacular sporting event that took place in our country yesterday in the city of new orleans. and i want to, of course, congratulate the senators from baltimore, the baltimore ravens, the senators from maryland, the baltimore ravens, particularly senator mikulski, senator cardin, and governor o'malley, who was there, of course, representing. the senators from san francisco and california, the 49ers, senators feinstein and boxer. speaker pelosi was with us yesterday in new orleans. and thousands of fans from all over the world and, of course, watching on television.

and i think -- i wanted to make a note on this floor, not because it was just a sporting event -- although it's one of i think the highest watched super bowls ever in the history of the game, but, mr. president, because of the role that this congress played and the administration in helping this great city and region and state rebound from what was a devastating body blow 7 1/2 years ago when hurricane katrina and then rita hit three weeks later and then the levees broke anin over 52 places, the city wt virtually underwater, at least two-thirds of the city. and to see 7 1/2 years later the city rebound, the people of new orleans and louisiana are just foremost in my thoughts right now for their fighting spirit, theirry sell yancy, their unwilling -- their resiliency, their unwillingness to give occupy this special place in will celebrate its 300th birthday in 2018. and i want to say a special thank you to mayor landrieu,

john young, the leaders of st. bernard and plaquemines. those parishes were virtually destroyed. lower part of jefferson parish. the whole region has come back. the world could see it for themselves yesterday. the civic leadership, the faith-based leadership, and, again, a shout out to president obama, his cabinet and the members on both sides of the aisle that stood by this region, the gulf coast, to rebuild after all of these years. and, mr. president, in conclusion, it's my only hope that after passing the sandy supplemental we will stand united with the northeast as they rebuild bigger, better, stronger, hosting the next super bowl, which is a real symbol of resurgence and rebuilding and resurrection. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, this week is a milestone for working families across america.

20 years ago this week, president bill clinton signed into law the family and medical leave act. you know, there are many laws that we pass here in washington that most americans never have reason to know or care about. the fmla, by contrast, has changed this country in profoundly important ways. it has touched the lives of millions of working families. it's almost hard to imagine today but 20 years ago, before this landmark law, workers had to risk their jobs and their livelihoods when family needs arose. there was no national policy for maternity leave or paternity leave. new mothers were sometimes compelled to return to work just days after giving birth. or to quit jobs they would otherwise have liked to keep. there was no law allowing someone to take leave from work to care for an aging, potentially dying parent or to care for a child with a serious illness. families had to leave their

loved ones in the hands of others or quit their jobs and face dire economic consequences. there was no policy to allow a seriously ill worker to return to work after recovering from cancer or other serious health condition. all of these workers risked being fired, having no job to return to and losing their health insurance as well. countless hardworking americans were forced to make wrenching choices between their and their family's health and their economic well-being. the passage of the family and medical leave act changed all of that. it has helped new parents bond with their children during these first magical few weeks of life. it has helped give workers struggling with difficult diagnosis the time and security they need to recover. it's allowed loving family members to care for relatives with disabilities and elderly parents. it has insured that family members of our wounded warriors

can be there to help their heroes recover. just as important, it has helped countless businesses across the country retain good workers and maintain an experienced, dedicated workforce. the fmla has been an unqualified success. it has made a real difference in the lives of millions of hardworking americans. in fact, the if -- the fmla has been used more than 100 million times since its passage 20 years ago. to be sure, the legislative path to the family and medical leave act was not easy nor quick. in the senate, senator chris dodd was the tireless champion of the family and medical leave act. from the time of its first introduction in 1986 to its final passage in 1993, we would not have the family and medical

leave act without senator chris dodd. he held multiple subcommittee hearings across the country, hearing from dozens of witnesses. he led the bill through multiple committee markups, led the floor fight year after year after year. he successfulfully worked to override two presidential vetoes and shepherded to its final passage in 1993, after which it became the first law signed by a new president -- president bill clinton. senator dodd found a partner in senator kit bond from missouri, whose strong interest in shoring up the american family led him to work with senator dodd on the bipartisan compromise proposal that would garner significant support within both political parties. as senator bond said upon introducing the final version of the bill in 1993 -- and i quote

-- "i believe the single-most important step we can take to help all families in america is to try to reinstill individual and family responsibility. and to do that, we as a society need to make family obligations something we encourage rather than discourage. that's why i believe we should enact the family and medical leave act." their bipartisan efforts have reaped huge rewards. my office has heard from people around the country who have benefited from the family and medical leave act. the family and medical leave act meant that kimberly jones from wisconsin watts able to help her investmentally challenged son -- her developmentally challenged son david. after years of struggling socially and in school, after a misdiagnosis that led to medications that made him worse, david finally received the correct diagnosis of as pwer tkpwers sin -- asberger's

syndrome which allowed him to get the appropriate treatment. the fmla allowed kim to take 12 weeks off from work to be with david to advocate for him, seek out professionals, learn how to help him, support him through detoxification from his previous medications. thanks to the fmla, kim was able to get david situated and take the time to do what was best for him. kim says parents shouldn't have to lose their jobs to do what is best for their children. she adds that children and families are in a better place because of the family and medical leave act. tonya pinkston from atlanta, georgia, was diagnosed diagnoseh lupus in 2009 but she was allowed only three sick days a year. and as the sole earner in her household with her parents and daughter, she absolutely had to keep her job. her boss suggested the family

and medical leave act. later when her lupus flared, she was able to take leave for four weeks to allow her a week in the hospital and recuperation at home. without the fmla, tonya would have been fired for missing so much time, and she probably would have had to go on unemployment insurance. tonya thanks god for the fmla and feels fortunate president bill clinton signed it so it was there when she needed it. and right now, at a baltimore hospital michelle moroko is using fmla leave to care for her son pwrepb dan, a bran did -- hr son brendan. he is the first surviving quadruple amputee and has faced challenges few of us can imagine. in december he underwent a double arm transplant. it has been widely reported in the news media.

brendan will need years of rehabilitation and occupational therapy. when brendan was originally injured, michelle's employer at the time voluntarily paid for her three months of leave. michelle's current employer adheres to the fmla allowing her up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for brendan following his transplants. she expects to take two months of leave followed by intermittent leave to be with her son once a week. without the fmla, michelle would have had to quit her job. but with the fmla, she knows she doesn't have to worry about her job, which is a huge relief for her. the lack of income is a big concern, but it's something she and her husband will worry about later. and thanks to new regulations from the department of labor, michelle will be able to take advantage of a new provision of the family and medical leave act, allowing up to 26 weeks of leave for the family of veterans injured in the line of duty.

