Floor Statements

Madam President, today, we put America first and we passed a bipartisan and now bicameral bill the President will sign, and we took a step to ending the deficit of trust hurting our democracy. I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand and the leadership of Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for marking this up so quickly. Today is a good day.

The STOCK Act will affirm that Members of Congress are not above the law and will increase transparency by requiring Members of Congress and highly compensated Federal employees to disclose all their trading activity within 45 days. Today, America is a government by the people and for the people, and that means our elected officials must follow the same laws as everybody. We have taken a step toward reestablishing trust, and today we are one step closer to making every seat the people's seat.

I encourage everybody to support this passage.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I enjoyed the preceding presentation by the Senators dealing with issues surrounding health care. I think it is a very relevant discussion we need to all pay attention to.

Amendment No. 1884

I want to talk on two issues today. I will start first with the crowdfunding amendment that has been offered by Senators Bennet, Merkley, and me--something we have been working on in a truly bipartisan manner, as it should be done here, and as I do many of my actions.

For those of you who may be listening either up in the gallery or on television, crowdfunding is an opportunity for individuals to invest money upwards of $1,000, upwards of $1 million total--so $1,000 per person, totaling $1 million--not dealing with a lot of the traditional SEC filings that are in place and a lot of the other problems in which only very wealthy people in years past have been able to participate in these types of offerings.

For example, right now, if I had a good idea, and I wanted some of my friends to invest in it, and then we go and start marketing, we could not do that. That is illegal. One of the President's objectives in his jobs speech was to talk about these new opportunities, and crowdfunding is one of them. He

supports it. The House has done a similar crowdfunding bill. We are actually taking this crowdfunding opportunity and putting a little bit more safeguard in it.

I think our bill is different--well, I know our bill is different than the House bill in that the House bill does not require that you actually are a legal business or even some kind of incorporated legal forum before you try to issue stock. That bothers me somewhat in that you could have somebody in their living room taking people's money and issuing stock with no check and balance, and I think that is important.

It also does not require that you offer securities through an intermediary. You could put up your own Twitter site: Buy shares is my great idea. Come on and buy shares.

All the experts agree that we would need to require an intermediary, say, like an eBay, where the crowd can help identify the good and bad players, the way that eBay uses identified bad sellers on their site.

But also, as I said, it allows investments to take place that cannot be done right now, and allows those entities, those groups, to take that money and either use it as the investment seed money to create those new ideas and new jobs--as we know, startup businesses are the entities that are actually looking to create jobs at this point--and/or use that money as seed money to go to a more traditional lender and say: Hey, we have a great idea and we also have some money to back it up, and we would ask you to sign on with us.

I am hopeful the amendment comes up. I understand it is. I am looking forward to having that very important vote. I would appreciate, obviously, the Presiding Officer and everyone else giving strong consideration to that.

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act

Mr. President, I wish to shift gears for a minute and talk about the Violence Against Women Act. As we know--you may not know--Jessica Pripstein of Easthampton, Lisa Stilkey of Douglas, Belinda Torres of Worcester, Kristin Broderick of Haverill, Patricia Frois of Marshfield, Edinalva Viera of Brighton, Milka Rivera of Lawrence, Nazish Noorani of East Boston, Casey Taylor of Winthrop, Alessa Castellon of Roslindale, Lauren Astley of Wayland, Michael Trusty of Edgartown, Janice Santos of Worcester, Beth Spartichino of Easton, Son Tran of Lowell, Jettie Lincoln of Plymouth, David Walton of Tauton, Elaine McCall of Wakefield, Jennifer Freudenthal of Webster, Brian Bergeron of Malden, Lancelot Reid of Dorchester, Joel Echols of Springfield, Maria Avelina Palaguachi-Cela of Brockton, Troy Burston of Medford, Joseph Scott of Worcester, and Aderito Cardoso of Brockton--are constituents of mine who have been killed by their husbands, wives, partners, girlfriends, or boyfriends in domestic violence incidents in 2011 and 2012 alone, and it is only March of this year.

It is unacceptable. The loss of those lives is tragic. But in addition to the people who have lost their lives, the lives of the victims' children, families, and friends have been destroyed. I know because I was a victim of domestic violence. As a child, I watched as my mother was beaten by abusive stepfathers. I did what I could to protect my mom and my sister, but as a young boy there was only so much I could do.

I remember vividly being a 6-year-old boy going to protect my mom and getting beaten on until the police came. It is something that still lives with me, and I try to use that experience and knowledge to help in many different ways.

When I was growing up, quite frankly, there were not the resources that are available to victims today. I wish my mother had known back then that she was not alone. I wish she could have used one of the fantastic support providers that now exist in Massachusetts today. Since being elected to the Senate, I have been moved by the organizations in my State that are stepping to the plate--and continuously step to the plate each and every day--to provide support to victims of domestic violence.

Quite frankly, as a government, we have made tremendous progress in helping victims get their lives back in order--not only the victims themselves but the family members of those victims.

The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994, as you know, and made a bold statement that we would redouble our efforts to support law enforcement efforts to crack down on offenders and assist those working in our communities to provide assistance to victims seeking a new life away from the violence they had been subjected to.

In each reauthorization we have improved upon the previous bill and made it stronger and made stronger commitments to those who have been abused. Now is not the time--let me repeat: now is not the time--to take our foot off the gas and avoid dealing with this problem.

The landmark Violence Against Women Act must be reauthorized this year. I am incredibly proud to have cosponsored this reauthorization when it first came to my attention. I believe it makes critical commitments against this horrific problem.

Historically, VAWA has been a bipartisan effort, where both parties locked arms in support of our enforcement and victims against perpetrators of domestic violence. It was a glimmer of hope for an otherwise contentious and overly partisan atmosphere. I have to tell you--this is not the first time I have said this--but there is no Democratic bill that is going to pass, there is no Republican bill that is going to pass, for those listening. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President will sign.

