our main objective and raising taxes on anybody in an economic downturn runs against that objective. mr. sessions: i thank the senator for sharing those thoughts. and i just would spay, it is concerning that this gets boiled down to some sort of idea that you're just trying to protect the rich. what we're trying to do is to do something to help this economy to allow the private sector to create jobs and reduce this unemployment which is this unmaddenningly remaining at very high, unacceptable levels. and everybody, all the economists and others tell us the economy will not come back until we have a lowered unemployment rate. and raising taxes is not the way to lower unemployment. i just have to say -- and you're

talking about a significant increase to 39.6% on upper-income taxpayers. these are small business people, like i met one gentleman who has ten fast-food restaurants and 200 employees, and he told me that with the health care bill and the stress he's seeing, he expects to be laying off 70 of those. we don't need him to lay off seven. we need him to be able to hire more if we can, so we can have more people working. and then you have, in addition, a 2.9% on upper-income medicare -- upper-income people, 2.9% additional tax for medicare that really makes the total tax rate about 42.8% or 42.6%. plus, my state of alabama has a

5% tax, income tax. that makes it 47%. some states have 10% income taxes. then you pay sales taxes. then you pay property taxes and other taxes, and gasoline taxes. and those things. so the idea that you can just continue to ratchet up taxes without consequence to the economy is not accurate. and i do remember and would say one more thing. i talked to a businessman in an airport of an international company. he's a c.e.o. for north america. he told me that they had sought to obtain an environmental chemical process in the united states at their plant, and he thought he had won it. and the people in europe who evaluate the proposals, it would have added 200 jobs in my state of alabama, they said sorry,

you've lost because you didn't count taxes. and tax rates are higher in the united states than the competing country who is a member of their plant. they had plants all over the world. this other plant in another country that had lower taxes was going to get it. we lost 200 jobs in the united states as a direct result of higher taxes. so i just want to repeat, it is an absolute myth that you can just raise taxes on productive enterprises and small business people who do a subchapter "s" and take their money directly rather than through corporate taxes. you can raise those taxes and it won't have a job impact. it will have a job impact. and that's why all three of the economists that testified before the budget committee -- two of them democrats -- said don't raise taxes now. and that's why mr. orszag said don't raise taxes now.

i see my colleague seeking the floor. i'd be pleased to yield. mrs. mccaskill: i yield -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. mccaskill: i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: to the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. i thank my colleague for yielding the floor. i'll be brief. i'd first like to ask my colleagues a question here, any of my republican colleagues. they say we have to do this by monday; it's one of the most important economic issues we have. if today we were to offer you -- certainly i would. i can't speak for every one of my colleagues -- we will keep the tax rates the same for everyone whose income is below $1 million and have them go up to what they were in the clinton years for people at $1 million

or higher, how's that for a compromise? would you accept it? well, i would ask any of my colleagues to come on the floor and tell us why they would or wouldn't accept it. we all know that there was greater prosperity in the clinton years than there were during the bush years. we all know that there was less of a deficit. in fact, a surplus at the end of the clinton years and a huge deficit at the end of the bush years. we also all know that just about every economist tells us that tax cuts, taxes for millionaires don't affect jobs. this is not capital gains. this is not an investment tax credit. this is personal income of millionaires and billionaires. it is one of the least effective ways to create jobs. so, again, i'd ask my colleagues, are you willing to accept that compromise? i am.

i'd like the record to show no republican colleague has accepted that compromise. just before i leave -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. i have another proposal that i'd like to offer before i yield back quickly to my colleague from missouri. orrin hatch and i passed a bipartisan bill, a tax cut for businesses and large businesses called the hire act. it said that if you hired somebody during the course of 2010 and they were unemployed for 60 days, they didn't pay the payroll tax. it's been regarded as a success. five million jobs have been created since it passed. you can't attribute all of them to the hire act, but certainly it had to do with a good number of them. and i'd thraoeubg see us move that bill -- i'd like to see us move that bill right now. it's a tax cut, it's for business. it creates jobs. so i ask unanimous consent -- and i'd like to do that now, not

to wait until we give a tax break to millions. these could be retired people who do nothing, who had a load of money. not small businesses working hard that would get a tax break. so i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3623 and that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the measure be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: mr. president, reserving the right -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: -- to object. i would say to the question raised by my esteemed colleague, i respect his economic judgment, but i respect the economic judgment more of mr. zandi of

moody's, mr. pwraoeurpbd of princeton -- blinder of princeton and mr. taylor of the taylor rule. they all have said without exception, do not raise taxes in this kpheurbgs and -- this economy. and those persons who might be making higher incomes most likely are people who have the most employees and they could pay for that by reducing employees. i would also cite him to mr. peter orszag, president obama's own former budget director. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: i yield the floor to my colleague from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, sometimes we selectively around here like certain testimony and dislike other testimony. my friend from alabama is so proud of mr. zandi. i think it's important we put on

the record what else mr. zandi said. mr. zandi said that if we hadn't passed the stimulus, we would have a depression. so, now, i hear the other side saying that there was nothing worse than the stimulus. mr. zandi said if we hadn't done the stimulus, we'd have a depression. now, and i think mr. zandi would also say, if he were here right now, that the least stimulative tax cut we can do is a personal tax rate at the very highest bracket. and you know what he would say the most system lay alternative thing we can -- system -- stimulating thing we can do to the economy right now? unemployment benefits. and what are we fighting over? they're blocking the most stimulating thing we can do for the economy to do the least stimulating thing we can do for the economy for the millionaires and billionaires. let's go over that again; make

sure we understand this. the same economist that my republican friend is hanging his hat on has said time and time again that the only thing that stood between this country and a depression was passing the stimulus. now my colleagues want to use that same economist to justify holding up unemployment benefits, holding up the start treaty, national security, holding up any other business of the senate -- judicial nominations, work that needs to be done -- to protect the millionaires and billionaires. we don't need to argue about whether or not tax cuts are good. i think we've shown that. the proof's in the pugd. all my -- the proof's in the

pudding. all my republican friends know we've passed tax cut after tax cut. we've passed tax cuts for almost everybody in america. we passed tax cuts through payroll taxes. we passed middle-class tax cuts. we passed tax cuts for small sml businesses, which they were busy opposing. that's rich. they opposed the tax cut for small businesses, and now they want to go to the mat for the millionaires. people need to understand, what they're say, the reason they say don't raise taxes, the reason the economists say don't raise taxes in a down economy is because you want money to go into the economy in a recession. you're trying to get money to circulate. you're trying to get investment. you're trying to get people to buy things. so that's why you look at spending in an emergency basis

like a stimulus, and you look at tax policy and figure out what's the most stimulating thing we can do with the tax code to help this economy. that's why we focused on the middle class and small businesses. and they're stuck with those millionaires. now, i am very blessed. my husband's first job out of college was in a steel mill. i worked my way through college as a waitress. and my husband has been very successful in business. and when i've talked to him -- and he's an economist; very bright. when i've talked to him about the various things that we can do to stimulate investment -- he's invested in many, many businesses through the years, created thousands and thousands of jobs. when i ask him is a 3%

differential in your tax rate going to make a difference in your investments next year, he kind of laughs. they may make a difference in terms of how much money he has to invest in one thing or another, but this is not the engine of our economy. a 3% difference in the tax rate for people who make millions of dollars. what does make a difference is a tax cut for the rest of america. now, here's where their argument falls apart even further. how many times have we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the deficit? and here's the dirty little secret: they don't want to extend taxes temporarily because we have a down economy. they want to do it permanently. they want to go borrow trillions of dollars from china to make sure we keep this tax break there for the millionaires

permanently. they're not focused on the next year. they're not focused on the next two years. they want to blow the lid off this deficit and not pay for a dime of it by extending them permanently. so, you know, he can say we don't raise taxes in a down economy. then they ought to immediately acknowledge that this should only be a two-year extension, but they won't even acknowledge that at this point. we agree on permanent tax relief for the middle class. book it. we agree on that. let's get that done. permanent tax relief for the middle class. all of us agree on that. i, frankly, think it's time we start looking at the deficit. take the least stimulative money that we spend, this extra money for millionaires, and put that against the deficit. we will never get this deficit

solved if anybody thinks we can do it on discretionary spending. i've worked hard on discretionary spending. senator sessions and i have sponsored an amendment and put it before the senate time after time trying to get our colleagues to accept a cap on spending. we've not been able to get across the finish line. i'm confident that we will in the coming months, and we'll put a cap on spending. that's part of the equation. taking a hard on entitlements when we're in debt. i don't know, i don't think that makes a lot of sense much that's part of the entitlement program i think we should take a look at is how many rich people are we buying prescription drugs for? and, finally, we need to look at the tax policy. if we -- i'm not talking bra corporate tax rate, i'm not talking about capital gains, dividends, i'm talking about the personal tax rates. if we can't bring it back to the