so, mr. president, the family and medical leave act is one of our nation's most important laws. that's why i will introduce this week a resolution honoring the fmla and the leaders who made the fmla a reality. there are so many, and i mentioned those who were here in the is not. there were -- i mentioned those who were here in the senate. there are others in the house who also helped shepherd this through. i would mention of course connie morella, former congresswoman, who was so active in that. i would mention congressman george miller, congresswoman row is a del -- rosa delaura. people on the outside. judy lickman in 1993 was head of the legal women's defense fund.

she and her colleague played critical rules in getting the fmla written, introduced and across the finish line. i want to mention those heroes who worked so hard for this important bill. but there's still more work to do, mr. president, to insure that families are fully able to see their family responsibilities as well as maintain economic security. today workers are ineligible to take fmla for a variety of reasons. some workers do not have enough tenure with their current employer, even if they have been in the workforce for years. you see, the fmla requires a year of service. but in today's economy, workers more frequently change jobs. and, of course, family emergencies happen without warning. other workers are not able to accumulate the required 1,250 hours of work at a single employer in the preceding year. with the growth in part-time

work, both by choice and by necessity, more workers may be ineligible for fmla even though they are long-term, dedicated employees. and millions of people work in businesses with fewer than 50 employees, which means their employer is not covered by the fmla and does not have to offer that kind of leave. this also makes it harder for smaller businesses to recruit the best employees, because they're not on a level playing field with larger companies that must provide leave and where workers have come to expect it. still other workers are excluded from the law because of the nature of their relationship with a loved one. today workers may only take fmla to care for their minor child, parents or spouses. under certain circumstances, parents may care for their adult child with a disability.

but this excludes siblings, grandchildren, and grandparents, domestic partners of the same or opposite sex, in-laws, cousins, everyone else. that's why the family and medical leave inclusion act sponsored by senator durbin is so important. this bill will expand and modernize the definition of family to include many currently excluded relationships. too many workers will otherwise have no one eligible to care for them in a time of need or the person they rely on most will not be recognized as their family for purposes of the fmla. this is a commonsense change that we can and must accomplish. one of the most common and critical challenges faced by families is the loss of income while taking unpaid fmla leave. this object pwhraoeupblgs

parents -- this forces cancer patients to work as much as possible rather than taking time to fully recuperate. or worse, to forego leave altogether. still others are financially devastated when they have no choice but to take unpaid leave. we cannot allow family responsibilities to jeopardize families' economic security. a social insurance program to provide some wage replacement during family and medical leave would allow families to maintain their economic security while seeing to their families. research shows this could be done on a universal basis with very small shared contributions by workers and their employers. two states -- new jersey and california -- have already implemented such paid leave systems. helping families in those states to be financially secure during family and medical leave.

so, mr. president, today is the day to honor the efforts of so many whose work led to the passage and signing of the family and medical leave act 20 years ago. this is a time to reflect on how transformative the family and medical leave act has been for our society but it is a time to look ahead to look for additional ways to support our families and allow for them ways to stay strong, mutually supportive and economically secure. i look forward to future work to expand protections of the family and medical leave act. mr. president, with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank, first of all, my colleague senator harkin for his leadership on the family and

medical leave act, along with my predecessor, chris dodd's, very strong dedication to this cause and the historic difference that he and senator harkin made on a really transformative measure for the united states of america. the family and medical leave act has made a difference in so many lives and shaped so many futures for the better in our nation. and i will be honored to join his resolution and to support senator durbin's family and medical leave act inclusion and simply offer my thanks to him on behalf of connecticut as well as the country for his leadership on this issue. this measure is about human beings and the values that define us and make us great as a nation, the greatest nation in the history of the world. and so is the measure that we have approved today to move forward: the violence against

women act. insofar as it defines us, states our values and articulates the vision that we see of our nation as caring for people who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. i'm proud of my colleagues for approving this measure today to go forward by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 85-8. and i hope that this day will be followed by final passage here and then in the house of representatives, avoiding the fate that befell it during the last session, when i similarly supported this measure to reauthorize and strengthen a bill that has served us well for 18 years. it served us well in addressing a problem that is as horrific and heinous as any that afflicts our society: domestic violence

and sexual assault. shaped futures and transformed lives for the worse, unless they are followed by the services and law enforcement that vawa provides. vawa is about the organizations that provide those services and need the support in connecticut and around the country, organizations in connecticut that provide services to 54,000 victims of domestic violence and sexual assault every year. our state alone, $4 million, provides those critical services to men and women and children so that they can survive and even thrive after domestic assault. we've made straight strides on this -- great strides 0en this problem. but there is still work to be done. we cannot be complacent or

overconfident. we cannot be self-said. we must press ahead with hav va. that is why today's passage is so important. at least passage of the motion to proceed. groups and organizations in connecticut report to me about critical staff shortages, resources that they need to respond to the hundreds of thousands of women every year that face these problems. and the protection they provided to children as well as to women who are victims of this crime. i have been very privileged to join with an effort called men against domestic violence. men make a difference. men are potentially the role models and we've tried to provide those role models going into schools and providing education, a group of men that are educators, police, other kinds of leaders in their

community in business and provide that kind of role model, which we helped to start through interval house, our major domestic shelter in the state. only a small example of how these efforts can have a ripple effect through vawa. we need to not only renew our commitment to end domestic violence but also to update and strengthen and expand the violence against women act. i'm pleased to join my colleague, senator portman, to offer an amendment that strengthens services for children and youth victims of sex trafficking. yes, sex trafficking and human trafficking continue to exist in this nation. sometimes invisible, unknown. one of the most heinous crimes imaginable -- modern-day slavery, unspeakable indenture of children. and we need to do more to ensure

that children in our communities who are victims of sex trafficking have access to the lifesaving services that are available to other youth victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. we can make sure that agencies and organizations that provide these services access grant funding available for this purpose and, again, this goal ought to be bipartisan. it is with senator portman and myself on this amendment. and i hope that my colleagues will support it. vulnerable communities ought to receive this same kind of protection from have a a wit han though they are now -- from vawa even thoi they are now overlooked. we have an obligation to ensure all victims of domestic violence regardless of their sexual on theation are covered by this law. so this legislation contains

protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender americans. the lgbt community ought to know that it is covered in the same way as every other part of our population, even though they face discrimination that prevents them from accessing those victim services now. in fact, a recent survey found that 45% of lbgt victims were turned away when they sought help from a violence center. that is simply unacceptable. so this legislation will make sure that they have access to these services and also make great improvements in the law enforcement tools available to native american communities. our nation's tribal communities are literally facing an epidemic of domestic violence and sexual assault. nearly three out of five native american women are assaulted by their spouses or intimate

partners, and one-third of all native american women will be raped during their live time. i know those statistics are hard to grasp. they seem incredible. three out of five native american women are assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners, one-third of all native american women will be raped during their lifetime. i wish they were wrong. i'd be happy to be corrected. but those numbers tell a searing, unacceptable truth about our nation: tribal courts currently cannot prosecute domestic violence crimes against native american women that were committed on tribal lands by a nonnative american. and s. 47 closes that loophole so that all native american women will have access to justice.

