vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or who wish to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays 52. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to table the motion to commit. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to table amendment numbered 2672. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to, and is tabled. mr. mcconnell: i move to table amendment numbered 2669. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is tabled. mr. mcconnell: i have a substitute amendment at the desk that i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk shall report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from

kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for mr. cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2680. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the yeas and nays on my -- for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment at the desk that i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk shall report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2681 to amendment numbered 2680. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2682 to amendment numbered 2681. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the text proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2683 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 2680. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2684 to amendment numbered 2683. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have a motion to commit with instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to commit the joint resolution to the appropriation committee with instructions to report back with an amendment numbered 2685. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk shall report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2686 to the instructions of the motion to commit. mr. mccon mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second-degree? the queyns are ordered. the clerk: the sphrr kentucky, mr. mcconnell proposes amendment number 2687 to amendment number 2686. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and the democratic leader. i ask unanimous consent this request be agreed to be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

under the previous order, the time until 6:00 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, today has certainly been an historic day in washington, d.c., with the arrival of his holiness pope francis this week. washington has been flooded wit the faithful who are eager to mark his first visit to the united states, and i know my colleagues and i are grateful that we were able to host his at a joint session of congress, and we were all in awe of his incredible stamina, given his schedule, something we are not unfamiliar with. as head of the catholic church, pope francis leads a diverse community of believers. catholics in the united states make up about one-fifth of the

population in the u.s. and also in my home state of texas. in fact, catholic priests from spain were some of our very he recalliest settlers in texas, and one of the dozens of missions established by the catholic church in the early 18th century in texas was mission san antonio devalero, what would later be called the alamo. mr. president, it was a privilege to welcome pope francis this morning and to hear his remarks. he was the first pontiff ever to address a joint session of congress, i'm told. it was also my honor to host a friend of mine, cardinal daniel demardo, who accepted my invitation to hear pope francis. the cardinal is home to the largest diocese in texas.

i have had the honor of knowing him for a umin o a number of ye. in both a pass storing and spiritual sense as well as a practical one. we saw that in action recently when historic flooding devastating many of the communities in the houston area. during if that time, he was quk to ensure that catholic charities would ensure relief to those in need. and there is no doubt that his leadership is serving not only the catholic community an and te galveston-houston area very well but all of us in tfntle on another matter, mr. president, earlier today democrats blocked a measure that would fund the u.s. government but redirect federal money that currently goes to planned parenthood to go for ways an women's health caret

community health centers. actually, there are many more community health centers in texas than there are planned parenthood facilities. earlier this week i outlined how the democrats, while earlier calling for regular order in this chamber, have delivered on their promise to block legislation from moving forward that would fund vital parts of our government, like the men and women in uniform who defend us. this is in spite of the fact earlier this year, as i believe the majority leader mentioned, that as members of the appropriations committee they've actually done the work that we were elected to do. we passed a budget and then on a bipartisan way passed appropriations bills out of the appropriations committee. but because they've chosen to filibuster all of these appropriations bills, we find ourselves with unneeded and unnecessary draw ma when this comes to funding the federal government. hence the vote on monday on

closing off debate on a continuing resolution to fund the government through december 11, 2015. so, unfortunately, even our uniformed military has been taken hostage to this strategy, which has created unnecessary drama, as i said, and created some real hardship. so as we approach the looming fiscal deadline of next wednesday at midnight, it is foreign remember how we got here. and while democrats filibustered legislation that would have removed all federal funding for planned parenthood, this fight -- the fight for the sanctio saf life that pope francis talked about this morning -- that fight is far from over. we're going to continue the four different investigations of planned parenthood's practices and pursue legislation that would protect the fundamental right to life of the unborn. protecting the sanctity of life

is an ongoing mission, and it does not end with this one vote. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed:, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with calling of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join my colleagues in support of a clean short-term continuing resolution or, as we say, a c.r., to temporarily fund the government without controversial policy riders. after the vote we just had, i hope we can move to such a measure, even some republican leaders have acknowledged that this previous vote was a show vote designed to appease but to fail. it is a part -- it is part of a crumbling pattern that that's been emerging over many months of avoiding meaningful

bipartisan talks to fix the budget and of waiting until the last moment to deal with issues that everyone knows must be addressed. we have an obligation to the american people to keep their government working. it is one of the most basic responsibilities we have as members of congress. a clean c.r. at this juncture fulfills this obligation, keeping the government open for a few more weeks while we work on a plan to eliminate the sequester-level budget caps for defense and non-defense programs. i wish we could have begun work on an overall agreement earlier in the year, as vice chairwoman mikulski and others strongly urged months ago, but at this late hour we should pass this short-term measure and move on to serious negotiations about budget caps for this year and beyond. shutting the government down now will not serve any useful purpose. what a shutdown will do is waste taxpayers' money and hurt the