I have been deeply troubled to see that this year's reauthorization has become, once again, partisan. There is no reason for it. There is no excuse for it. We just did the Hire a Hero veterans bill, we did the 3-percent withholding, we are doing the insider trading, we did the highway bill. There is no reason we cannot do the VAWA bill on a completely nonpartisan basis.

I am on the floor today to call on my colleagues to band together and pass this reauthorization and send a very strong signal to Americans that the Senate--yes, the Senate--stands united in recognizing victims from across the country, to give them the help they need and, obviously, deserve.

In Massachusetts, VAWA is supported by law enforcement and many service providers that are on the front lines in assisting domestic violence victims. I know. Previously, as an attorney, I dealt with family law matters. I know of the yeoman's work these entities do.

On Friday, I will be visiting Voices Against Violence in Framingham, MA. They receive VAWA funding to support direct services to victims and survivors of sexual assault and ensure that a trained rape crisis counselor is available after hours and on weekends.

The YMCA in central Massachusetts in Worcester uses those funds for a proactive program that has service providers working very closely with law enforcement to provide information to domestic violence victims and advocate on their behalf--at a time when, quite frankly, these folks need advocates.

Because of VAWA, REACH Beyond Abuse in Waltham has supported many cutting-edge prevention efforts with teens and the placement of advocates in police departments as a symbiotic, a give-and-take relationship in those departments.

The Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center in Newburyport, where my dad lives, used VAWA funds to establish a high-risk homicide prevention project and was recently recognized by the White House for their work.

I could go on and on and on about the tremendous involvement and great organizations not only in my State but throughout this country that are making a difference in the lives of victims. We need to stand as a body and not get into party rhetoric, and declare to women across America that they are not alone in this fight. We need to do everything in our power to help the millions of women like my mom who were once in this situation and are now survivors. And we need to help them become survivors, not victims. So I call upon my colleagues to join me in sending a very strong bipartisan vote and get this done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes. I am sorry. I did not see the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Reverend Hurmon E. Hamilton, Jr. of Roxbury, MA, a remarkable pastor, teacher and leader. Reverend Hamilton grew up in Louisiana, the son of a preacher. He attended Grambling State University and went on to earn a Master of Divinity Degree from San Francisco Theological Seminary.

In 1994, Reverend Hamilton began his career in Massachusetts when he was elected Senior Pastor of Boston's Roxbury Presbyterian Church. In this

senior ministry position, he led a major capital campaign that renovated the historic church's building. More importantly, he understood that the church was far more than brick, mortar and stained glass and set about expanding the congregation's role in the community through their Social Impact Center. Under Reverend Hamilton's stewardship, the Center, and particularly its Dream Again Program, provided a variety of hands-on programs to help area residents find jobs, learn new skills, continue their education and even purchase and keep homes.

Also under his leadership, the Roxbury Presbyterian Church began a highly successful ``Adopt-A-School'' program that has been touted as a model of excellence.

Mr. President, if we are known by the fruits of our labor, then Reverend Hamilton's time with us in Boston was bountiful. He was a champion for summer jobs programs for disadvantaged teens; he also helped secure funding for new textbooks for city schools. Yet nowhere was he more effective than in his efforts to secure access to health insurance for all our citizens. For Reverend Hamilton it was a matter of justice. Thanks in large part to his efforts, 98 percent of Massachusetts residents are now covered by health insurance. The program is not perfect and he understood that, which is why he has helped lead the fight to reduce exploding health care costs in our state.

Shortly after coming to Boston, Reverend Hamilton founded the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization which has been tremendously effective in not just raising awareness of pressing social concerns, but bringing together religious and community organizations to actually improve the lives of our neighbors. Because of the GBIO and Reverend Hamilton's leadership, there are more opportunities for at-risk youth, poor families are better educated and equipped to climb the economic ladder, and the rights of workers in nursing homes are better protected just to name a few of their accomplishments.

Mr. President, Reverend Hamilton leaves a lasting legacy in Massachusetts that expands well beyond his former church's Roxbury neighborhood. His impact can be measured in richer and more fulfilling lives, improved access to health insurance, better job prospects and engaged youth who go on to be productive and effective leaders, parents and workers.

Earlier this year, Reverend Hamilton accepted a new position in his words, God reassigned him to a new ministry in California. I join Reverend Hamilton's former congregation and all the people whose lives he touched in thanking him and wish him and his wife, Dr. Rhonda Hamilton, every blessing with their new opportunities in California.

Mr. President, as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 310, which designates 2012 as the ``Year of the Girl,'' I rise today to celebrate not only the centennial anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA but the efforts of the Girl Scouts of Massachusetts.

The Girl Scouts, a non-profit organization founded in 1912 by Juliette Gordon Low, has a longstanding dedication to empowering girls to become the leaders of tomorrow. From Daisies to Ambassadors, Girl Scouts have been learning, through hands-on activities, the importance of community service, goal-setting, and personal development for 100 years. Our two councils, the Girl Scouts of Eastern Massachusetts and the Girl Scouts of Central and Western Massachusetts, must be honored for their exemplary success and dedication to providing generations of girls with the tools they need to succeed in our rapidly changing world.

Throughout the Bay State, the Girl Scout program has provided over 50,000 girls with the opportunity to develop leadership skills, including in science, technology, engineering, and math. Girl Scouts in Massachusetts have partnered with educational institutions in the Commonwealth and the Society of Women Engineers to create activities that would encourage girls to pursue education in science and technology. For example, Girl Scouts teamed up with an engineer to build a looping roller coaster using household items. Additionally, Junior Scouts designed a space station and launched mini-rockets. Such learning experiences are essential to inspiring future generations of our State's innovators.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Girl Scouts in Massachusetts on their accomplishments. On their 100th anniversary today, it is an honor and a pleasure to recognize the valuable contributions that Girl Scouts have provided in Massachusetts, across the Nation, and across the world. I wish their continued success in empowering our Nation's future leaders.

Mr. President, I wish today to recognize LTC Joseph Niall Daley, who is retiring after over 20 years of dedicated service in the U.S. Air Force and Massachusetts Air National Guard.