finally, the 2000 reauthorization of vawa contained landmark provisions to protect immigrant victims of domestic violence, and s. 47 significantly maintains and expands those provisions, sending a strong message that immigrant women deserve the full protection of the law, the full measure of american justice, the reason they have come to this corning the reason that -- to this country, the reason that millions of imgrants come to this country, the reason that we are a nation of immigrants and strong because of the diversity and that the they bring to this -- the diversity and the talent that they bring to this nation. so i am still frustrated and disappointed that the last congress did not approve vawa, that this measure was stalled in the house of representatives. despite a similarly bipartisan vote in this body to approve it. i hope that this year, this vote

in this body will be a prelude to bipartisan approaches on this measure and others where basic human values are at stake, that there will be no stalling again, that this measure will proceed in the house on a similarly bipartisan basis, an inclusive, bipartisan vawa should not be postponed. time is not on the side of victims. they need those these services. law enforcement needs the support to make sure that anyone committing domestic violence or sexual assault in this country is held responsible and accountable, and that we send that message to women and children throughout this country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. 227 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 227, a bill to authorize the transfer of certain funds to improve security at united states embassies and other diplomatic facilities worldwide and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. blumenthal: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. familthe presiding officer: witt objection. mr. blumenthal: i understand that there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 209, a bill to require a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks by the comptroller general of the united states and for other purposes. blummr. blumenthal: i now ask fr a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be heard for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until:3 9:30 a.m. on thursday, february 7, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired,

the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leader leaders be rd for their use later in the, and that fling any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 47, the violence against women act, with the time until noon equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: at noon on thursday, senator-designate cowan will be sworn in. we hope to complete action on the violence against women act on thursday. 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 9:30 a.m. on thursday, february 9:30 a.m. on thursday, february

it

julia loved her time in the white house. she said in her memoirs, it was like a bright and beautiful dream. the most wonderful time of my life. so i think that gives you some idea how much she enjoyed being the first lady and how she felt that her husband had finally achieved the recognition that he deserves. >> historian ef mayo. first ladies, and original series by c-span. season one begins presidents' day, february 18, 9:00 p.m. on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate.

watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can get our schedules at her website can join in the conversation on social media websites. >> next, a discussion about the future of the republican party. from "washington journal", this is 40 minutes. >> our guest not only served as a senior fellow, he was the speech from under writer. >> guest: thank you. >> host: where is the republican party having? >> guest: it is heading in a bad direction. i say that for many reasons he

has shown that the economy is weak from the beginning to the end. the programs of the president obama have not been well received. republicans lost two senate seats. they thought that they could reclaim control of the senate, and they lost eight house seats. since then, republicans are putting their feet under them.

a lot of people need to get their oar in the water and talk about what needs to be done. .. a way to appeal to does. so i am a review, one says the

republican party lost, that this is an anomaly, the 2010 election showed how much potential the republican party could have and got a candidate like a marker review, he would be fine. and a second school systems are are more systematic republicans problems, based in large measure because the republican party is going to win presidential elections, needs to address this systematic problems. >> a story today saying eric cantor is going to stop pressing about federal spending cuts and talking about helping families according to an aide. the change to a softer track, and the gop collection is to begin tuesday in a speech with virginia republicans debate at the think tank, american enterprise institute, "wall street journal." what do you think about that is the strategy?

>> guest: eric cantor is a smart guy. he can read election returns as well as the next person. i don't think they should give that up, but i think they need to widen the aperture. you have to speak in ways to appeal to middle-class voters and they just haven't done it. in the 2012 primary, there is little sad about upward mobility, wage stagnation, college custom education, the environment. there's more about electrify 10 seasons of deportation than about upward mobility and modernizing two shins. how do you do with it? to raise. sensitively as he put forward proposals the public leaves will address these problems and then you've got to stand out some of the rougher edges and stop the what governor bobby jindal calls

a soup party to senate candidate in the 2012 election with worries about and that cost is two seats. and then there are broader issues, ways in which the republican party sometimes speaks coming to send a signal that we really interested in getting. is a tonal issue that republicans need to address and i'm glad eric cantor is doing this. and others like marco rubio and paul ryan are doing the same thing. >> host: peter wehner joining us with the republican party. (202)585-3881 for republicans. (202)585-3880 or democrats. (202)585-3882 for independence. send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. if that is right, what's to say that those who define themselves

as a sprinter who define themselves as tea party can her predict what have you. >> guest: the tea party is a force for good. i'm not interested in getting rid of the tea party. i do think the message is not sufficient. republicans would be foolish to think it was. i do think they have to bomb messages. it's not that the republican party has to give up on the issue of limited government. i would be promised principal and it's popular, but they do think it needs to widen the aperture to reach these people. in 2000, george w. bush understood this. conservative senate education and a signal to voters in the gingrich years in the republican party was at a favorite that we got it there is a tone imposture and set of issues that appeal. so the party has to give leaders

program to be able not to make changes. let me give you an historical analogy that might apply here. though clinton in 1992 inherited the democratic party that is in very bad streets. the lost five out of six presidential elections from 68 to 1988. he understood that party had to be reformed and he did it through several issues. we talked about community, opportunity and social responsibility and tough on crime and so forth. that signals to middle-class voters that bill clinton is a different kind of democrat. he gave himself that name. tony blair to the same thing with the labor party in england. the labor party have been crushed in four straight elections and hadn't gotten more than 40% of the vote since 1970 and blair are not a mistake to say that, i am part of what he called new labour.

he wanted to modernize the party and aged it in several ways. he took on elements of the labor party that were most radical and got rid of them in the platform. there is a crime wave sweeping england in the early 90s and he spoke in a way that no labor party candidate had done anyone any fantastic historic collection. i don't think the republican party is quite his best streets as the democratic party was clinton or player, but it's approaching it in the republicans this device will think more along those lines. >> host: our first call, stephen democrats line for peter wehner. >> caller: good morning. i'm doing fine, thank you. lake erie saying, -- like you were saying come and we talk you be an american in the way they

treat this president, talking about where he came from and where he should reach them, but never heard anybody aspirate per certificate. nobody asked for per certificate, but just the way they treat people that are nonwhite and lesser protestant might might come you don't belong in america. that pushes people away even that they mateship atheist at the party. >> host: thanks for the call. i think i sobers dated in terms of what the caller said, but there is a point that i found the talk about president of bonus per certificate, where he was born, whether he was christian or muslim was obnoxious. there is law on their merits and politically very damaging. i wrote a piece in "the wall street journal" a year or two