economy. the two-week republican government shutdown in 2013 cost our economy billions of dollars. based hon that experience, here is some of what we can expect if there is another forced shutdown this year. the department of housing and urban development will have to furlough more than 95% of its workforce impacting services to more than 60 field and regional offices nationwide. payments will be delayed to the roughly 3,000 local public housing authorities that manage the country's publicly assisted housing programs. in fact, shifting the burden onto them, causing them to turn to local municipalities who are equally stressed in terms of their budgets. so there's no avoiding this pain. in fact, it's multiplied if we shut the government down. thousands of home sales and mortgage refinancing packages backed by the federal housing administration, the f.h.a., will be put on standby.

people ready to close, people ready to make a commitment to a home, people ready to get and keep this economy moving will be told, stand back, wait and see. cities, counties, and states will not be able to move forward on the community block grant project. this is a program that affects every community in this country, and it's something that's a very positive, constructive way to give local leaders the resources to fund local nishtds that the community desperately wants -- local initiatives that the community desperately wants and needs. this is local america getting a chance to see their projects put in place. the federal aviation administration will not be able to verify -- rather, certify new aircraft, interrupting billions of dollars of sales. the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration will be forced to stop investigations and emergency

response training. classrooms will be shuttered for 700 midshipmen at the united states merchant marine academy in kingsport, new york. these are young men and women who are committing themselves to serve the nation either directly in the armed forces of the united states or as members of our merchant fleet, and they will basically be told to go home. and financial support will stop for the maritime security program, or the m.s.p. this is an important public-private partnership that is critical to our troops serving overseas. these are just a few examples from two of the departments under my purview as the ranking member of the transportation, housing, and urban development appropriations subcommittee. there are many other examples throughout the federal government that my colleagues will be talking about today. knowing the results that a shutdown and these hardball tactics have brought before,

it's hard to believe that some still are willing to resort to budget brinksmanship again. i know that many of my colleagues on the other side share my concern. and i particularly want to commend senator collins, who has been an excellent leader in chairing the thud subcommittee, for her support of a clean c. rvment she's done extraordinary work urdz very difficult and challenging circumstances. and her support for a clean c.r. so that we can negotiate a longer-term budget solution is indicative of the kind of forthright, thoughtful, and in many 10 cases very courageous service she's rendered to maine and the country. and while we focus on the mid te immediate showdown threat, let's remember the bigger threats we face. we're here because of the budget control act and its sequester-level caps on discretionary spending. let's remember these sequester-level caps were never

intended to be implemented. at the time it was enacted, the cuts were considered to be an extreme -- in fact, so extreme that congress would not ever let them happen, that they would embrace defense and non-defense, that they would be an action-forcing mechanism, not an actuality of law, but an action-forcing mechanism to cause us on a bipartisan basis to come up with a long-term budget solution. and, unfortunately, that solution does not materialize over time. we had i think, a very good work -- the very good work of senator murray and congressman paul ryan to come up with a two-year extension, but we're right back where we were and the caps are staring us right in the face. but today, rather than working together to tackle the sequester, we're on the verge of orchestrating another fiscal crisis. and it's not a crisis that will

help the american people. rather, it will hinder the american people. and indeed it's ironic because the members on both sides recognize that these caps should be raised for both defense and non-defense appropriations. indeed, both the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills carry bipartisan sense of the senate language that says, "scwefertion relief must be accomplished for fiscal year years 2015 and 2017 and any other lecialtion scwefertion must include equal defense and non-defense relief." so you have a bipartisan consensus on these two committees that represent a significant number of our colleagues who are essentially saying we've got to end this, and they're saying it because they believe that, as i do, i think, that our national

security rests not just upon adequate numbers of the department of defense but adequate investment for all our federal programs. so beyond debating a clean short-term funding bill, we must focus on eliminating these draconian spending caps that are imposed upon us by d.c.a. we know these caps will cause real harm to programs across the federal government that our states and our constituents rely on. these are not academic, these are not issues that could be dismissed as being some programs that are ineffective and limiting. these are across-the-board cuts that hit all of our constituents and hit them hard. indeed, months ago, chairman mccain and i together wrote to urge the budget committee to include a higher baseline funding amount for the department of defense and the budget resolution, essentially asking them to ignore the b.c.a. caps and produce a budget that