Lieutenant Colonel Daley was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force in 1990 and served on Active Duty for 10 years as an aviator, at which time he joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard. He flew combat missions in Bosnia, 1997, and Iraq, 1998 and 2003.

Lieutenant Colonel Daley has had a distinguished military career, becoming an O/A 10A aircraft commander where he maintained a mission- ready status in support of worldwide deployment requirements. As an aviator he acquired an in-depth knowledge of U.S., allied, and enemy tactical and electronic warfare capabilities. He led and instructed formations of multiple O/A 10A aircraft in many diverse missions in both the day and nighttime environments. These missions included close air support, air interdiction, combat search and rescue, airlift escort, and joint air attack team tactics.

While serving in the Massachusetts Air National Guard as an expert O/ A 10A pilot with the 131st Fighter Squadron, Lieutenant Colonel Daley directly contributed to the success of the unit by providing sound leadership and experience. Assigned to the 131st Fighter Squadron as the Assistant Charlie Flight Commander, and one of the Squadron's top instructor pilots, he ensured his flight members were prepared to employ the aircraft at its optimal performance when called to deployment in 2003. Lieutenant Colonel Daley was instrumental to the wing as one of the primary trainers to implement the Litening II Pod during its initial test phases. His oversight and dynamic vision were critical during both peace-time and war-time missions. Following the 2005 base realignment and closure, Lieutenant Colonel Daley accepted a key role in the wing staff, serving as the base historian. His efforts ensured the activities of the unit were documented and preserved, allowing the wing the opportunity to be recognized by the National Guard, Air Force, and the Department of Defense. Lieutenant Colonel Daley's accomplishments culminate a distinguished career in the service of his State and country and reflect great credit upon himself, the Massachusetts Air National Guard, and the U.S. Air Force.

I would like to thank Lieutenant Colonel Daley for his tremendous service to our Nation. I know that his wife, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, their children, Katherine and Jacob, as well as the people of New Hampshire and Massachusetts are extremely proud of his selfless service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Good morning to you, Mr. President, and everybody in the gallery. I wanted to thank Majority Leader Reid for highlighting next week's Banking Committee hearing on small business growth. It is something all of us have a very dear and great concern with. One of the issues that will be discussed is a concept called crowdfunding. People may be saying: What is crowdfunding? Well, if you ever wished that you had the opportunity to invest in a Facebook or a Google or new idea before they hit it big, wouldn't that be nice? We would all be multibillionaires. My Democratizing Access to Capital bill, S. 1791, would expand entrepreneurs' access to capital by democratizing access to startup investing so they can have the funds to grow and create jobs.

The House passed a crowdfunding bill 407 to 17. So you know they must be on to something when they can pass something in such a bipartisan manner. The President referenced it in his State of the Union. He supports crowdfunding, and public support for crowdfunding is, in fact, exploding.

On Monday I hosted a roundtable in Boston at City Hall on small business access to capital, and I listened to small business owners and entrepreneurs and investors to get their thoughts and concerns about business growth, about investing, about the access to capital, and it was a very successful event. They all had one thing to say and that was: If we can't get behind the bipartisan, commonsense idea of crowdfunding, then what can we actually agree upon and how can we expect small businesses to grow?

With such strong support, I believe we should put, once again, partisan politics aside and focus on what we can do to help small businesses as we have done with the 1099 fix, the 3-percent withholding, the Hire a Hero Act, the most recent insider trading STOCK Act. All of my bills, all the things I have worked on, we did in a bipartisan manner. When the leader let them come to the floor and allowed us to work them through, they passed 96 to 3 and 100 to 0. It shows that the Senate can work together regardless of our political differences, our geographical locations, our belief on where we are because we are Americans first. These are things the business communities are looking at to move our country forward.

Next Monday I am hosting a roundtable with an entity called Wefunder, a group of innovators who started a petition for my bill to discuss crowdfunding. Their petition currently has 2,500 supporters who would invest over $6 million today if businesses had the opportunity to participate in crowdfunding, but right now it is illegal.

My bill is a commonsense bill, and I want to note that Senator Merkley has also introduced a different crowdfunding bill. It is a good start, but we can do a little bit more. I have reached out to his staff, and I have asked my staff to continue to do that. So I think we can work together as Senator Gillibrand and I have, and Senator Cochran and Senator Collins worked on the recent insider trading bill. We can do the same with Senator Merkley if he is willing and if the leader allows us to put those political party differences aside and actually work on something for the benefit of our country.

Today I am going to talk about some important principles that I believe are critical to making crowdfunding legislation a success. For crowdfunding to actually work, we need a national framework, which my bill creates. If we require entrepreneurs to comply with every separate State securities law mandate, filing the appropriate paperwork alone would cost over $15,000. That is the reason we don't have this type of situation. In my bill we don't have small business owners being able to give up to $1,000 per person, up to $1 million to invest in that next new idea with minimal SEC filings and minimal secretary of state filings. It is something that makes sense. We should not be burdening our startup businesses, which is where the largest growth is in this country right now, with costly quarterly reporting requirements. We might as well go through the whole process of the full SEC filings. It is not appropriate, especially until they are fully off the ground.

The point of crowdfunding is to allow entrepreneurs to flourish, not to bog

them down in an avalanche of paperwork and bureaucracy and redtape. That is why we are in this mess somewhat, because of the overregulation, the continued regulatory and tax uncertainty when it comes to planning and growing businesses.

In addition, I believe our existing fraud laws are solid; we just need to enforce them. Exposing startup founders to new personal liability is not going to work. It will create a real wet blanket on everything we are trying to do here from thousands of investors who are investing only a maximum of $500 to $1,000 and to have them also put in a personal guarantee for a $500 investment. How does that make any sense whatsoever, a quarterly filing, a personal liability guarantee for a $500 investment? This makes no sense at all. This will cause investors to use crowdfunding only when there is no other option available and will leave them to switch out crowdfunding investors for venture capital firms at the first opportunity, therefore, I believe, stifling that crowdfunding opportunity.