ago taking on donald trump because he was doing this but the birth certificate. i think there is something there. when republicans to play footsie with this nonsense, conspiracy theories and things like that but it's problematic. more broadly, there's an undeniable problem, whether one thinks it's merited or not, there's an undeniable problem that republicans are not reaching middle-class voters and sending a signal to people like hispanics which are not particularly welcome in this party. so what the republican party has to do a situation defined awake to appeal to the non-that is consistent with principles, but also signs of a casino to these folks. you do have a place. you are welcome. immigration is a very big issue for republicans. they've been on the wrong side

for several years. marco rubio and paul ryan will shift the party around whether they're successful. i did it out of necessity. he's cuban-american and there are republicans like myself and others to feel like we should appeal to hispanics. let me give you a couple of facts to bear on this issue. to which to beat bush thousand four didn't appeal to hispanics as principal in the last hispanics vote by nine points. in 2012, mitt romney lost by 44 points. if you list by 44.9 is the largest growing demographic in america, you'll find yourself on a national level of being a minority party for perpetuity. i'm not saying that to change on immigration just for political reasons because i believe it right thing to do, but there's

increasingly a political imperative to make these changes. >> host: curtis from new hampshire, republican mike, hello. >> guest: good morning. i think i have an idea why the republican party is in the minds and it's just one word, neocons. the neoconservative movement has really hurt our party. i don't think it's a conservative principle to have an imperialist government. you know, sometimes i feel a query field state. we are trying to take over the world and as everybody knows, empires are the graveyards of nations and we can't afford it anymore. i run a small business. i am a veteran and the republican party has left me in neocons are the reason. thank you. >> guest: thanks.

the caller expressed his views. i think he's totally wrong. first of all he probably can't even find what a neocon is, but his concern about america -- is not a conservative principle to be an imperial government. i agree that the idea of america as an imperial government is nonsense and of other great powers in world history, we've been the ones least interested in being an empire in the traditional sense but taking over countries and willing. we had two wars in afghanistan and iraq in the last decade in which returned to liberate countries and try to promote freedom and self-governance. those made big mistakes, executed poorly. that's a serious argument to be made. i will say virtually everybody supported the war in afghanistan. that is not an imperial work in

any sense. the iraq war is not contentious now at the time an overwhelming number of democrats supported the war as well. the idea of going to war in the interest of your country and then to withdraw the opposite, once again into a board, as soon as possible that was a problem. secretary rumsfeld and people of our administration are missed to the eager to lead iraq and almost offended into civil war. >> host: richmond, virginia, john, independently. >> caller: hello. i want to say one of the biggest problems with the republican party is the words and action that it chooses. anything you can find you can't possibly look to take credit for, republicans always give credit to their brand, but every time there's any fallout

negative ads, it's always the democrats fault. republicans say ronald reagan was this great god of a man, but he actually tripled the deficit and debt and expanded the size of government to or proportions, the same as george bush and republicans always blamed democrats, even though clinton and obama both have lower the deficit if you look at the treasury's website for every fiscal year. every single republican from nixon to george bush as we expanded the deficit greatly. the congress didn't change. it is just the president, but it's always blamed on congress. whenever credit given, they want all the credit, none of the responsibility. republicans will say divisive things. zero, this birth certificate or you're not american enough for

denver. >> guest: three things. as a general matter, members of those party blame the other party. president obama more than any in my lifetime has landed the republican party and generally been whining or can need more excuses than any president. he seemed as if he couldn't give a speech for a while without claiming everything, including athletes foot on george w. bush. that gets tiresome after a while. but the criteria is claiming the other party, the notion that the deficit has donned on president obama is ludicrous. it's just not true. this isn't a debate about opinion. he's the first president in american history to submit a budget of the trillion dollars deficit. he's done it for years in a row and the deficit in greece a

little of attention and dollars when he took over. it's now approaching 17 trying dollars. i don't think president obama for all of it because congress does have a role in that kind of thing, but he hasn't shown any interest in gently devastator reform of entitlement programs. he's a great generator for deficit. there's a lot of talk of taxes and so forth. that is a job in the pocket if you look at the real driver of our deficit and debt of unfunded liabilities are entitlement programs. to say the things we have to reform. the only party that's meeting after has been the republican party. your highness pasty pledges to do with medicare's. the senate democrats haven't passed a budget in four years. >> host: what does it say that ronald reagan is the point of reference in the party? >> guest: it shows that a huge monumental figure he was. not just what he did in the

world, but to the republican party. he fundamentally reshaped the republican party in lots and lots of ways and this time has gone on, he's grown in the imagination of the republican party and he should. he was one of the great presidents of the 20th century. there's a lot to learn both in terms of principle stands in terms of countenance and tone, the way he carried himself. he was a man of extraordinary grace and dignity. he was really by his opponents and never returned in kind. it is a very admirable trait. i will say republicans they think have a tendency to go back to rake in a little bit too much. we speak as if the republican party today needs a program that was identical to what break-in had in the 1980s and that was a lot of years ago. that would be analogous to

ronald reagan's having put forward a program that applied to certain circumstances to determine it is tradition. we now face globalization, wage stagnation, college costs, great institution of marriage and the family. reagan didn't have to deal with nearly as much and so i think republicans, or learning from again need to digest of the challenges at the time. >> host: two questions. how is the conservative masses change in the past two decades? hasn't changed at all? >> guest: yeah, i think it has talking about ronald reagan. he was what they call green eye shades in the republican decade or less concentrated exclusively on cutting the size of government, dj you cut taxes to generate economic growth was something he really bought into,

one of the intellectual drivers said that philosophy and rake in it.did it and that really became a cornerstone of the republican party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy was sent and reagan did there was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years and rake in the cells of a social conservative, a very proud one. so these types, for example, about abortion in a way they never had. reagan changed the republican party. since reagan, there have been then not many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed in ways i think was hopeful, both about immigration he attempted and also on education and relive the whole notion we republicans have concern to

strengthen community and the organization. >> host: democrats fine. >> caller: hi, i used to be a republican many moons ago. matter of fact, i voted for bush ones over bill clinton and now quite frankly i don't know who the republican party is. i went from republicans to independents, to democrat. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. number two, women's issues. i don't personally believe in abortion, but i don't believe i have the rights tell my neighbor what they should do. i think the republican party needs to get out of people's bedrooms and back into the

boardrooms. number three, the middle-class tax hikes their break-in instituted. we never recovered from that. to my city unions. all things that had middle-class workers. ending tax like state sales tax, all of these things it is strictly, so i know when it happened. it was in the reagan years. >> host: thanks, caller. >> guest: >> guest: a few republican come you a liberal one. undertake the supporters. she says she wants religion out of politics. i wonder she would've felt that way about the civil rights movement because it is actually martin luther king was not only a top her. he was also the reverend dr. martin luther king. the power of civil rights argument with your minutes human dignity and religious understand and and the entire foundation of our republic was of a religious