1990's, find me a millionaire that didn't do well in the 1990's. i'd like to meet one. it was tall could theton in the 1990's for wealthy people in this country. by the way, it hasn't been bad are for the past 10 years. you haven't seen a lot of job creation after this tax cut. we created 22 million jobs in the clinton years with the tax rate we want to go to for the millionaires and they created a million after this tax cut was created. 22 million versus a million. really? we want to blow the lid off the deficit for that kind of job creation? no, we don't. and i want to clarify one thing. senator kyl did not want to yield for a question. i didn't ever say there was a threatening on start in the letter written by republicans. i said that senator kyl today and let me read the quote, "if taxes all can't be resolved and voted on and completed and spending for the government for

the next 10 months completed by next monday, i don't know how there's enough time to complete start." keep in mind we've had 16 hearings on start. close to 1,000 congressional inquiries, it's hard to find somebody who understands the threat that doesn't support start. they're saying, well, the verification doesn't go far enough. we have no verification now. so senator kyl is the one who's saying that if we don't get everything done by monday, that they're done on the start treaty. i -- i think i can speak for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. we want to make sure that we cut taxes for the middle class and we want to stay here until we get that start treaty done and we want to stay here and make sure we get an agreement to continue to fund government. and we will stay here. and i think most of us are

willing to stay here weekends, all night, christmas eve, christmas day, day after christmas. i think we will stay here as long as it takes to complete this work. so the sooner we find out the compromises they're willing to make -- will they hold the middle class hostage? will they hold unemployment benefits hostage? will they hold the -- i hope not for the sake of our economy, future of this country, our grandchildren, deficit reduction and national security. i hope not. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from missouri for her downstanding words. let's take three facts. first, over the last decade middle class incomes have declined for the first time since world war ii.

second, over the last decade, if you made over $1 million you did just great. number three, we've had a deficit -- we went from 2001 when george bush took over until today, we went from a surplus of $300 million to a huge deficit. and one of my -- and what do my colleagues suggest we do? that we hold up the entire government until we get tax breaks for the wealthy? the people who have done well, the people who have plenty of money, the people who when they get a tax break don't rush out to the grocery store or to the clothing store because they haven't had enough money to buy things. that's what they want to do. it is hard to believe -- it's

hard to believe politics aren't at stake. there there aren't a group very wealthy people who believe they made all their money all by themselves and they don't want to pay any taxes and that's what's pulling that party so far to the right. my colleague -- my good friend from tennessee talked about elections. i want him to come to the floor and tell me in this election the electorate cried out, give more tax breaks to the millionaires. everyone knows they didn't. they said help the middle class. and if our party had a fault and i believed we did, we didn't pay enough attention to the middle class. they're not going to convince us because they won a few seats in the senate and picked up the house that was a mandate to give more tax breaks to the people who need it least, the millionaires and billionaires. oh, no. in fact, we're listening to the electorate far more than they

are. we are saying deal with the deficit not by preventing unemployment insurance from being inectd, not from preventing the hire act to be enacted, not from preventing tax breaks for manufacturing or green energy. oh, no. we want to do those things. we want to deal with the deficit by not giving an extra huge tax cut to the millionaires and billionaires. here's another thing i don't want to hear from my colleagues if they persist in this policy. i don't want to hear them say the deficit is the reason we can't spend money on middle class needs like education or transportation or unemployment insurance. because there's lot of middle class people unemployed. i don't want to hear that again. if they're willing to increase the deaf the si b by $300,000,000,400,000,000,000 to give tax breaks to the

wealthy, unpaid for, i don't want to hear about deficit reduction from the other side because they're not honest about it. deficit reduction is code words for giving more money to the wealthy and less money to the middle class. and i want to say something here. i am somebody who believes in the american dream and i think people who made a lot of money in america are great. i think they're terrific and they do create jobs. a whole lot of wealthy people, they -- they -- many of them have inherited money, it's true. but many more made it by themselves. god bless them. but it's only a small percentage of the wealthy who are so eager to get a tax break when they know the country has so much trouble. lots of the wealthy people i speak to, republicans in my state say, you know what?

i know the rates could go back up to what they were in the clinton years for me, and i can afford it, and if the money goes to a good purpose, improving our schools, building our roads or decreasing our deficit, i'm all for it. so we're not talking about class warfare here. we're talking about an economic problem america faces. middle class incomes are declining and they need a tax break. upper incomes are greatly increasing and they can help reduce the deficit and improve america. and i don't know, i heard the economist that my good friend from alabama was talking about, i believe that if you talk to them they would also tell you you get far more bang for the buck in other types of policies to get the economy going than in giving an additional huge tax break to the millionaires and the billionaires. and we're not going to stop.

they hide for 15 or 20 years -- the other party has hid behind the idea, don't increase taxes on anybody. code words. it means don't increase taxes on millionaires. that's what they care about. because right now i've offered them a deal. give everybody else the tax break except the millionaires. they're going to take it? of course not. because the millionaires come first in the economic books of my friends -- most of my friends on the other side of the aisle. but let me tell you something, remember when you guys discover the word death tax? it had its effect in a way i didn't like, but it had its effect. well, now we have millionaires tax breaks -- millionaire tax. and you know what? it's going to have the same effect. and we are going to finally --

finally be able to show america what you've been all about, tax breaks for the wealthy above all. above the deficit, above helping the middle class, above creating jobs. the days of hiding behind the screen are over because the tax debate we're having now pulls back that screen and shows exactly where you're at. so, again, i repeat my offer. i see my good friend from tennessee is on the floor. i will offer you, if you want to improve this by monday, here are more colleagues, i'll offer you a deal. we'll take the tax break for everyone below a million dollars. will you accept it? that's a great compromise. or are you going to say, oh, no, we're holding out for the millionaires? take it or leave it. i can't speak for my whole party, but i can speak for myself and my colleague from missouri and many others on our

side. we can solve this problem tonight. tax breaks for everybody else, but not for the millionaires. take it or leave it. you said you want to negotiate, here's an offer. i -- i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president, i notice my good friend from new york -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the presiding officer. i thank the -- the -- i thank the senator from new york for mentioning me. there's a little problem -- there's a little hem with our negotiating -- little problem with our negotiating, we weren't invited to the meeting, mr. president. we were in the capitol tending to constituencies while the president and the democrats leaders and the republican leaders were at the white house. and they had a very constructive meeting from what i understood and they designated certain democrats and certain republicans to see if -- if they could come up with a compromise.