There was a recent article I read in which Canada's Government is deeply concerned about us actually doing this because they are fearful that Canadian money will be flowing into the United States. Wouldn't it be nice for once to have money flowing into the United States on something that will actually create small business growth in our great country? So recognizing that investors need protection, my bill does require entrepreneurs to offer their securities through regulated crowdfunding intermediaries.

In addition, my bill requires intermediaries to facilitate communication between investors and the offerors. I believe Senator Merkley and I have the same concerns in this regard which I believe can be addressed without creating a private right of action. It is not necessary especially for the amount of money we are talking about and the new business growth opportunities we can actually stimulate.

Crowdfunding depends on small investments by many, which is why we must exempt crowdfunding securities from the 500 shareholder cap so we don't create additional redtape for startups. It makes total sense. Everyone talks about overregulation of small business and how that is hurting their growth. I see it, you see it where you live, Mr. President, and in legalizing--let me repeat--in legalizing crowdfunding I believe we can still provide for the appropriate level of regulation but also give small businesses the access to capital they so desperately need.

This is a home run all over the place, and once again I am very pleased the majority leader has taken an additional step to call for the hearing on crowdfunding. When he talked about this issue, he referenced Senator Merkley's bill. I also have a bill. So why don't we do it as we did it with the insider trading bill, the Hire a Hero, the 3-percent withholding, the 1099, the Arlington Cemetery bill? All of those things, when we were allowed to work in a truly bipartisan manner, we were able to get done. With all due respect, there is no Republican bill that is going to pass right now, and I know that shocks some people. There is no Democratic bill that is going to pass either. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President is going to sign. That is what I offer, is that olive branch, that one good deed that begets another good deed and moves us forward to addressing our very real problems in a truly bipartisan manner as Americans first and not as Republicans or Democrats.

I would ask the majority leader to also include my bill when he is moving forward because otherwise I am fearful nothing will move forward. So I am looking forward to not only working with Senator Merkley but working with the majority leader and his team. When I was working on the insider trading bill, which was my bill and Senator Gillibrand's bill that we combined, we found that common ground. We worked together, we managed the floor, we had an open amendment process. Everybody walked out of here saying: That was nice. When was the last time we did that? Remember? That was unbelievable. Everyone had a role. Even Senator Kirk, who is recovering, had a role to play and it was good to see him. We can even do it in this bill.

Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor at this time. I see that we have a speaker all ready to go as well.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator before me. I wish to rise to inform colleagues and the public of some highly disturbing information that I have just learned about a broken agency within our Federal Government, something actually that Senator Carper and I have been working on. I know he will have great interest in this issue. I am talking about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

We all know Washington does not spend our money wisely, the money they collect from individual citizens. They do not spend it wisely. But sometimes it is worth highlighting examples of the corruption and waste that is actually taking place in the Federal Government.

Yesterday morning, I contacted the Commerce Department inspector general to request a copy of their report on NOAA's purchase of a $300,000 luxury boat. It would be bad enough if they purchased this boat with taxpayer dollars, but they did not. They paid for it with money that should belong to our struggling fishermen. They paid for it out of fines fisherman pay into the pot when they mistakenly catch the wrong kinds of fish. Those dollars are supposed to stay in the fishing community to help the fishermen.

I would like to point out--this is the boat. This is a photo of the actual boat that was purchased. For a government vessel, I would say that is pretty flashy. Let's take a look inside this boat. This is a fully appointed bar, the latest onboard entertainment systems, the leather furniture complete with the

ice check and tackle rack. I think anyone would love to have a boat such as this. NOAA has this boat.

Furthermore, the fines fishermen have been paying are putting fishermen out of business. These stories will break your heart. This story breaks my heart. It is something I speak about regularly when I am with my fishermen in Massachusetts. Let me describe the situation to people who are listening in the gallery and also people who are watching.

NOAA levied totally unreasonable fines against our fishermen. They used that money to buy themselves a luxury boat.

What else did the IG investigation find? Here we go:

According to the IG, NOAA had no reasonable official use for this boat. Let's start there. They didn't need it. Period. They had some story about needing an ``undercover vessel'' to sneak up on whalewatching vessels. Imagine that--armed Federal agents sneaking up on school groups and tourists trying to learn about nature. The IG found this to be as ridiculous. NOAA officials wanted this useless luxury boat. Then they-invented a reason to buy it with fishermen's hard-earned dollars.

So why did NOAA go to such lengths to ``manipulate'' and ``violate'' the government purchasing rules to get this boat? NOAA already has many boats and more cars than it has agents, so why add this to the inventory? They apparently didn't need it for official purposes. We know that because the IG says that it was never--I repeat--never--used for official business.

The sad truth is that it was a fishermen-funded party boat for bureaucrats, Mr. President. That's right, while fishermen in Gloucester and New Bedford are struggling to put off foreclosure or mourning the loss of their livelihood because of NOAA's overzealous enforcement, the NOAA office was living the good life on their dime.

NOAA officials used the boat for the following: Trips to dockside restaurants; Hamburger and hotdog BBQs and alcohol-fueled parties and with family and friends; ``Pleasure cruises'' at high rates of speed, with beer consumed on-board; Even though Federal rules ban non- employees from being on vessels, a NOAA supervisor even told a subordinate that his wife was welcome to ``kick back and watch TV'' on the boat; They filed expense reports and reimbursed themselves for these trips.

What excuse did NOAA employees give for this behavior? They needed to do all these things to maintain the recreational appearance of this ``undercover'' boat . . . that was never even used for the ``undercover'' work that it was supposedly purchased for.

Mr. President, let's be serious: A booze cruise is a booze cruise. One NOAA officer decided to take his family on a weekend trip to a posh resort. He took the undercover NOAA party boat to get there, but he was untrained in how to operate it and blew out a $30,000 engine. Rather than turn back and write the taxpayers a check, he simply abandoned it and took a marked NOAA law enforcement boat the rest of the way to their resort. Nothing could get between this NOAA employee and a good time. When asked about that incident, the NOAA employee lied to the IG and said there was no family on board. That was just one of many instances of NOAA employees deliberately misleading the IG.