nation and you can hardly read without the notion of religion being an anchor virality. i'm somewhat concerned about that issue. i covered it up with michael courson on the "washington post" about the dangers and importance of having religion in public life together. i think religion is important because it informs moral views that helps us in terms of understanding of humanity any. that's the nature of the human person? amended in politics to advance those things. on the other hand, i greet you there are people with religious views that are spoken out in ways better off putting and hurts both religion and politics. that's point number one. point number two and religion issues, i don't think it's a women's issue. the abortion issue has to do with the mr child and what

rights does the number and child have? people of goodwill and intelligence will occur in. where is it the edinburgh child a certain rights? i think the caller has left, that you could post to the caller, would you allow abortion for a pregnancy? my guess is you would say no because you say that entity as a child but has certain rights. it's a hard issue. to grant this right? the idea that the state ought to have nothing to say about that is wrong. by the way, on the issue of abortion, the most radical position is president obama has yet to find abortion at any stage she objects to any witness a state senator in illinois believe that children that were born could be the positive, the opposed legislation to oppose

that. the third issue, reagan and the middle-class tax hikes. that's just wrong. reagan pushed forward the greatest tax cut in american history when he took office a 70%. he got it down to 20%. the itu can lay the blame for tax hikes is silly. the republican party for good orrico is a party of tax cuts. host when it comes to social issues, how should the party approach same-sex marriage? >> guest: is a tough issue. the republicans have traditionally been opposed to same-sex marriage because they think it will harm the institution of marriage. that night inc. is an assertion. the reality of same-sex marriage is the best and if granted

same-sex marriage, tendency of the district of columbia. i do think the republican party has to go to speak about the issue of the family and marriage in a way that makes it down same-sex marriage. that is whether you agree or not, it's a reality here to stay in some states. i suspect as time goes on, more and more states will pass laws about same-sex marriage. if republicans don't get off the session on that issue or fixation on that issue and feel like they can't talk about disintegration of the family institution of marriage, i think it's going to be a problem. so i do think it's that republicans figure out a way to talk about this issue in a way that doesn't always oppose same-sex marriage. obviously you have a diversity of opinions, but i don't think they should be the main focus of the marriage debate.

>> host: florida beach, republican line. >> caller: hi there, i've been a republican voter all my life and i regret to say the future of the republican party is grandma this point, namely because in this last election, the republicans and romney and his campaign couldn't figure out how to bronze the negative campaign run by obama. you have a billion baht to throw up on me and they did it very well. i didn't hear any effective rebuttal of that assault and that's going to continue. unless you guys figure out how to combat it and cope with it,

we're going to continue to the selections. so i'd like to hear your comments. thank you. >> guest: thank you for the call. i think there's something to that. i think iraq obama brand and those negatives and demonizing campaign in modern american has jury. they think he did it for several reasons. he was able to defend his record because he was in many respects an infant of a record and he had almost nothing to save a second term agenda. so the caller is right. he essentially devoted billion dollars to making him look like a plutocrat who enjoyed firing people, sending jobs overseas. they receiving the most loathsome attribute, super pac had argued that romney was responsible for the cancer death of the wife of a field worker. this kind of set new lows in

american politics. the romney campaign of which i was a part of her three month straight to answer those things. but there is some intrinsic disadvantages the romney campaign faced to be fair to it, which is that the obama campaign had the capacity to spend money early on because of the campaign-finance laws in in the wake of him it was able to do. but it's a very contentious republican primary. obama didn't have a challenger and he was able to define romney early on. it's not easy to overcome those kinds of attacks. but i will grant you that the democrats were successful in large part and they think it should mostly in the fact that the republican party in that romney had blue-collar voters. they didn't come out largely for governor romney and the ways the republican party needed to succeed.

so it's a challenge and it's unfortunately the nature of american politics these days and you have to figure out ways to deal with it. >> host: distortive "politico," the former gop presidential nominees can be running in massachusetts upcoming election according to the "boston herald." they got reported on monday he was considering a bid that open up after secretary of state. there i would not identify the source. do you know anything about this? >> guest: now, i know nothing conclusive about it. the republicans are hoping scott brown would've taken kennedy seat and lost to elizabeth warren. he's popular in massachusetts, but he decided last week to withdraw the republicans don't have a deep bench in massachusetts. he's a smart guy and responsible fellow. not a republican state.

if he wants to run, more power to them, but my guess would not be a sneezy race. >> host: i never talk about marco rubio, but who else do you see? >> guest: marco rubio is at the top along with paul ryan. i think callie ayotte is very impressive. republicans have a number of impressive governors and the republican party in the future is a real source of encouragement. there's 30 republican governors right now. the most any party is held in more than a dozen years and they've got some really impressive people with scott walker and wisconsin, bobby jindal in louisiana and chris christie in new jersey and john kasich of ohio. they have a number of good governors. the single governor has been in this who is term limited and is now president of purdue.

jeffrey hsu's governor of florida, whether president bush is a very impressive guy and i hope he considers running in 2016. i think all those individuals have the skill sets necessary to win a presidential election. i also think in varying degrees they understand the challenges facing the party and have the ability because of the confidence a lot of conservatives have that they can change the party in ways that will help reform and modernize. >> host: haywood, independent line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. tamiami? >> host: your own, go ahead. >> guest: the problem with the republican party, they turn to ideology from the south and that's one of the problems. the main thing about that romney, he's a very man.

he's rich, but he's stupid. >> guest: okay, that romney is not a stupid man. a very able man and decent man would've been enough then-president and i wish he would've won the b. in terms of the dixiecrat party, i'm not quite sure what that means. it's an allusion to a racial appeal to think that's not true. the republican party has been good on racial issues and in fact these days my concern is the democratic party too often plays the race card. but if any criticism of president obama is put in the present coverage of animosity. the reason that bothers me so much other than it's wrong is that there really are remnants

of once in a while you need to call people out. if used in charge charge of racism permits you to sleep if they virtually any criticism of the president is driven by rachel animist, that charge is emptied of meaning largely. but i just think it's unfair and it's a kind of slander and i don't accept. >> host: linda from alabama on a republican line. good morning, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, mr. wehner and cease being. i watch quite a bit on the media. i watch quite a bit of fox news, but also by their channels and i'm finding that our biggest problem right now is the media in the way they are demonizing republicans. i think every time the democrats get a microphone are demonizing republicans and it's not just because they feel that way.