now one of those who might have been at the meeting may have just walked on to senate floor, mr. president. and maybe he can inform us. but -- but the negotiations are -- are continuing where they should continue. i was delighted to see the president invite the leaders down for such a good meeting. i know they've had some joint meetings before, but we're never going to get anywhere in the senate where we have a relatively equal number of members as we now do or now about to unless we swap ideas. so i aassume they're down there -- i assume they're down there swapping ideas. i assume they can read the calendar and i assume they can remember last year we were standing here in the worst snowstorm in -- in decades, in the middle of the night, 1:00 a.m., voting on bills nobody had read. i don't think we want to do that kind of thing again. so we've said very simply, let's

deal with the tax issue because taxes go up automatically at the end of the month. let's fund the government because it runs out of money on friday and then if we've got any time left, let's do whatever the democratic leader would like to do. if he wants to bring up the new start treaty, that will be fine. we'll have time to debate it. if he wants to bring up a whole string of other things, that's up to him. what will the terms of the tax agreement be? i guess it will be whatever that group of discussers or negotiators come back with. and if the president were to say, for example, that he agrees with his former budget director that raising taxes on anybody in the middle of an economic downturn makes it harder to create jobs, and in my words, therefore, makes no sense. if he were to say that, he would probably get a welcome response here on our side. so i don't think as the -- the senator from new york is one of

the most skillful debaters and negotiators anywhere on the planet, and he would be very good at any sort of discussion about taxes and he a member of the finance committee and a member of the rules committee. but he wasn't in the meeting. neither was i. those in the meeting are having a discussion and they'll make a recommendation. and my hope is they make a relation that permits tax rates to stay right where they are because raising taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession is a bad idea because it makes it harder to create jobs. mr. schumer: mr. president, might i through the chair ask my good friend from tennessee a question? the presiding officer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. alexander: i'll be happy to yield. i mean for a question. the presiding officer: for a question. mr. schumer: yes. i understand that we are not in the negotiating right now. but he and i are both in the leadership of our respected parties. we are good friends. i have tremendous respect and

admiration for my friend from tennessee. i do. i think he's a fine man and we've passed some good legislation together. so i understand that the negotiators are doing their negotiating. but we might be able to help. again, i repeat my offer. will my colleague, just he and i agree? that might break the ice. we'll give tax breaks to everyone, bush tax cuts below a million dollars. we'll continue their capital gains rates at the same. we'll continue their dividend rates at the same, but not the people above a million, because, as i mentioned, their incomes are doing fine. most economists will tell you it's a highly inefficient way to get jobs or money flowing into the economy, unemployment insurance which my colleagues insist be paid for is much better. but let just he and i agree that that's a good idea, a good starting point. will he? mr. alexander: mr. president,

i'm -- i'm delighted to hear the eloquence of the senator from new york. as i was listening to him, i was reminded that the people -- most of the people whose taxes he is trying to raise live in new york. i mean, they are not in tennessee. we're a relatively low-income state, so i admire him for his courage on -- it's almost a tax earmark to be so specific that we're going to raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on wall street and in new york. that makes a pretty good line. but what i agree with is what i have repeatedly said and what the republican leader has said and what the president's budget director said -- former budget director said. let me just say it again because it makes very good sense, and i think most americans -- i think most americans would instinctively agree with this. we're in the middle of a very severe economic recession. we have had more than 9.5%

employment for 16 now out of the last 17 months. we have only had 30 months in modern history where we have had unemployment that high. almost half those months have been hately. so making it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs should be our main objective. almost every economist, the president's former budget director, almost everyone who has looked at this has said that raising taxes on anybody in the middle of an economic downturn makes it harder to create jobs. now, we may want to have a big argument when the -- when the economy recovers about people in new york should pay more and people of more modest means in tennessee should pay less. we could have that argument at some point, but what we're saying is coming toward the end of the year, taxes are going up. almost everyone except some on that side seem to agree that it

makes it harder to create jobs if you raise taxes on anybody, and we're saying let's not raise taxes on anybody. we want that permanently, but most of us are saying if -- if we would do what mr. orszag says, that would have wide support here. so that's -- that's our position. we respect the position of the senator from new york, and maybe someday we'll have a debate about what the permanent tax rates ought to be, but right now our goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. the single best thing we can do is keep tax rates where they are before they automatically go up at the end of the month. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague from new york, my colleague from missouri who was here momentarily and all those who come to the floor to talk. i assume my colleagues are aware of the fact that all across america, there have been cable tv subscribers who have been caution in and asking for a refund because when they turned

on c-span for coverage of the senate, they found an empty chamber and nothing going on, and now we at least give them a little activity on the senate floor. but unfortunately, that activity is really not going to lead to anything meaningful. the senator from new york even offers an idea, a legislative idea, it doesn't seem to be greeted with any kind of applause on the other side or any kind of counteroffer of any kind of conciliatory magnitude. i was at the meeting that the senator from tennessee talked about yesterday, and it was an historic meeting with the president and senator kyl, senator mcconnell, senator reid and myself, the president, the leaders of the house as well, and some of the members of the president's cabinet. secretary geithner, for example. vice president biden was there. and i would say that the reports generally have been accurate, that the president said i want to change the environment, i want to change the dialogue.

i want to be with more meetings like this open to suggestions from the other side about how we can work together and solve the problems facing our nation. and then the president did something which those of us who have been fortunate to visit the white house once in a while really considered to be rare. he stood up and said i'd like to ask the elected members and the vice president to come with me to my private dining room off the oval office. we went in and had a cup of coffee in a much more isolated and private setting and an even more candid conversation. i really felt good at the end of it. i felt that we were starting at least to develop the kind of dialogue the american people asked for in the november 2 election. and what the president asked us to do -- the leader, senator reid, and others -- pick someone to sit down and let's talk about this tax situation. let's try to find some common ground if we can. and i understand that group met this morning and again this afternoon. it is all from my point of view a very positive development and

a good thing for our nation. but what troubles me, i say to the senator from tennessee, is this letter. i see that the letter was dated november 29, so it started circulating even before this -- this meeting of -- peace-making meeting that we had. it seems that this letter which was sent to senator reid is basically an ultimatum, and the ultimatum is we're not going to do anything on the floor of the united states senate until we act on the tax measure and funding our government. nothing. it says that basically that your side, the republican side, the 42 senators who signed it are going to object to moving to any other item of business, nothing. so now we're back into the cable tv problem where people are going to see this empty chamber and wonder why, of all the things that we could be doing in the united states senate, why we can do nothing, nothing whatsoever, according to this letter, until we reach an agreement on the tax issue. i think we all concede the fact

that we need to do it. we all concede the fact we need to fund the government, but what is the point here? i mean, really, if we're going to draw a paycheck for coming into the united states senate, shouldn't we at least do the people's business? i mean, do we really have to sit here with empty desks and an empty chamber and quorum calls day after day because of this threat that says don't try to bring up another issue? it strikes me as odd because i know the senator from tennessee is an industrious man. he served as secretary of education. he was a governor. he plays the piano. the man sings songs. he has more talents than most people i ever met. and to think that you would want us to just do nothing, nothing on the floor of the united states senate? the senator from new york has offered you an idea. i think a reasonable idea. let's agree on this. let's agree that people making a million dollars or less will have the same tax cuts that they had before, no questions asked,

to invigorate the economy, but let's say to paris hilton and bill gates and warren buffett no, you're not going to get a $100,000 tax cut each year if you make a million dollars, that's the average. we don't think that that really invigorates the economy. i would add to that as a postscript what the senator from new york raised, wouldn't it be reasonable for us also to say if we were going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in america, add to our deficit in the process, that shouldn't we help those who are unemployed in tennessee -- i see the two senators from tennessee -- or wyoming, i see the senator from wyoming who is here or minnesota or illinois. do you really think that it's right for us to cut off unemployment benefits for people in the midst of this holiday season? 127,000 people in the state of illinois will lose their unemployment benefits this month. merry christmas. and i know what those people receive. it's about $300 a week.