realistically recognizes the base needs of the department of defense. not the one-time spending of overseas contingency but the routine spending that would be projected forward. and senator mccain particularly worked in extraordinarily good faith to try to get such a provision included in the budget resolution, but he did not succeed. and in response, the use of the overseas contingency fund was incorporated to skirt the budget amounts. essentially, what the committee has done, the defense authorization committee, has taken the president's budget numbers but moved money out of the base budget into o.c.o. beyond the president's request. and what you're doing is creating this o.c.o. funding mechanism as a -- in a sense, a

gimmick, really, to cover the real costs, the ongoing costs, the routine continuing costs of the department of defense. that's not good budgeting and it's not good for defense either. because of this, i was unable to support legislation on the floor for the defense authorization bill that in many, many other respects, virtually every other respect was extremely well done and extremely thought out. again, i will commend the chairman for all of his efforts for my colleagues. so i clearly disagree that using this o.c.o. funding arrangement gimmick, sleight of hand, whatever you hand is the way to proceed forward. relying on it essentially preempts defense from the budget control act and leaves everything else under those onerous caps. as i said, not only not

adequately and realistically funding defense, but seriously eroding national security because national security is something more than simply what the department of defense does. it's the department of state, department of homeland security. it's a myriad of other functions that will not see funding, in fact will see the funding begin to shrink dramatically. and if we use this approach this year with the argument it's just a bridge to the day we finally get ourselves together, i think we're deluding ourselves, because i think it will be much easier next year to put even more money into o.c.o., to take programs that are traditionally funded through the base budget of the department of defense and say well, i guess we don't have room, let's put it in o.c.o. it becomes the gift that will keep on giving, and he will not provide the real resources and the certainty that the department of defense needs over many years to plan for their

operations. to stick things in on one year of funding is not to tell the defense you can be confident two or three years from now when you're developing that new weapons systems platform, the money will be there. it may but again it may not. we can't give them that insecurity. we've got to give them a sense of certainty. now, this is the view that's shared not just by myself but colleagues here on both sides of the aisle but by senior defense department officials. they have testified repeatedly before our committee that o.c.o. funding does not provide long-term budget certainty. they need that. then the troops, the men and women they lead need that. in fact, it really just allows you indeed to plan for one year, and there are very few programs in the department of defense that are one-year programs. a major weapons system is a multiyear development, and then

production process. strategy is not year by year. it's over several years at least. so this is not an efficient and effective way to run the organization. proper budgeting planning in the department of defense at least requires five years. that's the standard, the standard measure. the five-year program forecast, budget forecast, and we're telling them well, this year you could have a bonanza of o.c.o. funds. next year, it could be more, it could be less. it could be much less. that's not the way to efficiently allocate resources of national security and to efficiently develop a strategy to counteract an increasing array of threats across the globe in many, many different dimensions and many different regions. if we go down this path, it will lead to instability for our troops, their families, for our defense industrial base. and again, i think they deserve

certainty, not a year-to-year, perhaps maybe, maybe perhaps approach. and we also, as i repeated before, national security is not just the department of defense. other agencies are critical -- department of state, department of homeland security, department of justice, department of treasury who does all the terrorist financing sanctions, who has to trace funds flowing around the world to ensure that they do not aid and assist terrorist activity or other maligning activities. taking the approach in the sense now of using this o.c.o. approach for defense and then letting everything else stay under b.c.a. will not give these agencies the resources they need. i was struck a few days ago,

general petraeus was there testifying, one of the critical areas of effort against isil is information warfare. they have proven to be extraordinarily adept at using social media, at communicating through the internet, and one of the questions of my colleague was very thoughtful and fundamental. well, is the state department doing enough to counteract, as one of our major foreign policy organizations, this information campaign by isil? and the general sort of chuckled a bit and then he said let me tell you, when i was commanding on active service, the state department had to come to me and essentially borrow a million dollars from sentcom funds so they could get in the blaim, just get in the game in terms of information warfare, counteracting measures, public campaigns of information in countries throughout the globe,

particularly the middle east. and that will be much, much worse if we proceed down this path. and we will not be enhancing our national security. if the isil measure -- message, rather, is unanswered, if they are able to attract adherence from around the globe because all they can really hear is this grotesque discussion of isil and what they propose and there is no counterarguments, no countervailing points, we lose that information warfare, and that's not just -- we have to make these investments in both defense and nondefense. as i said before, if we stick with these b.c.a. caps, our non-department of defense programs will suffer. and in addition to that, the needs of the american people

will suffer. we will not be able to invest in adequate transportation and water infrastructure. we won't be able to do things that provide adequate and decent housing for our citizens. and under the budget caps, we will lose jobs, too. when the resources diminish, the need for workers diminish. and that's going to happen. now, we have a situation particularly where some of our most vulnerable americans would suffer grievously. and just a few examples again. the elderly housing program has been cut in half since 2010. even when we know that the united states population ages faster. every member of this senate has numerous elderly housing programs in their state.