especially obama is on in the house back in 2014. as long as they continue to demonize republicans, especially house republicans, and they get hit at every turn, they're going to win back the house because people are believing this. it goes back to what you were saying a minute ago about the way republicans are being painted. the media is working hard at this. obama is working hard and his people are working very hard to bring the house back in 2014. that's her problem. >> host: >> guest: thanks. i'll say a couple things about that. i do think president obama has used rhetoric, which is outside the bounds of the rhetoric normally referring to republicans of slander of society, putting party ahead of

country, wanting autistic in down syndrome children, not supporting medical research, not supporting programs of younger children and goes on and on and away they and on with this unusual and unfortunate for a president to do. i do think demonization in the presidential is like anything we've seen in a long time. secondly, there's just no doubt about that. it is more supportive of president obama in the democratic party message now has to spend any time i could recall. i think as a general matter the republicans have to accept the media by and large his liberal. you have to accept the make your way through it. i do think the 60 minutes interview with president upon a couple weeks ago was brilliant take it. if you compare how 60 minutes interviews president obama and

president of bush's are hostile to republicans and conservatives. having settled that, ronald reagan didn't have in the past, which is you now have because david is media world that exist. the internet last, fox news offers a point of view that a traditional monopoly come to cbs,, and ec haven't done. the margins about kind of help. another thing republicans they didn't have in the 1980s. you can overcome that kind of thing. republicans have to do it because whining about the media and liberal bias would achieve anything. you've still got to figure out a way to cut through an appeal to people, despite the media. and it's been done before and it can be done again. >> host: the caller mentioned

wrench in elections. what role should he play for future of the party? >> guest: the republicans only control the house and senate. they don't control the president be. he's been a key figure in negotiations having to do with the fiscal cliff and whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. so here's the key actor. >> host: is he a strong leader? >> guest: i think it was much more powerful figure by the force of his personality, gingrich was a more creative thinker. boehner on the other hand understands strengths and limitations. he's a likable person. it's appropriately cautious and they think is actually that the republican party through some difficult times here in the last couple months and when i most encouraged about this the way he navigated republicans away from what would've been a disastrous

debate what the president overgrazing at the ceiling. if republicans had time to this issue and said, you know, were not going to raise the debt ceiling unless at a certain amount of cuts, they would've caved in the end, would've been disastrous, much like what the fiscal cliff and i think boehner and right together did a very nice job convincing republicans that you can't govern from the house, but sure to be careful about getting into these high-profile, high-stakes, last-minute negotiations with the president. it worked in the white house, i worked in three administrations. they have a tremendous institutional at vantage in this kind of bias. i think what republicans have to do is avoid these sites come at the straps the democrats and president obama are laying, provide an alternative to passing legislation, just to show them this is how we recover if we have the powers of the presidency and the senate and to be careful and frankly the

rougher edges republicans sometimes have. >> host: some republicans aren't happy sr is moving ahead. >> guest: i think if they had gone ahead, it would have been cataclysmic for the republican party. i say that because it is the worst possible ground for republicans to make their argument. elections have consequences. president obama won. as much as i want, it's absolutely crucial to the future of the country. i think some house republicans not sympathetic to their concerns, i think that dcl sums is misplaced and what would've happened as he would've had this high-stakes confrontation and in the end he would've had republican would've been overwhelmingly again, so you could then at the beginning, thumping your chest and making all these demands and saying

we're not going to back down and at the end of would've caved and would've gotten the worst of all possible worlds. so there's a lot of frustration in the republican caucus. >> host: peter wehner with the ethics and policy center. he serves as the senior fellow. if you want to find out more about the organization, mr. wehner, thank you. >> guest: has been a pleasure, thank you.

>> if you've got some hotshot that has phd in computer science from stanford, she's getting offers all over the world and you can stay in some limbo for six years. it's not really competitive. >> congress can do a lot and you don't have to be efficient on your iphone or black. to understand the applications of tech policy and what makes it work and what doesn't make it work. it's very difficult to make investment decisions and make return on investment when you have no way to predict the future. our difficulty right now is there's no consistency for certainty and policy decisions. >> earlier today, the ranking member of the senate energy committee, lisa murkowski releaser blueprint for

congressional energy policy, which includes drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge also proven keystone xl pipeline. she also discuss climate change issues and why it's important to find common ground in passing future legislation. part of the annual meeting of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners, this is half an hour. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. it's -- i don't know, am i looking at a group of non-football fans? [laughter] i have to tell you, one of the benefits of being from the last to and watching something like the super bowl is our super bowl begins at 2:00 in the afternoon and you're done by 6:00, 630 clock until the kids it's time to do your homework.

back here, this thing goes on all night. so i don't know. it showed me out a little bit this morning, but we have the 35 minute reprieve or we could go into a little homework done. so worked for me. i don't know about you. i am honored to be with you yet again, very distinguished group of public officials, private citizens and again, to be here, i don't understand in your basis because that commits me for next year, but i would suggest to you that it is an incredibly audience and one that i'm honored to stand before you. every person in this room clearly has distinct and important responsibilities. it is here that must ensure people in this country have adequate, reliable and secure supplies of energy but crisis

and i'm turned very just and reasonable. those looking for who turned out the lights in a violent, you're probably all the responsible party here. i'm just putting you on notice they are. but joking aside, i think we do recognize that responsibility is truly fair. for those of us in public office, that responsibility is a public trust and for those of you in private life, assuring people have the energy they need, every hour of every day, on terms they can afford is no less a responsibility. as i mentioned, last year when i was honored to stand at this podium, i address the need for balance in the application of our energy and environmental laws. i have been one that has long

held that strike an appropriate balance is a key requirement, critical to economy, prosperity and truly our security outlines. now since last year, i've given a lot more thought to the imperative for balance and the need to clarify, even to reimagine, if he will, the medals we currently know as federal energy policy. candidly at any time to think about it. and the senate, we've spent a lot of time out of regular order and beyond that in recess. and when we do engage in debate, energy has really been the topic. as a direct result of all of this, we have not made nearly the progress that are energy situation demand or that our kids or grandkids surely

deserve. i think there has to be a new conversation, a better conversation. i read the article in the post, maybe some of you saw this weekend a massive national conversations. grabbing a conversation about gun, immigration and i'm standing before you saying we need a conversation about energy. i think we do. i intend to start that today. new technology we honor our emerging, changing the facts as so many thought that they knew had in our nation's energy discourse is really just not keeping a. it's time, perhaps despite that's a different perspectives to come together to address the crucial and difficult issues surrounding energy. desiring to hit the restart button, i've worked with my resource committee staff to prepare a report that we call