i don't know that any of us could survive on that. they try. they try to keep going, and yet we cut them off. there have been efforts here on the floor, unanimous consent requests to fund the unemployment benefits for another year. objected to by the republican side of the aisle. so i find it hard to follow the logic on the republican side. that we cannot afford to help those who are out of work through no fault of their own, but we can afford to give a tax break, a huge tax break to warren buffett -- who is not asking for it, incidentally -- bill gates, paris hilton or any of these others. i don't -- i don't follow the logic of this. and i think although you are fervent in your belief that tax cuts really are the key to prosperity -- some of us may question how much they're the key -- it really is fundamentally unfair that those who are unemployed would face this kind of problem. i'm going to make a unanimous consent request here on another measure that i think will help create jobs. it will save jobs in tennessee

and wyoming and illinois and minnesota, and it relates to something that is not new because it's already on the calendar. for those who want to follow this and say where is this coming from, turn to page 73, the calendar of business of the united states senate and go to a provision, order number 578, senate bill 3816, a bill that i introduced with others to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to create american jobs and prevent offshoring of such jobs overseas. it was actually read a second time and placed on the calendar september 22 of this year. it relates to something which has affected your state and mine. when a company in tennessee decides to send jobs overseas to close down a local production facility and to ship those jobs and that production facility to another country, china, mexico, wherever it happens to be, we reward them. we give them tax benefits and

tax deductions to help facilitate that decision. many of us believe that is upside-down. if a company thinks it's in its best interests profit motive and best interests to locate overseas, so be it. let them make that decision, but we shouldn't encourage it. we shouldn't subsidize it, we shouldn't reward it. reward should actually go to american small businesses that stay in minnesota and tennessee and wyoming, hiring american workers, paying them a decent wage and giving them decent benefits and retirement. that's where the reward ought to be in the tax code. it should not be an area where we are creating tax incentives for companies to move jobs overseas. if the economy, prosperity and jobs are really the number one goal here -- i think they are and i think they should be -- then let's change this provision in the tax code. that's what this does. what it tries to do is to slow down the exodus of jobs from the united states. it will save jobs in tennessee

and save jobs in other places as well. this provision called creating american jobs and ending offshoring act that i introduced with senators harry reid, byron dorgan and senator schumer, it's a simple bill with three commonsense provisions. let me describe it before i make the unanimous consent request. i will be brief. first, make two changes that discourage u.s. companies from giving out pink slips to americans while they open their doors abroad. it will say to firms if you want to shut down operations here and move them somewhere else, we're not going to let you take tax deductions on the shutdown expenses. we also say to firms if you want to sell your products in this country, we're not going to let you start making those goods abroad, ship them back to this country and avoid paying taxes on your profits. second, we make it more attractive for companies to bring goods back home -- the production of goods back home. we say to firms if you bring jobs home from another country, you don't have to pay your share of payroll taxes on those u.s.

workers for three years. repatriating jobs from overseas back into the united states. it isn't radical. it's basic. now, there are a lot of folks that defend this loophole that i'm trying to close: the chamber of commerce, national association of manufacturers, they oppose this. the republican leaders have spoken out in the past against it, but i think these two brilliant leaders from tennessee on the floor are not going to join that group. they are going to stand by their workers and companies in tennessee, i'm just sure of it, when i make this unanimous consent request. so i hope that they will join me in this effort. with this measure, we can literally bring to the floor of the united states senate a measure which will help save american jobs and create american jobs. we can debate it and get it over for a final vote in a matter of hours, and we could still have the negotiations going on about taxes. we can walk and chew gum in the

united states senate. we can do more than one thing at a time. we should not be victims of an ultimatum that says you will either do the tax cuts and funding the government or else. and so i'm going to make this unanimous consent request, that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of calendar 578, s. 3816, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i reserve the right to object, and say as is the senator from new york, the senator from illinois is most eloquent and i always enjoy listening to his many comments, and i agree with him that the many attributes that he alluded to regarding the senior senator from tennessee, all are true, and many more, i might add.

a multitalented person. but i say look, the president's commission on deficit reduction actually is addressing this issue, and they have actually made many bold steps in trying to address the many deficit issues, the tax expenditure issues, which cause our country in many cases not to be as competitive as we could be around the world. and so knowing that we are -- it is eminent that this group is meeting on friday, i reserve the right and do object. i would like to say that -- for the c-span watchers, there isn't really much happening on the floor right now that matters. and i would agree with the senator from tennessee, the senior senator, that there is a great negotiation that is taking place, and i applaud the president for bringing members of both parties together. i think there is a lot of activity. i just new hampshire -- came in

from the hallway. i know one of our negotiators was rushing to a meeting. i know in a meeting about an hour ago, he had to step out because the president had called regarding this very issue that we're talking about, regarding taxes, regarding keeping government operating. and so i think that there is work taking place in the senate. i know there is work on looking at nuclear modernization. there is all kinds of activity throughout the course of this building and other buildings adjacent. it's just that here on the floor, we have somewhat of a charade taking place while that is occurring. so i -- i look forward to fruitful activity. i think that most americans realize that on friday our government is going to shut down, and i think what republican senators have said is we think it's important that we deal with actually funding our government so that it continues to operate past friday. we think it's important to deal with the tax issue since forms are going out across our country. some have already gone out, as a matter of fact, and americans

want to know, they want to know what they're going to be paying as it relates to tax rates. and actually, what the letter said is any legislative items. i think the senator from illinois, who i greatly respect, knows full well that things like the start treaty are not legislative items. they're executive items. that was excluded in our letter on purpose so that in the event the start treaty wanted to be brought to the floor by the leader, it could be brought to the floor. i know the president has said this is something of -- of great national interest. so all we're trying to do is prioritize. we know that any debate that's taking place right now over the debate -- over taxes on the floor has no real meaning. the real debate will take place after these negotiators finish their discussions. i think again they're being done in a very fruitful and earnest manner and that after that, the debate that takes place will be real. we'll be talking about something that we've given leaders of each

party the ability to negotiate. and so that's when the real debate will take place, and i hope that the c-span watchers that were apliewded to will actually -- alluded to will actually tune in at that time. all this discussion now really is not near as relevant as what is happening in other places. so i think there's a lot of work taking place, and i would just add that i think all of us on our side have been watching as the majority party has met for hours and hours and ours each day trying to figure out what they feel should come to the floor. and we understand that. but i think what we have said is that instead of debating things that could be well debated next year, that don't have the urgency of causing government to continue to function when you have two wars underway and you have all kinds of issues that need to be dealt with, we've said that, please, we ask you to prioritize, let's deal with those most important issues

first. to you want to bring up the start treaty, that's not a legislative item. that's an executive item. brupg ibring it up. but let's deal with those issues in are most important to the american people first. and if there's time to deal with all of these other issues, certainly that have is done, we'd be more than glad to stay as long as the other -- certainly after that is done be we'd be more than glad to stay as long as the other side wants to debate all of those issues. so, mr. president, thank you for the time to speak. i thank the senator from illinois for all the kind comments that he's made about the senior senator and myself. and i thank him -- i thank him for the leadership that he shows on the other side of the aisle. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president, i wanted to give my friend from tennessee time to make his objection in its entirety and i thank him for that. i'm glad that he clarified the fact that we could bring to the floor the start treaty and i certainly hope that we do. i think it would be a serious, serious mistake for us to leave

washington for the holiday season without voting on that treaty on the floor. this is a treaty which the president has worked on and is supported by previous administrations, democrat and republican. it is an effort to reach an agreement with the russians. it should be based on a premise that most republicans applaud because it goes back to an earlier statement by president reagan that we should trust but verify. the fact is, for over one calendar year, we have not had any inspectors on the ground in russia to verify the safety and treaty compliance of their nuclear weaponry. senator lugar on your side of the aisle, a man whom i greatly respect, supports this treaty. and if there is one person in the senate who is probably more expert than any other when it comes to this issue of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon control and modernization, it is senator lugar of indiana. he supports this treaty and it

wants to come forward, and i hope that you feel he's right. i think he is. and i hope we can do this. the notion that we don't have time, i said on an appearance a few days ago, we had time to create the department of homeland security in a lame-duck session because two extraordinary senators, susan collins of maine, a republican, and joe le joseph lieberman, of connecticut, then a democrat, worked together in a lame-duck session and literally reorganized the intelligence structure of america. it was a an amazing undertaking and i think one that has served us well. we did it in a lame-duck session. and no one stood up and said, i on, don't go forward. i object, we need two weeks. we can get it done. we can work in the same spirit with the start treaty. and let's get that done. let's get the tax provision done. let's get funding the government done. and let's get the start treaty done before we go home. we can do this. we are capable of doing this. but an empty chamber and empty