Another NOAA officer used the undercover NOAA boat to take his wife to lunch in Seattle. On this trip, the boat engines stalled in a shipping lane because the boat ran out of fuel due to another operator error. The guy didn't know how to switch the tanks. So they were stuck drifting in a dangerous shipping lane. The officer and his wife apparently found the situation comical. I don't think that the fishermen in New Bedford or Glouster or Fall River are laughing. Again, the money that belonged to our hard-working fishermen is paying for all this. I cannot fathom that type of behavior, especially in this tough time when we are all in a fiscal emergency.

To this day, no one has been held accountable. No one has been disciplined, fired or even reprimanded for anything having to do with this boat.

As we see today, NOAA has a culture of corruption that has created a chasm of distrust between the agency and the fishing industry. That trust is something that absolutely needs to be reestablished.

I would like to take 1 more minute. My question is addressed to the President--not the Presiding Officer, the real President, President Obama, and to Dr. Lubchenco. What does it take to get fired from NOAA? We have the abusive treatment of fishermen resulting in the decimation of the fleet; investigations motivated by money, shredding parties destroying 75 to 80 percent of the required documents before an investigation, lying to the IG, discouraging cooperation with the IG, misleading Members of the Congress, the $300,000 party boat purchases, $12,000 in party boat expenses paid with fishermen's fines, a $30,000 engine destroyed by a NOAA employee on his weekend vacation and no one is held accountable.

This needs to change. Accountability starts at the top. NOAA's leadership needs to change. I am calling one more time to have President Obama fire NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, and if not now, when? If for not this, then for what? What does it take to get fired at NOAA? Our fishermen and the American taxpayers deserve better from the Federal Government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also stand and commend the majority leader for allowing this process to unfold in a thoughtful and fair manner, the way it should. We are starting the new year off correctly and allowing everybody to feel as if they are participating in the democratic process, not moving for cloture, shutting off debate, and filling the tree, but allowing us to stay late and work together in a bipartisan manner to work through the amendments, allowing me and Senator Collins, and on their side, Senators Lieberman and Gillibrand, to call individual Members and say: You have four amendments up; which ones do you want? Is there a modification or can we combine them with other similar amendments? That is how it should work.

This is what I have been saying for the last 2 years and why I have continuously moved to work across the aisle: to allow that democratic process to work.

I am thankful we are here. These are some tough votes, but we are the Senate. We should be taking tough votes. That is why the people sent us here. I am thankful that we can send the message to the American people that we are trying to reestablish that trust that seems to have been lost with them by moving on the STOCK Act.

There are other issues we are taking up. I hope they are just as thoughtful and methodical and respectful. I hope we are going to do the postal bill next. It is something Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and I have spearheaded. It is a solid bill and a good framework. If we allow it to move forward and everybody has their say and their day in the Sun, and we do as we have done today, we will have another good deed and, who knows, maybe we will be in double figures in terms of the approval rating pretty soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to commend Senator Blumenthal and Senator Kirk. As you all know, Senator Kirk is battling to come back with us. As a gesture and also because it is a good-government measure, this particular amendment, No. 1498, extends the number and types of felonies for which Members of Congress and executive branch employees or an elected State or local government official can lose his or her pension. This is a good- government amendment and an appropriate way to honor our colleague, Senator Kirk, whom we wish a speedy recovery.

I ask to have the yeas and nays by voice vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold on this amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement threshold on amendment No. 1471 and amendment No. 1483.

I would also ask unanimous consent to have the yeas and nays by voice vote on amendment No. 1471 and amendment No. 1483 as well.

Mr. President, further, before I yield to Senator McCain, I would like to briefly set up amendment No. 1471.

Fannie and Freddie have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. This year, they paid exorbitant bonuses to their executives.

I wish to commend Senator McCain for his work on this very important issue and his leadership, and I encourage everybody to vote yes on it.

I now yield to Senator McCain.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I enjoyed that back and forth debate very much. I appreciate the spirit in which that amendment was offered. I wrote the original bill. It was my bill and Senator Gillibrand then filed a bill. We went through the committee process, and the original intent of the bill was to deal with insider trading. It applied to all Federal employees, not just congressional, so it is an insider trading bill.

The spirit of what we have been trying to do over the last day and a half is to address issues equally so as to eliminate all appearances of impropriety and for any branch of government to not play by the same rules as the American people would play by. So every single amendment that has come through this Chamber right now has not only been expanded to cover, obviously, those in the Senate and the House of Representatives but also equally to the executive branch.

So if this amendment is going to have any chance of passing, I can assure you I will not support it unless it specifically also applies to the executive branch. If she wants to amend it or modify it to include that, then it will have a good chance of passing; if not, I will do my best to prohibit it because it needs to be applied to everybody. For us to come and say we need to come up with proof that somebody is doing something or not doing something--listen, it is no different than what we are trying to do on the insider trading bill. There is no one who has been brought to court and found criminally responsible. We are dealing on inference and reference and innuendo. That is why we are trying to reestablish the trust with the American people to do something that would not traditionally have been done but not for a 60- minute speech. So if we knew something was happening in the mortgage industry, great, let's let it apply across the board and not exclude a group of Federal employees for some particular political reason.

Once again, if she wants to amend it, great. If not, I am going to do my best to make it amended so we can have it apply equally if we are going to ultimately take it up.

Mr. President, I know folks are riveted to their televisions. I wanted to give them an update as to where we are on the STOCK Act.

First of all, there have been a lot of good amendments back and forth. We have reviewed them. We worked obviously late into last night and have been working throughout today. We are gearing up for votes that hopefully will be forthcoming, if not today, then hopefully tomorrow.

But I do appreciate the process, and I wanted to publicly thank Leader Reid for his willingness to allow us to work through this process because it is sensitive for some people and it is new territory for others. But I will say, being the first time and having the ability to come down and co-manage the floor with Senator Collins and work with Senator Lieberman and Senator Gillibrand, the process has been open and fair. We are trying now to eliminate some of the amendments that may not be relevant. We have had some folks step back and say, yes, take this off or take that off, and that is good. And we have been trying to combine other amendments to try to solidify where we want to go.