energy 2020, a vision for america's energy future. often you'll see these nicely bound copies of reports that have been made and you look through them and look at the charts for you go to the section that is directly per btu and then it fades. i'm not going to let us say. it is incumbent upon me, my staff come in the energy committee to make sure what we do with this document we've been working on for a year now is to really utilize it, to use it is that luke rant, if you will. on the first thing i've got to tell you as we talk about this energy 2020 if there is no energy policy that is a perfect vision. but we recognize you've got the year 2020 perching us fast. i think it's time we reevaluate

the policies we currently currently have in place, to think about what we can and what should come next and said surrealistic goals that we can achieve by the end of this decade. i'll ask you to think about some of the trends that were already see. for decades now, our energy policy has been crafted on the premise of increasing scarcity that were running out of oil, that we don't have enough of this, but the fact of the matter is what we see is in precinct supply. instead of absence, we find ourselves on the verge of a button and then there may never have been a time when we have more potential for energy production or for energy product dignity. we can bring that energy to market and we can also -- we must also use energy more ways

laid them before. at the same time, we found ourselves in a bit of a rut policy ways. we've got a choice between some very broad and sweeping than dates, unprecedented spending, burdensome regulations or perhaps all of these at once. this really isn't much of a choice at all. on paper and in words, most of us would agree that in all of the above policy is the best path. and how many of us are using this term, all of the above, and yet we realize were not talking the same topic when it's all of the above. our discussions of such a policy or any such thing but consistent and in the absence of a proper balance between energy production and environmental regulation, oftentimes our nation is too hamstrung by these burdensome regulations, by delay

permit an overzealous litigation. so energy 2020 presents a vision for how we can move forward and we are officially releasing it today. in fact, this is the first public recent speaking about it is with you and the members at naruc. i've got a copy. by delivering more to members this afternoon. it's available on my website, energy.dependent.gov. the report features about 200 different policy recommendations. think about that. far too often in washington now, what will do is take a big policy topic like energy and they my gosh, we need and all of the above policy and we spent maybe two pages talking about the good things we are going to do with energy, but we really don't want to commit ourselves

to some policy recommendations because lord knows you do that if somebody might put an arrow on your back and say she supports more coal production for something that's going to reduce emissions. if you don't put these recommendations and suggestions out there, how can you have a discussion about this? certified 200 different policy recommendations under seven heading. producing more, consuming less. that's not different to any of you. clean energy technology, energy delivery infrastructure, effective government, environmental responsibility and an energy policy that pays for itself. this is what we're calling our conversation starter. energy 2020 is not, and i emphasize again, not a term sheet for comprehensive energy bill. it's intended to be a source of ideas for discrete legislation

that can attract after vigorous debate a strong base of support from a politically and geographically diverse group of members. i'm going to take these next steps in consultation with committee members on the energy committee, including chairman wyden, including other senators. i want to introduce energy 2020 year because i know how seriously this forum considers energy questions from a variety of different is that i also know that public recessional, civic and business responsibilities require you to do just that. even on a monday after super bowl, you are tasked to do just this, to look at energy consideration. i'm going to give you the reader's digest condensed

version of 2020 in case you don't rush out to the website is a citizen done here. the simple insight dr. says. adds three ways. energy is good. would we not agree, energy is good? [applause] energy provides the basis for advanced civilization, improve standards of living that allows us to live comfortably and watch her super bowl game. it allows us to transport ourselves surrounded cargo around our neighborhood and around the world. it allows us to produce food in the quantity necessary to feed the world's population. it allows us to manufacture, to communicate. it enables every aspect of modern life and too often we forget this. too often we forget this basic notion that energy is good. despite what many may argue,

affordable energy is not the problem. it's exactly what we should be striving for. we have incredible potential in this country to produce energy, create good jobs and these jobs are not only within energy production, although people in my state of alaska, louisiana, north dakota, pennsylvania, texas will attest the importance of energy jobs. these jobs extend beyond energy production, flowing directly from the economic growth made possible by you. we have the resources. we have the capacity and technological know-how to me that energy production and and benefit our economy, security and environment. as we rethink our energy -- our nation's energy policy, is also an port to face the question

that are inherent at the risk of energy and resource development, including questions about climate change. and i'll stand before you as introduce. yes, i did have an interesting election that allowed me to get your not necessarily with the support of my party, but i'm still a republican and i was stand before you and talk about climate change and the environmental responsibility that we have as producers and consumers of energy. that is important for us. we have to discuss questions openly. but try to find common ground on prudent steps to take in the face of uncertainty because what is certain is we can address our environmental challenges if we are prosperous and secure. the cover of this report, you can see from back there. but the cover is a map of the

world and its friend space at night for the grids are all that. you can look at those and you can tell where the prosperous countries in the world are in this because the lights are on. and so when my state of alaska, my two commissioners that led to many parts of the state, our lives are not. too many countries around the world, our lights are not. so when we talk about how we can address our environmental challenges, it is when we are prosperous and secure. so within our report from the week to clarify. in addition to energy is good, and trying to make the simple through the morning fog of a monday morning. energy is good and there's five principles. it is in our national interest to make energy abundant,

affordable, clean, diverse and secure. i've even put in alphabetical order for ease of memory. [laughter] no acronyms here. bush is going to confuse. first let's talk about abundance. as a standard of living rises globally, demand for energy will continue to grow and anyone who has experienced the blackout, it's amazing how this blackout last night ties in to everything i've gotten to this morning. anyone who's ever experienced a super bowl blackout or gasoline shortage doesn't need an explanation of the value of energy abundance. we should aim to use energy more wisely. but that's not a substitute for production are measures that will increase the reliability of our systems of supply. so at, this notion of affordability. the direct cost of energy

affects the cost of everything. everything we do. and there's nothing else that impacts our economy so directly as energy. whether it's individual struggling to fill up gas tanks, pay their electric those, whether it's business leaders making decisions on investments based on the cost of power server farms or whatever it is, we all recognize lower cost is better. that's what everybody seeking. now there are those who would have you believe that the best way to reduce energy is in direct cost is simply to raise the direct cost so we discourage energy use. my friends, this is a self-defeating policy. lowering the direct cost of energy is key to helping the u.s. economy recover and prosper, absolutely key.