desks and no senators on the floor will not achieve that. i'm glad you clarified that you were not stepping in the way of considering the start treaty with this ultimatum that was sent out from 42 republican senators. i wish we could do a few other things, too, like extend unemployment benefits, but apparently there's an objection to that. so i hope that we can work forward from this point in a more positive way. i truly value my friendship and the fact that i can serve with these two fine senators from tennessee. and though i've spent a lot of time extolling the virtue of the senior senator from tennessee, i guarantee the next time i will extol the virtues of the junior senator so that he has a positive feeling about our relationship. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. cork heer: if i could just briefly indulge, i want to thank the senator, and actually, based on his closing comments, think he might have actual signed the letter himself -- actually signed the letter himself had it

been presented. because i agree we should fund the government, we should deal with the tax issue and that if we did that, there would be ample time to deal with the start treaty. it's not to say that we don't want to deal with all of these other issues. it's to say that let's prioritize based on those things that are of most national significance. and i think the issue he related to -- he called up regarding homeland security, it was of national significance at the time. i think most americans would -- would agree that making sure the government functions beyond this friday is of national significance. so i thank him for his comments. i thank him for his good humor and tone. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: mr. president, i also tries talk about the importance of creating jobs. mr. merkley: and how the republican plan is the exact opposite. we have on our desks this letter that was put forward that says there should be tax cuts for all

americans. well, you know what? that's the democratic plan. that is the plan we've been putting forward that would create tax cuts on the first $250,000 that every single american makes. but if you scan the letter the republicans signed, you find in the fine print down there in the third paragraph, no, it's not tax cuts for all americans that they want. they want a version that creates bonuses paid by the taxpayer for billionaires. bonuses for billionaires. that is the only version that they want to see debated, the only version they say they will vote for, and it is the sole goal that they put as an obstacle to every other important piece of legislation to get america back to work. we have been trying so hard this year to get job creation bills on the floor of this senate and

we have endured a recor record-breaking number of filibusters. when i came here as an intern back in 1976, bills were passed by majority vote. upon rare occasion, someone would say an issue was so important as to obstruct the senate. but not our republican majority. not this year in 2010. not last year in 2009. no. my colleagues have said, it is our goal to paralyze the senate of the united states, it is our goal not only to present legislation from occurring but to damage the executive branch by obstructing nominations in unprecedented numbers and to damage the judicial branch by obstructing nominations. now, this attack on the american system of government has gone

way too far. and now my friends across the aisle say unless we get bonuses for billionaires paid for by the taxpayers of the united states of america, we will block every effort to create jobs in this country. at some point, it needs to be said on the floor of the senate -- and so i'm saying it now -- that is simply wrong. it is misguided to put the top priority to be billionaire bonuses. i think the american public weighed in on this in the discussion over wall street. it is wrong to fund those bonuses out of the pockets of working americans who are paying their taxes. and it is certainly wrong to bring this body to a stand still once again in order to get those bonuses forbillionaires. i would like to ask -- for billionaires. i would like to ask my friends across the aisle to reconsider

both the substance of their vision for america, a vision in which ordinary workers fund extravagant bonuses for the richest americans. howing about a bonus? an average of $100,000. now, i can tell you in my working-class neighborhood, there are very few people who earn $100,000 a year. there are folks who might not earn $100,000 in the course of multiple years because they're working minimum wage. they may be earning, if they can get a full-time minimum-wage job, $16,000. if they're working two jobs and their spouse is working, maybe they can bring home $30,000 or $40,000. so i would suggest that stopping the business of the senate to create $100,000-per-taxpayer bonus -- and i say "bonus" because it's on top of the tax

cut they would get under the democratic plan -- is simply completely out of touch with the challenges faced by ordinary working americans who are trying to make ends meet, who would like to see us spend the funds in our treasure to create jobs because they know the best program for any single person is the opportunity to have a living-wage job. it not only creates the finances that shore up the foundations of the family, it creates a sense of pride, it creates a sense of work ethic, it provides a strong example to our children, it builds a family. but a $100,000 bonus for the richest americans does not build those financial foundations for working americans. and funding it out of 9 pockets of the -- and funding it out of the pockets of the working americans

is absolutely one of the most diabolical plots i could have ever imagined. in fact, i wouldn't probably have imagined, if it had been in a novel that my colleagues are bringing the work of this senate to a stop in order to do hundred thousand dollar bonuses for the richest americans funded by the rest of the taxpayers, i would have said, no way, that plot is beyond anything that could possibly happen on the senate floor. but today we have it right here in writing that it has to be the billionaire bonus plan or none at all. but at any point, the senate can by unanimous consent come back to its senses and pursue things that build our economy, build opportunity for working americans. there have been a host of

bipartisan bills that have said there is a strategy that is estimated to create more jobs than any other per dollar invested and that is low-cost loans for energy saving renovations. this core idea recognizes that very few of us can go out and put double-pane vinyl windows in our house or full insulation in our house because we don't have the money in our bank account for the upfront cost. but if we can get a low-cost loan, then we can, in fact, pay for those vinyl windows out of the savings on our electric bi bill. well, this basic concept is a discept now embodied in the home start bill, a bipartisan bill. it is the basic concept embodied in the building start bill, which aims more at commercial buildings. it is the same basic concept

that is embodied in the rural energy savings plan, which is not only a bipartisan bill but it's fiercely advocated for by our rural electrical co-ops who understand that this would be a tremendous value to americans in rural america. so knowing that we can bring the senate back to do good work through unanimous consent, i'm going to ask for such unanimous consent. mr. president -- and i'm going to start with a bill, which is the rural energy savings plan bill, supported by rural co-ops across america. so rural americans like those in rural oregon, like those in rural illinois, like those in rural tennessee, like those throughout the rural america

everywhere, that they can pursue these low-cost, easy-to-arrange loans through their local electric co-op. and, you know what? one of the reasons people get excited about this concept is it's not just about the fact that your house now functions a lot better with these energy-saving renovations, it's not just about the fact that now the monthly costs of your electric bill or your gas bill goes down more, often more than your loan payments would be, but it is the fact that through this kind of conservation, we actually create jobs -- installation jobs, and jobs producing the products for those energy-saving installations, because virtually every aspect from caulk to pink fiberglas to

double-pane windows is made in america, manufactured in america. so people know they're not only creating jobs locally, but they are creating jobs in manufacturing america, and if we don't build things in america, we will not have a middle class in america, and people understand this to their core. and there's something else they really like about this. and that is, every time that we address our energy needs domestically, we are decreasing our demand for foreign oil. and why does that make americans smile? because we would rather have red, white, and blue american energy and american energy savings than import oil from overseas, because when we buy that oil from overseas, the money goes out of our economy. it doesn't go into our local

grocery store. it doesn't go into your local retail he on main street. it doesn't build the financial foundations of american families. it goes to places like iraq and saudi arabia and nigeria and venezuela. and what is happening with the money that goes overseas to places like saudi arabia? well, some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists, who oppose our policies around the world. it's been said by the national security experts that our current wars in iraq and afghanistan are the first american wars where we're funding both sides. and what they're referring to is our purchase of foreign oil. so when we engage in energy savings here, we're doing what is right for our economy and for our families and for our national security. so with that in mind,

recognizing the value of creating these jobs -- and, by the way, these type of jobs cannot be shipped overseas, the installation; it cannot be shipped overseas, so not only the materials are made in america, the installation can't be shipped overseas. it is the perfect type of strategy to help address the challenges in our current economy. and that's why i have some hope that my colleagues across the aisle will join in this unanimous consent request to get this bill done so that we can help folks in rural america get back to work, improve their homes, shore up their financial foundations and, in the process, improve our national security. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 3