But I did want to let folks know that we are working diligently with the staffs of all the concerned Members, and hopefully we will get some votes very shortly.

Once again, I commend Leader Reid and his staff, the chairman and his staff, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Collins, for everyone working together trying to make this happen. I appreciate that, and I want to make that reference for folks who are paying attention.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I know we are starting to get the intake of amendments. I want to reiterate what we talked about yesterday, about having relevant amendments filed. This is a very specific issue we are addressing, which is to deal with perceived insider trading and/or Members of Congress having an unfair advantage and having obviously nonpublic information, confidential information that would ultimately be used for financial gain.

As we are reviewing some of the amendments or hearing discussions of others that may be forthcoming, I want to remind the Members that this is something that forces outside this building may not want to happen. I feel very strongly that this is something we need to do and use to reestablish the trust with the American citizens and Members of Congress.

That being said, as our Members are listening or their staffs are proposing amendments that are forthcoming, I hope they would be relevant to the issue at hand and not get sidetracked into a discussion that would take us away from what we are trying to do here.

Again, I am looking forward to the amendments. I know Senators Lieberman, Gillibrand, Collins, and I will be managing the floor today to try to make sure that happens and convince our Members to stay focused on this very important issue.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have enjoyed the back and forth between the chairman and the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senator from Oklahoma has raised some very valid points, points that we actually had discussed in committee.

I originally asked for a 90-day reporting period, and it was changed out of committee to the 30-day period. Obviously, I am happy to work with the Senator from Oklahoma and the chairman and the ranking member to determine if, in fact, there is some guidance necessary to Ethics; and, sure, I am happy to do it. This needs to not only be done in the proper manner but, obviously, to be implemented in a way that everybody can comply and not be caught short in that type of situation.

So I am looking forward--in speaking to the chairman--that we will certainly take those valid points into consideration, any guidance we need to put in for the record, or letters of guidance to Ethics as to what our legislative intent is. I am happy to do that and look forward to continuing that dialog.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's reference to the post office, and the postal issue is something Senators Collins, Lieberman, Carper, and I have been working on probably about 300 or 400 hours at this point. So I look forward to his involvement as well.

At this point, getting back to the business at hand dealing with the STOCK Act, I ask that Senator Paul be recognized. I believe he has three amendments that he would like to offer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we obviously just received the amendments. We look forward to digesting them and actually working on some of the points. They are well taken. So we look forward to doing that.

Since there is no Democrat here to offer another amendment, I would then, in the spirit of back and forth, yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Alaska for his efforts during the committee process. He offered some good amendments that we ultimately took up and accepted. We look forward to his continued involvement in the process.

As we have said, we need to make sure that all of the amendments are relevant. We hope he will join with us and get some of his colleagues to focus on the very important issues we are trying to work on and not get sidetracked.

That being said, I congratulate him and look forward to working with him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for coming down. I appreciate her comments, her hard work on this issue, and thank her for her efforts.

Once again I reiterate to folks who may be listening, we are gathering amendments. I believe they are stacking up. Some are very relevant. Some have pieces of relevancy. What we have been trying to do is take the best of each one and try to formulate a plan to move forward and try to get some votes, obviously today and tomorrow, and get this done as quickly as possible and get it over to the House.

I once again reiterate my request to have all amendments be relevant to the issue at hand. Like Senator Lieberman--I am not going to quote Dr. Seuss as he did, but I want to be sure we have a bill that has a chance not to get bogged down but to pass expeditiously.

To let folks know in the gallery and also those watching on television, there have been some very good amendments, good ideas. Some, actually, we may end up combining. There are amendments coming up in the days ahead that we have not had a chance even to look at because the amendments are coming in fast and furiously. We have not had a chance to get out and try to comment as to what we are doing with this amendment or that amendment. There are good points in virtually every amendment. We need to be sure we get the best and strongest bill we possibly can. I want to add that.

I do not see Senator McCaskill here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as you know, people are coming down requesting amendments be brought up. Since I did not see any Democrats offering any, I yield to Senator Paul. He has an amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Collins and Chairman Lieberman for doing something very unusual around here, which is to get something out in a very short period of time, having it not only come up and being filed by Senator Gillibrand--her bill and even my bill--and then you both working together to move it forward for a hearing. That hearing going very well and coming out so quickly is unheard of, and I wish to thank you for that.

I also wish to thank Leader Reid for bringing this bill to the floor today as well as, as I said, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Senator Gillibrand. We have worked together to draft a bipartisan version of the STOCK Act, an act that passed out of committee by an overwhelming margin. That is appropriate because this isn't a partisan or ideological issue. It is about cleaning up Washington.

Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg of fighting to preserve ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' I think that if the approval ratings are any indication, the American people have lost faith that we are living up to Lincoln's ideal, and we need to do it better. They have lost faith that Congress works for them. They believe too many Members of Congress have come to Washington to make themselves rich or to do other things instead of taking care of the people's business and that Congress only steps in to bail out the people with the most money or the most lobbying power, and that is not right.

With the bill before us today, we can take a small step to reestablishing the trust between the American people and Congress. If we can pass the STOCK Act this week, it will send a very strong and unified message to the American people that Congress does not consider itself to be above the law. We can start to finally address that deficit of trust that the President referenced in his State of the Union Address. Members of Congress must live by the same rules that govern every other American citizen.

As you may recall from a ``60 Minutes'' investigation only 2 months ago, we learned that Members of Congress, their staff, as well as other Federal employees, may be using material nonpublic information for their personal gain, either through stock trades, real estate deals or other financial activity. Everyone agrees this should be illegal or it already is, as referenced by the ranking member and her very thorough explanation of the law and the problems with it. But somehow, despite all the evidence, there has never been a single Member of Congress or congressional staffer charged with insider trading.

I have to admit, similar to you and many others, I was shocked by this report. I think we all were. As a result, I filed my version of the STOCK Act, which would prohibit Members and employees of Congress from using material nonpublic information for their personal benefit.

When Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the state of insider trading law as it applies to Congress, one thing was very clear. Although, as Ranking Member Collins said, the SEC theoretically has the ability to prosecute Members, there has been no precedent for it, and the state of law at this point is very unsettled. To remove any and all doubt, we need to act, and we need to act now. In addition to clarifying that insider trading is indeed a criminal offense, we are increasing the transparency of Members' trading activity to make sure our investment decisions are out there for everyone to see as plain as day. As President Ronald Reagan liked to say: Trust but verify.

In conclusion, I wish to say that Senator Coburn has a phrase that I think is very accurate in this context. He talks about all the earmarks and contracts and Washington spending that end up in the hands of those people he calls well-heeled and well-connected. In my opinion, no one is more well-connected, with more access to a wide range of privileged, nonpublic information, than Members of Congress, their friends, employees or family members.

At a time when our economy is struggling and the average American family has to make hard economic choices, congressional Members and staff should not be lining their pockets on insider information. Serving our country is a privilege, one I cherish very much. I believe we must level the playing field and show the American people that the people in Congress do not consider themselves to be above the laws we expect everyone else across the country to obey.

I believe it is time to listen to our constituents and remember that every seat in this room is the people's seat.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I failed to reference--I was hopeful I could have Nathaniel Hoopes participate in the legislative process and participate on the floor in this debate.

Mr. President, I concur, and I have always felt one good deed begets another good deed, and so on and so forth. This is a measure the American people are clamoring for. We need to reestablish the trust with the American people, and this is the first step in doing that very thing.

Once again, I thank the chairman for referencing something I failed to reference as well. I would encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle and my friends on the other side of the aisle to keep all amendments germane. We need to make sure we move for cloture, get cloture, and then have a free, fair, and spirited debate on the issues that concern them but don't get sidetracked to the point where the bill gets killed or pulled. I think that would be a travesty and a mistake. So I am going to encourage my colleagues to make sure if they have a concern, let's air it out and take a full and fair vote on it and move forward.

I love hearing the Senator's stories. I am reading his book because of his knowledge and history and the way he can weave things back and forth. That is a very good analogy.

I too have concerns. We have referenced many times that there may be forces beyond us who want to make sure this doesn't come out of this Chamber and go next door and then ultimately be signed by the President. I am not one of them. I want to make sure--as the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Maine, and many of the other Members and the cosponsors--that this bill comes out in a good and fair form.

We are here for a very specific reason, to address a very specific issue that affects people, quite frankly, in a manner that I never thought was possible. If there are other concerns, I commend the chairman for publicly stating to bring them up in a separate matter on a separate bill and address them if there are issues we have missed. I have a fear--and I hope I am wrong--that by making it, as the Senator from Connecticut referenced, too perfect or too sweet, it could fail, and I don't want to see that. I want to make sure we have a laser-sharp bill that addresses a very specific issue, and if we do it together and work in a true bipartisan manner, we have an opportunity right now in this moment in our history of this country to do something special.

I was sent here to do the people's business, and I do it each and every day by working across party lines with good people and good Democrats like the Senator from Connecticut and others. I take that role very seriously. We have an opportunity right now to send a very powerful message for which the American people are yearning. They want us to do well. They want us to be good. They want us to be better than we have been representing ourselves right now.

So I am encouraging--just to reference and take it a step further--my colleagues to do the same thing. Let's put our party differences aside. Let's put the inner party differences aside and push this legislation through in a thoughtful, methodical, respectful, and responsible manner that will make the American people say: OK, it is a good first step. What is next, Congress? Are we going to do the postal bill and try to save the postal bill? I hope that is the next issue. We need to work in a truly bipartisan manner.

Once again, who is here? It is me, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Cochran who are pushing to try to save the post office. That should be the next issue. What is after that? We need to address our fiscal and financial issues so we can come out of this 3- year recession in a lean-and-mean manner so we can be a better country and be able to compete on a global basis. We need to start putting the American people's interests first instead of everybody else's.

I usually get in trouble when I go off like this, but I think it is critically important to let the people know that one good deed begets another good deed, and this is the first step in this new calendar year to do just that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate the National Guard on 375 years of service.

It was on December 13, 1636, in Massachusetts that our Nation's military heritage was born. It was the members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who stood together and founded an organization to protect and defend the peoples of the Bay Colony. They provided watch to ensure the security of their fellow settlers in Massachusetts, and they drilled to ensure they were prepared to fight if called upon.

From these grassroots origins comes today's National Guard: the most prepared, best equipped, and most mobile National Guard our Nation--or any nation--has ever had. Like the guardsmen of the first days of this Nation, today's guardsmen continue to answer the call to duty. They serve as leaders in our homeland defense response and disaster relief, and over the past 10 years, our guardsmen have served with courage and honor in Iraq and Afghanistan, right alongside our Active-Duty Forces. They are fighting on many fronts overseas and fulfilling many different missions.

Sometimes they are coming home with devastating injuries. When they return, these citizen soldiers and airmen face the challenges of recovery, readjustment, and finding jobs. The unemployment rate of today's National Guard remains well above the national average. To ensure that we honor the service of these guardsmen and veterans, I introduced the Hire A Hero Act which gives a tax credit to small businesses that hire veterans and members of the National Guard and Reserves, and I am pleased to say that the legislation has become law.

I have also pushed to ensure that all our National Guardsmen receive fair housing allowances. I introduced an amendment included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that makes certain every guardsman who gets deployed will receive the housing allowance they need and deserve. When a guardsman is ordered to Active Duty for a contingency operation, the housing allowance for that guardsman currently reverts back to his or her home-of-record status rather than the current housing allowance of his or her present duty station, despite any significant loss of income. Basically, guardsmen are being punished financially for being deployed to a war zone. My amendment to this year's National Defense Authorization Act will rectify this inequity.