next is clean. as we attempt to minimize indirect cost of the externalities by driving at these prices, but then i would suggest this is a policy that's doomed economic and practical failure. instead, we have to be aware of the impacts of every type of energy and make rational, informed decisions on what is acceptable, what needs to be medicated, how do we do just that? our challenge here is to reduce the cost of cleaner sources of energy, not raise the cost of existing resources. and when we talk about clean, what we try to do in this report is to get some definition here. too often cleaned is treated as an absolute. i would contend it is better regarded as a comparison. a better definition of clean in

my view and what we've used in this report is less intensive and global lifestyle impacts that it's likely alternatives. so just consider that. less intensive and global lifestyle. so next, diversity. every type of energy clearly has its own advantages, and some disadvantages, but overall the more diverse or sources of energy, the more robust and secure national energy credit and fuel supplies are. the more diverse energy supply, the greater chance we will have in achieving these game changing breakthroughs but i think we would all at knowledge are so critical to how we move forward, whether it is to cleaner energy sources, more secure energy sources, it's these game changing breakthroughs. but the final point is about security, something we all talk

about so much. the united states currently produces about 80% of our own energy, but we are way sold far too dependent on foreign oil. when we think about how we are able to develop our energy resources, spend 80% again is produced here, but it cannot transportation sector that we really have that vulnerability. for the sake of our nation's economy, for national security and the world's environment, we must strive to produce the largest possible percentage of our oil needs domestically and endeavored to obtain imports from neighbors and strong allies, whether they be canada, mexico, tapping our potential and restoring trust in our people will be a breakthrough in itself. within our report, we set out a number of them port goals and

these are generally centered around where we need to be by 2020. but we can be fully energy independent from opec. we can diversify the use of: accelerate commercialization of today's unconventional and alternative fuels. we can ensure that renewable energy becomes more competitive and reestablish our supply chain for critical minerals. we can modernize electricity infrastructure to protect ourselves from cyberthreats. we can ensure that research, rather than at the speculation is the force behind the technological innovation. we can reform our environmental laws in a sensible manner that prevents the misuse of the last projects to proceed while still maintaining some of the highest environmental standards in the world. we can do this. i feel like i should say

[speaking in spanish] , but it's a reminder that we have limited by ourselves, by rob regulations be put out there, we've tried that before. our potential there is enormous, ladies and gentlemen i am one who says it's good to have goals and perhaps the best part to me is that of what i am describing here will require burdensome mandates, heavy-handed regulations. none of this and tax hikes for limitations on consumer choice. we can take a long look at existing policies refined them because they need to be reformed and wind up in a far better place within a relatively short period of time. there is a lot that we can do. the question is whether or not we'll actually do it. are we going to push ourselves to do this? are we going to believe that we really can't?

abundant energy is absolutely possible. or a party consents of it becoming a reality. technological breakthroughs have lower the cost of producing previously economic supplies. newtek elegies are making these clean energy sources, and again the sources that have less environmental impact in the most likely alternative. these are coming forward, increasingly competitive. they are enabling energy efficiency to continue to improve, which is all good. throughout the economy, diversification of energy and natural resources applied is clearly apparent we can expect this trend to continue as electricity and natural gas among other alternative fuels as they continue to take hold. they need to have more secure supplies is beginning to influence a consensus about

additional steps the candidate should be taken to renew energy and policy. modern federal policies will add to these trends by removing roadblocks that are erected by the outdated approaches that they replace. we must continue to fund and i believe consider increased funding for the scientific research that is critical to continued progress. only through this rigorous research what we produced a very dramatic breakthroughs we need to reach a future in which green energy is more than just a slogan, in which energy independence is more than just a slogan. i am confident if we make the right choices today can accomplish these goals we have detailed, we can secure a future in which energy and natural resources are affordable and of

them that secure and diverse sources and we can continue to do so in a way that minimizes energy impact on our environment. so the bipartisan energy and natural resources committee in the senate stands ready to meet these challenges. we've got a regular order consideration of energy legislation we are hoping to advance, a renewal of targeted oversight of administrative action develop a shared understanding of the fax of energy that's an institution. air and water quality will continue to improve in our country and around the world, even as americans become more and more likely to enjoy a healthy economy truly the pursuit of happiness. so on this monday morning, i would hope that with this introduction of energy 2020

report, that we can contribute a meaningful step in that direction and an important conversation. i can appreciate the opportunity to be with you today, a chance to share my work with you and to let you all know that i look forward to working with you, from your respective regions in the year ahead. thank you for the opportunity to be with you. [applause] >> the senator has a very busy schedule, but she is time for one question. >> who's the lucky one? >> what psychiatry a straw. i am senator boyd from the energy commission. thank you for thoughtful engagement and passion on the energy issues. i think that's something we need. i don't think you get much of an

argument. one item is energy policy that pays for itself. i suspect it doesn't fit in your moniker, but as you know, we have said three have been frustrated with the way they've handled the yucca project for nuclear fuel, despite the fact that our ratepayers are religiously pouring hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into the nuclear waste fund to pay for that program. we know there's conversations going on in your committee and elsewhere in congress. perhaps you could give us insight into a congressman addresses particular issue. thank you. >> thank you for bringing that up then i think we recognize that it's one of those areas where government is not doing any favors to the lack of certainty when it comes to disposal of nuclear waste. when i say lack is t., we have

books says yucca in this administration has basically chosen to go around not to ignore that. let me give you a quick update in terms of what is happening at least on the senate side. you will recall last year the appropriators sending out the racers on the energy committee, senator engemann and myself and senator alexander and feinstein on the appropriating say as chair and ranking of the energy and water committee decided to sit down and see if we could not find a path forward to move legislation that might get us off of high center, which is where we have been for far too long. we were successful in presenting a bipartisan package but the four of us.

senator bingaman was very reluctant to anthony and that didn't demand a permanent storage solution first. senator bingaman destino has retired. senator wyden has come in as chairman of the committee had just this past week, the four of us sat down to renew our conversation a note to you as a very good conversation. there is general consensus among the four of us about a path forward, kind of holding off of what we have begun last year. chairman wyden has indicated that he hopes to have legislative language within the next several weeks that all of us, our staff can fit in chew on and figure out exactly how we will move forward. i think it is fair to say that

there is a real commitment on the senate side. on the house side, it's been a little bit of a different story and there have been reports that if it doesn't involve just a complete direct divine yucca, were not even going to talk about it. here's where i am on now. i'm a believer that yucca is part of iran's theory in terms of long-term storage of data. we have studied this piece of real estate probably more than any real estate in this country. we've spent years and billions and i hate to lose that investment. but i also don't want to be in a situation where 10 years from now, we are no further ahead, with any kind of a solution, were individuals like you, that minnesota utility stand up and ask the same question because

this is what has been going on. there has been no resolution. you continue to pay an with nothing on the other end. that's not acceptable. and so what we must do, i believe, is to sign that path forward. we may have to do a detour around yucca in order to get us to a solution that will work, will work for all sides. so i'm hopeful that what we can do in the senate will be considered by the house. if we can pass legislation that is bipartisan, that is expected, not only from different political parties, the different regions as a positive direction. i think that the house will have to look at that very, very

seriously. so we're going to do our work on the senate side. were not going to shut the house out. we will keep them engaged in the conversation, but we cannot go another decade. we cannot continue to have no answers to those who are so dependent on some certainty from the congress, so we'll keep working on it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator. another round of applause. [applause] >> would you come on up --

..