3102, that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, that the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right too object, there must be something about the interval between thanksgiving holidays and christmas and the effect it has on our democratic friends. because, again, this year, as they did last year, they begin to disappear for hours at a time into a room together without any republicans or any other kind of person there to talk, and they get excited about issues and they come together, they persuade each other that they're right, and then they rush to the senate floor after several hours and they offer a bill of the

most urgent kind. in this case it's about double-pane vinyl windows. now, here we are, mr. president. the senator from oregon, a good colleague, a distinguished friend -- this may be a good bill, but he's asking by this motion that we bring it up, that we not debate it, that we not amend it and that we just pass it. and he's saying, at the same time, that this must be the most urgent thing before us. now, when he's finished with his other matters, i want to say a little bit more. but let me just reiterate what i've said over and over again. we have suggested to the majority leader that we focus on dealing with funding the government first, since we run out of money friday. and dealing with the tax issue next, since taxes automatically

go up on the 1st of the year, and that after we've done those two things, we move to whatever the majority leader brings up. he may wish to bring up the new start treaty. he could bring up the new start treltreaty today. we said nothing about that in our letter. so all this talk i just heard has nothing to do with our letter. with what's been said on the floor. i'll have more to say about that in just a minute. but we should fund the government, keep tax rates where they are, then i think what the american people said to us was, go home and bring this new congress back and let's begin to deal with the debt. we've got a rofort debt commission coming out. we should making it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. the very best way to do that is to not raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn because

that makes it harder to create jobs and it makes no sense. therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. merkley: well, mr. president, i appreciate that my good friend from tennessee rose to defend his caucus's letter. i certainly enjoyed working with him, and it's -- here i am talking about energy efficiency and we've had the pleasure to work together on a bill that is about deployment of electric cars, that could save enormous amounts of fuel and have many of the beneficial fesh effects thae been speaking to, and in regards to the importation of foreign oil, cutting off the flow of oil from abroad and the american money that goes out to buy t and so i certainly treasure that relationship, that working relationship. and -- but we couldn't have a different perspective.

we couldn't have a broader disagreement on this issue. i've noted that the democrats have laid out a plan that provides tax cuts for all americans. but my good friend from tennessee just noted that he wants the version that has no increase on anyone. what he didn't explain -- but i will -- that the difference between the two is additional bonus tax cuts for the richest americans. those are the tax cuts that are $100,000 per person. those are the tax cuts that will create a $700 billion addition to the national debt over the next ten years. when i have families who are struggling to get by on the best jobs they can find -- and those

jobs are paying near minimum wage and they're lucky to make $16,000 to $20,000 a year if they can find a minimum-wage job -- is it really justifiable to give bonuses, paid bid other taxpayers -- paid by other taxpayers or by additional debt to our children, to the richest americans to the tune of $100,000 each? i would say "no." that that is a bad decision. and, in that regard, we are coming from different places, and i can tell you, if there is something in the air in this period between thanksgiving and christmas, it's that it further increases or should increase our connection to the fact that american families are suffering. they need jobs.

and it's our duty to create them, not our role to charge working americans so that $100,000 bonuses can be handed out to the richest americans. thank you, mr. president. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, if i could reflect just for a few minutes on what we've heard. a lost passion in the senate. this is -- a lot of passion in the senate. this is actually a place where it's supposed to be. we come here to debate the most important issues that are before us. let me talk first about what republicans have suggested. i've said this a few times during the debate, but i want to say it again. we've suggested setting a priority here in the senate. we have a right to be heard. there are 42 of us now. there will be 47 after january. it's not our vice voices. it's the voices of the american people. they expect to be heard. just a few weeks ago i think

they said to us, and to the american people, we've had a government of too much taxes, too much debt, too much spending, too many washington takeovers. we would like four, members of congress to focus on making it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, number one; bring spending under control so that we don't have such a debt, number two; and be smart about terror, number three. that's what we'd like to do. now, this lame-duck session, this is a period after an election where people usually listen to the voters, and so our recommended view is that we should keep the tax rates where they are, fund the government, consider the debt commission's report, which we hope to receive this week, and go home and bring the new congress back, which was just elected to begin to deal with jobs, debt, and terror. now, the president feels that

tonight. this afternoon. he can put it on the floor and we can have several days of debate. but, remember, the government runs out of money friday, tax forms are being filled out because taxes automatically go out in january -- go up in january for almost everybody. and we're saying, why have we waited so late to deal with this? let's deal with t there's nothing wrong with priorities in wrong. the last couple of years, the lack of priorities has been a big part of the problem. we've had a lot of smart people in the government. but managers, leaders usually say, okay, here's the most important thing; let's work on it until we fix it. general icer hour ran for president in 1952 saying "shall go to korea." he didn't announce 23 different things he needed to do. he said "i shall go to korea. " and in october he said that. in november he was elected and

in thanksgiving he was in korea. and he said, "i shall as i said spend nigh time until i get it done." the people believed in him because they knew a president of the united states who throws himself into almost any subject with as much as he's got for as long as it takes can get a pretty good result. now, we should be doing that with -- with jobs. there's no magic formula on that. but virtually every economist who's testified, eertdz those called by the -- either those called by the democrats or republicans, is the simple fact that i bet most americans would agree with, raising taxes on anybody in the middle of an economic downturn makes it harder to create jobs. and if our number one priority is to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, that makes no sense as a policy. that's our position. now, we'd like for those tax

rates to be permanent. the president's former budget director, mr. orszag, after he left the president's employ just a few months ago said, well, perhaps a two-year extension of the current tax rates would be a good idea because it does make it harder to create jobs. and he's aware, as all of us are aware, that 16 out of the last 17 months, unemployment's been at more than 9.5%. so it's all right to consider a bill to deal with double-paned windows. but when tax rates are going up on everybody in america, including the job creators, do we want to take -- we want to take a step to create more private sector jobs, not government jobs, we keep the tax rates where they are where they are right now and send that signal to the american peep. all we're saying to the democratic majority is -- is let's do that first. let's fund the government and then let's go to the other issues.

now, the president, to his great credit, had a meeting yesterday which had a decidely different tone to it. i have been mystified by the relationship of the president and the republican leader over the last two years. i came up here 40 years ago in the senate as a young aide. i remember senator baker's story when i first came here, he was -- i was an assistant. he said he was in the office and it was president johnson calling senator dirksen and he heard senator dirksen say, no, mr. president, i can't come down with you and have a drink with you, i did that last night and louela is mad at me. and then two beagles came through the door with the president behind it, and the president said to the republican leader, if you won't come have a drink with be, -- with you. he said that he called the republican leader at 5:00 almost every afternoon. that was the kind of relationship they had. yet for the first two years the president and the republican

leader had one one-on-one meeting. because the attitude was, we won the election, we'll write the bill. so you jam the health care law through last christmas which nobody had a chance to read. feeling pretty good go. so it's had an immediate, immediate multiple efforts to repeal it from the days it past. compare that with the relationship 40 years ago when the civil rights bill passed. it was written in the republican leader's office even though the democratic majority was large and the president was a democrat because they not only wanted to pass it, they wanted it to be supported by the country. and when it was passed, even though senator russell, for whom one of the buildings is named, had opposed it for years, the civil rights act of 1968. he went back to georgia and said it's the law of the land, we should enforce it because he respected the process by which it had been done. so this we won the election,

we'll write the bill, jam it down your throat whether you like it or not, that's the last two years, but that's over. when 47 republicans come in, it will be a check and balance and that's an important part of what the american people voted for just a few weeks ago. now the president, to his credit, recognizes that. he had a meeght yesterday at the white house which -- meeting yesterday at the white house which had a decidely different tone to it. everybody says that who was a part of it, democrats and republicans. one part was taxes, we've got to deal with it. they formed a little group and they're busy trying to work that out. the other thing is fund the government. we ran out of money friday. we're busy trying to work that out. new start treaty. very strong opinion, senator kyl, senator corker, senator lugar, you know, we respect the president on matters of national security and if he says something important, it's important to us. even if he's a democratic president and we're republicans. so the majority leader may want to bring that up.