Also included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act is a monumental provision recognizing the significance of today's National Guard. As a 32-year member of the Massachusetts National Guard and a member of the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees, I am proud to have cosponsored the amendment to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is a long overdue measure that gives the National Guard the recognition and respect that it deserves. I am proud to have supported it, and I look forward to its final passage.

Today our National Guardsmen continue the tradition of service begun by the militia of 1636, and I want to pay special recognition to the guardsmen of the 26th Yankee Brigade serving overseas and to their families for their service and sacrifice. Massachusetts's own 26th Yankee Brigade is currently serving in Afghanistan. When asked, they answered the call to duty. This summer while I was in Afghanistan, I was fortunate enough to see firsthand the selflessness, courage, and professionalism of ``The Nation's First.'' They are a credit to the State of Massachusetts, the National Guard, and to this Nation.

Congratulations to the National Guard for its 375 years of service to this Nation and to all the guardsmen who are prepared to support and defend this great Nation in its times of need.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I have an amendment that has been accepted--almost--sort of kind of accepted--amendment No. 1090, which I would like to discuss briefly.

I thank Senators Wyden and Coons for their bipartisan leadership as cosponsors of this amendment. I believe we are going to vote on it shortly, and I ask that it be accepted, either by vote or by unanimous consent.

It is a simple amendment that will make sure the National Guardsmen who get deployed will receive the housing allowances they need and deserve. This is a bipartisan amendment. The Defense Department has agreed that the situation needs to be fixed--something that recently was developed.

There is a little bit of history behind this, but I don't think it is important because Senator Wyden and Senator Coons and I have taken the lead on this issue, which is critically important to providing the funds that have been taken merely by a change in the regulations. This has happened at a time, quite frankly, when our men and women who are fighting need that money.

I am offering this amendment as a result of a bill I introduced last September, entitled the ``National Guard Basic Allowance for Housing Equity Act.'' I introduced this legislation to fix an inequity that hurts National Guardsmen who are deployed. Merely as a result of their deployment, they could lose upward of $1,000 per month in their monthly housing allowance.

Basic Allowance for Housing, or BAH, is a benefit paid to members of the military to help offset the cost of local housing markets. When a servicemember is deployed, for example, BAH is necessary to help offset the cost of a mortgage or rent in a particular geographic area. Everyone in the military, especially families, rely on this benefit. This benefit is especially critical when servicemembers deploy because, as we know, the spouse is often at home and she or he is responsible for taking care of the bills.

What would my colleagues say if I said that because you are ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, for example, the Department of Defense is going to withhold $1,000 or more from your monthly housing allowance, a huge piece of your total household income--upward of $12,000 or more per year--because of a new policy interpretation? That is right. It is merely a new policy interpretation.

Because of a DOD oversight, over 800 Guardsmen--some even in the Presiding Officer's State and 40 in Massachusetts who are deployed to Afghanistan right now--are losing, in the middle of the battle, up to $1,000 per month in their housing allowance because they were ordered to deploy.

Title X mandates that full-time Guardsmen, when ordered to Active Duty for a contingency operation, even if there is no break in their active Federal service, must revert back to their home-of-record status rather than their current duty station. Because of this change in status, it alters a guardsman's basic allowance for housing on their monthly pay stub. Basically, guardsmen are being punished for being deployed to a war zone.

For example, take a full-time guardsman who is from Worcester. He calls Worcester, MA, home and probably votes there, but he is stationed in Washington, DC, let's say right down the street at the Pentagon. So he or she earns a housing allowance based on the cost of living in DC and, as we all know, it is higher than in Worcester, MA. Sounds pretty normal, pretty straightforward, right?

This guardsman is then ordered to Active Duty--to Federal status--for the purpose of deploying overseas. A new housing allowance rate kicks in that is based on his home of record back in Worcester, not where he or she was actually stationed, here in D.C.

As a result, the guardsman and his family immediately start losing up to $1,000 per month because of that deployment to serve their country. So full-time guardsmen are entitled to the BAH rate they are receiving at the duty station because it is where they and their dependents live, and that is often where the spouses will reside until that servicemember comes back. Obviously, family members are not going back to Worcester while the guardsman is stationed at the Pentagon or here in D.C.

This is not right. It is something DOD agrees with. Senator Wyden and Senator Coons concur, and I appreciate their bipartisanship in moving this forward. I am all about finding savings, but the good thing is that this is no cost to the government. It is already budgeted in the DOD budget. I am not into savings that treat our service men and women unfairly.

So my amendment provides a simple, noncontroversial fix. It is germane. It is relevant. It helps people who are serving our country right now. It is bipartisan. It is how we should do things around here.

I am glad the DOD has realized this is a problem, and I hope my colleagues will move forward in a manner to make our citizens proud.

I wish to thank Senator McCain for his effort in getting this important matter to our guardsmen who are serving presently overseas. It is a testament to his diligence. I thank Chairman Levin for putting up with the problems over the last few days, but it is important to the people. It is not about politics; it is about serving our men and women.

Amendment No. 1206

Mr. President, I rise today to protect the families of our men and women in uniform. While these brave members of our community put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms abroad, courts here are using their service against them when making child custody determinations.

Although I did not submit my amendment due to concern expressed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, it is important that the committee take up this issue to ensure that servicemembers have a uniform standard of protection when determining the best interests of their children.

Servicemembers risk their lives in support of the contingency operations that keep our Nation safe. The amendment prohibits courts from permanently altering custody orders during a parent's deployment, and requires pre-deployment custody to be reinstated unless that is not in the best interest of the child.

This language of my amendment has enjoyed widespread support in the House for the past five years and was recently endorsed by the Department of Defense. Earlier this year Secretary Gates stated that he wanted to work with Congress to pursue the creation of a Federal uniform standard. In his letter of support dated February 15th, 2011, Secretary dates stated: ``I have been giving this matter a lot of thought and believe we should change our position to one where we are willing to consider whether appropriate legislation can be crafted that provides servicemembers with a federal uniform standard of protection.''

Our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal to serve our country. We owe it to them to provide uniform legal standards regarding child custody. Servicemembers should never be in the position of having to choose between their country and their family.