their citizens rely on it, and i would suspect they take some pride in the fact that there is adequate housing. in some cases, not enough adequate housing, but at least some adequate housing, they will suffer. the 7.7 million very low-income renters in the united states. that means they pay more than 50% of income in rent or live in substandard housing or both. they are living in substandard housing and paying half of their monthly income for rent. if these budget caps go in effect, then the h.u.d. bill will not include meaningful funding for the affordable housing production programs available to local governments. this trend, this is disturbing, will not only continue, it will accelerate. we will turn away from the rental assistance programs which we have for many, many families. many of them are seniors, some are disabled citizens who

qualify. if we look at public housing where again you have a significant population of both seniors and disabled americans, they are facing more than $3 billion in capital needs just to keep them repaired, just to make them places that are decent to live in, something that people can have appropriate hallway lighting, can have elevators that work, can have plumbing systems that are adequate, but basic. this is not building whirlpools and spas and jacuzzis. this is just keeping basic requirements and maintenance and capital repairs. those $3 billion in capital needs for more than one million of these households and public facilities will leave us if the budget caps are in effect at the same level we had in 1980. that is going back about 30 years. 30 years ago, relatively

speaking, we would be spending as much if not more on simply maintaining our public housing. and these are real-world consequences. again, b.c.a. comes in in terms of the impact on domestic programs. funding for public transit continues to fall. even while transit ridership goes up. one of the success stories of the last few years is our public transit systems, our buses, our subway systems, our light rail systems that have been enjoying increased ridership. that's good for people to get to work, it's good for our environment because of displacing the use of individual automobiles. it's good for so many things, but as our ridership goes up and the resources go down, we're going to see a system that gets less and less dependable, reliable and effective, and you're going to lose not only those riders, but you're going to see incidences we've seen across the country where you have significant safety concerns. you have significant disruptions. it's not uncommon over the last

several months here in washington to hear on the radio that a whole subway line has gone down because of a maintenance problem or something else, and that day's work force doesn't get to the office for three or four or five years. and guess what? that cost a lot of private employers a great deal of money, because the people aren't doing the work, and they are -- they would properly be paying. so essentially this impacts our economy and it's multiplied and it would be exponentially multiplied if we start cutting away the money as suggested in the b.c.a., the budget control act. so now it is time really to work together. it's time to enact first a clean c.r., to give us the time to address systematically and comprehensively the issues that are staring us straight in the face because of b.c.a., the sequester caps on defense and nondefense.

it's time to be able to move, as i believe the vast majority of my colleagues want to, the excess o.c.o. funding back into the regular budget of the department of defense, as we raised the budget cap and as we raised the budget cap for the department of defense to recognize we have to raise the cap for not only other national security agencies to protect our country but also for other agencies in order to invest in our economy, keep us productive, keep people employed and also keep faith with thousands and thousands of americans who have worked hard but now they need the benefits of public housing. they are seniors in needs systems. they need a good transit system to get to work or if they are a senior citizen to get to a doctor's appointment. and they're counting on us. so i hope all of my colleagues

can come together for such an agreement, avoid a shutdown, and then do something more than just keep the lights on; invest across the board in our people and watch those investments multiply to a productive, successful economy and a more secure america. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, in 1975 russian physicist an dry sakharov was awarded a nobel prize for his public opposition to the totalitarian communism of the soviet union. he knew what he was talking about, as he had spent decades working on the soviet nuclear weapons program, work he had originally thought a patriotic duty that would ensure the balance of power with the united states but that he came to understand was in the service of a brutal, oppressive regime with

aggressive intentions. the soviets prohibited sakharov from accepting the award in person, although his wife was abroad at the time, she accepted on his behalf and delivered his seminal speech: "peace, progress, and human rights." in it, sakharov declared, "i am convinced that international confidence, mutual understanding, disarmament, and international security are inconceivable without an open society with freedom of information, freedom of conscience, the right to publish, and the right to travel and choose the country in which one wishes to live. i am likewise convinced that freedom of conscience, together with other civil rights, provides the basis for scientific progress and constitutes a guarantee that scientific advances will not be

used to despoilman kind, providing the basis for economic and social progress, which is in turn a political guarantee for the possibility of an effective defense of social rights." he recited the names of his fellow dissidents that were being persecuted by the soviets, but he called for peaceful reform, not a violent revolution. "we must today fight for every individual person separately against injustice and the violation of human rights. much of our future depends on this. in struggling to protect human rights, we must, i am convinced, first and foremost act as protectors of the innocent victims of regimes installed in various countries, without demand the destruction or total