but he's the majority leader, it's up to him to bring it up. we can't do that until we have the majority, which we hope we do some day. so he can bring it up. so we have said, let's set a couple of priorities around here. deal with taxes, fund the government and when there's time left, mr. majority leader, bring up what you want. if you want to bring up a bill about double-paned windows, that's fine, if you want to bring up don't ask, don't tell, that's a week, you set the priorities. there's one other thing that i heard during this discussion, why aren't we working? i'll tell you why we're not working. it's because of the schedule of the democratic leader. 40 times he's brought up legislation and then he said there will be no amendment and no debate. that's like having a grand old opry open and saying there will be no singing. that's what we do. we offer amendments. we offer debates on behalf of the american people. this is the only body in the world where you have unlimited debate and unlimited amendment. when you bring up any bill,

whether it's the double-pane window bill so urgently he presented a moment ago, whertsz it's the -- whether it's the new start treaty which has to do with our national security, we bring it up. hopefully after it's had careful consideration by the committees where the military experts and the foreign policy experts have weighed in. and then we have a debate and everyone gets to offer their amendments an everyone gets to say what they think about the amendment and if we have to stay monday night, we stay monday night and tuesday night and wednesday night and friday. we haven't been in one fry this year. that's -- friday this year. that's not because of the republican schedule. we're not in charge of the schedule. we haven't voted one friday this year. why is there nobody here to debate? because there's nothing to debate. the democratic leader brings up a bill and says there will be no amendment and no debate. now, my hope is that as a result of this more evenly balanced senate and the good will of the

democratic leader, whom i greatly respect, and the republican leader, he and senator reid, they very -- they're very much veterans of the senate. they respect this institute greatly. i'd like to see us get to the point we were not very long ago. i can remember the senate the day -- the days of senator byrd, our late senator byrd, and senator baker, with whom i first came to the senate as a staff member. they basically had an agreement that worked like this, senator baker was majority leader for four years, senator byrd majority leader four years, but they led their parties for eight years. and when they did, senator baker would say to the committees, don't bring me a bill to the floor unless it's got the chairman and the minority leader agreeing to it. and they would say, let's offer amendments. there might be 300 amendments.

after a while they would offer a motion to agree to have no more amendments. usually they would get that. and they would by discussion narrow that down to a number and people would get their amendments. you might have to be late here one night or be here friday or saturday. senators would say, well, i wonder how important this amendment is. but the american people were heard on the floor of the senate. so it's my great hope that in the new congress where there will be a relatively even number of senators, democrats will still be setting the agenda. they can bring -- agenda, they can bring up whatever they wish. but what i would hope what we agree to do is to go back to making this body what it was and can be and should be. and we have 16 new senators, three of them democrat, 13 republicans. they ran for this office in very difficult races. it's not easy to do these days. they're here not just for their voices to be heard, but for the

voices of the people of their states to be heard. for the people of kentucky. for the people of wyoming. for the people of pennsylvania. for the people of delaware. if we bring up the new start treaty or double-pane window bill or whatever it is. the senator from pennsylvania, the senator from tennessee ought to have a chance to amend it. ought to have a chance to be heard. and then after we do that, we can decide that's enough of that, let's have a vote. the that's the way we do things. i think we can do that. i've seen it time and time again. we did it on the energy bill. tried it on the immigration bill. sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. it it's a joy to be a member of the senate. this time between thanksgiving and christmas is not a great time to do very much. we've been here two years. we've just had an election. we're waiting for the new members to come. they've got their marching orders. i said to my friends the other

day, my friends on the democratic side keep insisting on an encore, for a concert that drew a lot of boos. i think a lot of my constituents woul -- would liketo keep the ty are, consider the proposals for doing the debt and go home. if the president thinks it's important for us to deal with the new start treaty before christmas, then he might say a word to the democratic leader that after we deal with taxes and fund government, that maybe that ought to be the next order of business instead of the double-pane window bill or any other variety of bills, all of which may be fine legislation. but you just don't walk in here three weeks before christmas with some bill with nobody here and ask that it be passed by unanimous consent. that's not the way the american people want us to do business. and that doesn't give this body the respect it deserves.

so i greatly appreciate my friends on the other side and their passion for their point of view. i respect that passion. i think one of the cardinal rules of this body is never to question the motive of another senator. always to respect the passion and point of view of another senator. but i'd like for us to get back to the point much view where you bring -- point of view where you bring something up and we debate it. now you bring something up and you cut off amendment, you cut off debate and then you don't do anything for a week. that's why nobody's here. that's why nobody's here. so i'll conclude with these remarks with just restating our position. we sent this letter at the beginning of the week saying that the 42 republican senators want to use our voices to say that first we should fund the government since we'll run out of money by the end of the week

and second we should deal with taxes so we can prevent a tax increase on anybody in the middle of an economic downturn. then we should go to any other legislative item the majority leader wishes and, of course, he's free to bring up something like the new start treaty any time he wants to. that seems to me to be a very reasonable approach presented at the right time in the right way during a time when the president and the republican and democratic leaders are meeting together, when negotiations are going on about what the tax bill might be, when discussions are going on about how to fund the government and when we're all in meetings right through the stretch about whether we're modernizing our nuclear weapons sufficiently so we can in good conscience vote to ratify the start treaty. that's what we should be talking

about. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

' quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lemieux: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about the work that that body badly needs to get to.

the presiding officer: snork senator, we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: just a month ago there was an election in this country. and the people of this country spoke loudly and clearly and what they said is they wanted this congress to focus on two things. he wanted to focus on creating jobs. this is the most difficult economy anyone who is working now has ever had to experience. in my home state of florida, unemployment is nearly 12%. and if you figure in all the people who are underemployed, who've lost their job and now must work twor three jobs to make even less than what they used to make, to barely get by to provide for their families, nearly one out of five people of working age in florida are unemployed or underemployed. we're in the top three in mortgage foreclosures. in the first half of the year,

floridians were number one on being behind on their mortgage payments. and although there are some spots of hope and some things to look at as potentially growing our economy again, we just recently found out that in southeast florida, which has in many ways been grounds for mortgage foreclosures, that mortgage foirkses have gone up more than 25% over the second quarter. times are tough all across this country. the speem spoke and they sent new meme to washington hop be take -- who will be taking office. most will take office in january to get this country back to work. what they asked this congress to do is to focus on job creation. the second thing they want this congress to do is to stop the out-of-control spending. this government is putting this country on the brink of financial disaster.

we know from the congressional budget office, who keeps count of spending in this country, that last year 2010, this congress spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in. $1.3 trillion more than it took in. it took 200 years for this country to go $1 trillion in debt. yet just this last year, this congress went $1.3 trillion in debt, our national debt, the total amount of deficits that have accumulated over time is nearly $13 trillion. in the past four years the national debt has gone up $5 trillion. the american people are worried about this. when i go around florida and talk to my constituents, they tell me they're concerned about the future for their kids, for their grangd kids. they wonder whether or not our children are going to grow up in a country that has the same promise and opportunity that we

have all experienced. so these have been the two big issues. they are resounding. if you turn on the television and watch any of these cable talk shows, the two issues that come up with jobs and the out-of-control spending. yet despite the overwhelming chorus from the people of this country, which manifested itself a month ago on election day, this congress is failing to address these two primary issues. why in the world are we talking about a bunch of ancillary issues, albeit important in their own right, when the most pressing issues in this country and what the american people want us to do is to focus on these two? and part and parcel of the economic problem is the uncertainty that's being caused by washington. because for the past years, instead of focusing on create be jobs, creating an environment that would allow businesses to create gorks we've created all sorts of uncertainty for

american entrepreneurs. i come from a state of small businesses, not a lost big businesses in florida. when i met with small business, they tell me there is so much uncertainty that it's preventing them from hiring. they cite the health care bill. how do we know if we can hire a new person because if we do, we may be under some new mandate, new penalty, new fine that's going to make us pay more? therefore we don't know whether we can afford that new employee. therefore, they don't hire. no wonder unemployment is so high. they wonder about the financial regulatory reform bill. one business told me that they will move some of their employees overseas, so as to not come under the restrictions of that bill. and most of all what they tell me is they don't know what they are taxes grg to be next -- are going to be next year. they don't know what they're going to pay in taxes. because they can't plan, they cannot hire.

because they can't plan, they don't buy that new piece of equipment. because they can't plan, they don't take on that extra lease space. or hire the construction company to build them an addition on their building or build them a new facility. so all of this uncertainty created by washington not having its focus on what the american people want washington to have its focus on is exacerbating the problem with the economy. so why in the world have we not, knowing for the past the two years that these tax cuts were set to expire, why have we not addressed them? when we were adjourned, when we voted to adjourn before the election, i voted not to adjourn because i thought it was fundamentally unfair to the businesses and job creators in this country for us to leave and not finish our work and then not know what their taxes are going to be next year. i knew that would hurt the effort to employ more people in my state.