condemnation of these regimes. we need a pliant, pluriist, tolerant community which selectively and tentatively can bring about a free, undogmatic use of the experience of all social systems." sakharov was relieved of all of his scientific duties and after denouncing the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1980 was banished to ghorky, 250 miles east of moscow on the river to remove him from the public eye. his wife joined him in 1984 charged with anti-soviet slander and was prohibited from traveling abroad for medical treatment. sakharov began a hunger strike in protest. soviet authorities detained and force-fed him. in solidarity, president ronald reagan, who was then initiating

his historic negotiations with the soviets, proclaimed may 18, 1983, "national andrei sakharov day" and the following year the united states congress passed a bipartisan measure renaming the mailing address of the soviet embassy from 1125 16th street to number 1 andrei sakharov plaza. every piece of mail delivered to or sent from the embassy would thus bear the name of the courageous dissident the soviets were trying to silence. the following year, the soviets allowed bonner to travel abroad for heart surge rid and the year after that gorbachev allowed sakharov and his wife to return to moscow, although sakharov remained critical of the slow speed of gorbachev's reforms until his death in 1989.

just one month after the fall of the berlin wall. the bravery of andrei sakharov was instrumental in bringing down a great and oppressive empire, armed only with the truth, he was able to expose to the world the reality of soviet communism, the futility of trying to placate or dough mess city indicate the -- domesticate the regime and the power of human rights. today we have a case before us that is eerily reminiscent of sakharov's legacy. dr. l u u xiapo wrvment awarded the peace price in 2010 sits today in a chinese jail for the crime of subversion. a poet, author, and political scientist, dr. lu was in 1989 a visiting scholar at columbia

university. but when the pro-democracy protests broke out in beijing in june of that year, he returned to china to aid the movement. he staged a hunger strike in tiananmen square in the midst of the historic student protests and insisted the protests would be nonviolent, even in the face of the violence threatened by the people's republic of china. the p.r.c. arrested lu for his involvement in the tiananmen square demonstration and sentenced him to two years in prison. in 1996 the party subjected him to three years of reeducation through labor for questioning the single-party system. in 2004, the p.r.c. cut lu's phone lines and internet connection, after he published and essay criticizing the

party's campaign to silence so-called suber havive journalists and activists. in 2008 lu along with over 350 chinese intellectuals and human rights advocates penned charter 08, a manifesto modeled after the czech. called for human rights and political reforms in the soviet republics. dr. lu's chart 08 made 19 specific demands of the p.r.c., including abandoning one-party rule in favor of instituting a separation of powers, composed of a legislative democracy and independent judiciary. abolition of the huko housing system that has victimized poor

and rural chinese for decades and securing freedom of association, assembly, expression, and religion. charter 08 was released on december 10, 2008. although the communist party quickly censored it, over 10,000 journalists, consoli ors, business -- scholars and businessmen have signed it. two days prior to chart 08's release, on the eve of the 100-year anniversary of china's first constitution and the 30-year anniversary of beijing's democracy wall movement, the p.r.c. detained lu for his involvement in this charter. in june 2009 he was officially arrested and charged with inciting subversion of state power for his coauthorship of

charter 08. after being detained for over a year, lu pled not guilty to inciting subversion of state power. before the beijing intermediate people's chort on december 23, 2009. his defense was not allowed to present evidence and on christmas day lu was sentenced to 11 years in prison with an additional two years did he preyvation of all -- deprivation of all political rights. beijing's high court rejected his appeal two months later. on october 2010, dr. lu xiabow received the nobel peace prize for his writing and leadershipship of charter 08. like sakharov, he could not attend in person.

but he accepted in absentia boldly declaring in his acceptance speech "hatred can rot away at a person's intelligence and conscience. enemy mentality will poison the spirit after nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation's progress toward freedom and democracy. that is why i hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as i look upon our nation's development in social change. to counter the regime's hostility with utmost good will and to dispel hatred with love." the very moment the nobel commission awarded the peace prize to lu, his wife was taken into custody by the p.r.c.

she penned an open letter to chinese president in june 2013 decrying his unjustice arrest and detention, "i have been under house arrest and have lost all my personal freedoms since october 2010. no one has told me any reason for detaining me. i have thought about it over and over again. perhaps in this country, it is a crime for me to be liu xiaobo's wife. both liu xiaobo and liu xia remain in prison today. the opening paragraph of charter 08 captures the entirety