yet here we're, the first day of december, just a month left in the time of this congress, and we have still not addressed the tax issues. we're talking about food safety, we're talking about the dream act, they're talking about the repeal don't have ask, don't tell, and however you feel about those issues -- and i respect people with differing views -- that is not what the american people are focused on. we should be about the work of focusing on the issues that matter most, putting first things first, and what should be first is creating an environment so that entrepreneurs and job creators can get people back to work. and then, second, mr. president, we must tackle this issue of spending. now, we just saw the report from the debt commission, and we're a all still reviewing the good work they've done. and let me say, first of all, that this is a serious proposal

from serious and responsible people, and it's the kind of work that should be done in washington. now, i don't agree with all of its provisions. bim proud of the work that they have -- but i am proud of the work that they have done, because it is serious, it is sober and it addresses the compelling crisis that confronts us and threatens the very fich e of this cufnlt as the cochairman of that commission, erskine bowles, and former senator simpson, have said, this crisis will not wait 10, 20 years. this crisis is now. but as much as i respect the work they've done, it doesn't go near far enough. realize that the proposals that they have done will cut the national debt and deficit $4 trillion. that's a lot of money. it's good start. it is being widely condemned by democrats and republicans.

it tackles defense spending, so some republicans don't like it. it tackles medicare and comairksd and social security, so some democrats don't like it. i think speaker of the house nancy pelosi kind of dismissed it out of hand because it what it does on social security. but realize this, it only cuts $4 trillion out of the next $12 trillion that will be incurred in the next decade. so let's put it into perspecti perspective. right now our national debt is nearly $14 trillion. it is projected to be $26 trillion it by 2020. if we adopted every proposal of the debt commission, every single one of them, we would reduce the projected national debt from $26 trillion to $22 trillion. and that's not enough. it's not even close to being enough. now why is that the case? it's the case because we spend $200 billion a year right now in

our current budgetary environment on debt service. $200 billion a year paying interest on money we borrowed for things we shouldn't have spent money on in the past. here's the truth that the american people have not been told: for the past 30 or 40 years, this gusted has spent much more money than it's taken in. now, what it did first was it took the money out of social security and wrote an i.o.u. to social security. when the social security money was unable to be raided anymore by congress -- which has been just really recently -- then congress had to go out, this government had to go out and borrow the money from foreign countries like china and japan. so that's why we have this huge unfunded portion of social security that's tens of

trillions of dollars, and that is why we have this national debt that's racking up, because for the last 30 or 40 years, this congress has spent way more than it's taken in. and now we're in a situation where we put the future of this country in peril. because at the end of this decade, if we have a a $26 trillion national debt -- and even if it's $22 trillion if we adopted every measure from the debt commission -- we will still be $800 billion to $900 billion in debt service payments by the end of the decade. $800 billion to $900 billion. and when we are that far into our debt service payments, basically for the average american family, this is like thinking of this like a credit card. when you can't pay the minimum balance and every month the amount that you owe keeps cascading more and more, that's where the american government is

headed. and when we get to $800 billion or $900 billion in interest payments a year, the government will not function. and as erskine bowles said today, the world markets will not wait for that point, so what you're seeing in europe right now with greece and ireland and portugal and spain will happen here, except there will not be a european union or anybody else to bail out the united states of america. it is a crisis. yet this congress isn't doing anything about it. we are talking about adopting a continuing resolution because this congress won't do an appropriations bill.

a continuing resolution at its best which will freeze spending at last year's level. now, some of my colleagues will say that's good, see, we're not increasing the spending. it's not an accomplishment when last year we were more than a trillion dollars in deficit to freeze spending at that level. the two issues that the american people want us to deal with are jobs and out-of-control government spending, yet, mr. president, we are failing to do both. there is a lot of frustration in this chamber. i watched some of my colleagues on the other side today come speak on the floor, and they are frustrated that we are not getting things done. i am frustrated, too. two of my colleagues are proposing a change to the way the procedures of this body works. they don't think it should take 60 votes for us to do some things. i don't agree with them, but i

share their frustration. because as much as i am privileged to be here and i am in awe of this institution, the way this congress works and this body works is dysfunctional. the way it should work and the way it used to work, from what people tell me who were here before, is that a proposal would come up, a piece of legislation, and it would come to the floor and we would all have a chance to offer an amendment. we would all have a chance to make it better. see, my constituents in florida think that i have the opportunity to offer amendments and let their voices be heard through my actions. and you know what? if my proposal isn't good or not worthy, then it should not pass, but it should see the light of day. and there was a time when senators stayed by their desks and listened to the proposals and amendments of other senators and were quick to be able to

call home to the group that the proposal might affect. say it was an agricultural proposal, they might call their local farmers. or something that affected banks, they might call their local banks, to see how it would affect their constituents in their home state. and the level of discourse was better. the people of this country expect us to get to work, and they expect us to get to work on the issues that matter most. they're suffering, and we should get about the work that they want us to do because the future of the country is at stake. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, are we presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. whitehouse: i ask the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3998 which was introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3998, a bill to extend the child safety pilot program. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relate to go this measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 637, s. 987. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: calendar number 637, s. 987, a bill to protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i further ask that the committee-reported substitute be considered, the durbin amendment be agreed to. that the committee-reported substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the measure be printed at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. white house: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed en bloc to the following federal naming bills. calendar numbers 658-661, h.r. 4387, h.r. 5651, h.r. 5706, and h.r. 5773. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures.

mr. whitehousemr. whitehouse: is consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the bills be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration o and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 686. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 686, designating december 11, 2010, as reach across america day. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, december

2. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. finally, i ask that the senate recess from 12:30 until 3:30 p.m. for the democratic caucus meeting. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under that previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned senate will stand adjourned

>> the pentagon has released the report on "don't ask, don't tell" the policy of gays in the military. search for outlines and the arguments for and against. it's washington, your way. >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span fan in your life at our c-span store from books and

dvds to mugs, umbrellas, and more. it's all online at c-span.org/shop. >> president obama and former secretary of state colin powell met earlier today, pushing for the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty with russia. general powell says he supports the treaty and hopes the senate will ratify it as soon as possible. this is about 10 minutes. >> we already have one fat lip in the administration. [laughter] >> i want to thank general colin powell for being with me here today. he's not only a great statesman, and a great public servant, but also a great friend and a great counselor. periodically, i check in with him. i know my entire team, including the vice president checks in with him, because he continues to have an unparalleled sense of our national security needs, and

i think really taps into the best impulses of the american people. the first thing that i want to do, i want to congratulation him and his wife alma for the extraordinary work that he's been doing with america promise. which focuses on how can we finally get serious about education reform? because he understands, alma understands, all of us understand, that our kids are going to be competing not just against each other here in this country, but they are competing worldwide. america's promise has been at the forefront on the education reform. they just issued a report building a grad nation that notes that we have made some progress over the last several years in reducing the number of dropout factories that we have around the country that we are seeing a greater emphasis on kids staying in school. but we still have a lot more work to do. it's going to require all of us,

parents, teachers, administrators, the public and the private sector to make sure we continue on the trend of improvement. thank you for the work that you are doing there. most of the discussion that we had was around national security issues. we talked about some of the challenges across the landscape from north korea to iran to afghanistan. but we spent in particular a lot of time talking about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. general powell has been involved with just about every arms control treaty since there were arms control treaties. >> not quite that many. >> i hate to date him. from the reagan administration on, he has helped to shepherd through a variety of these arms control treaties, and the reason is because he understands as so many others understand that a world without binding

u.s.-russia arms control treaties is a more dangerous world. and he and i discussed why s.t.a.r.t. is so important. in the absence of s.t.a.r.t., without the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty being ratified by the senate, we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the russians are doing. and they don't know what we are doing. when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. we also discussed the fact that russia has cooperated with us on critical issues to our national security like iran sanctions, transit to supply our troops in afghanistan, working on securing loose nuclear materials, and the relationships and trust that are built from the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty spillover into a whole host of other national security issues that are of vital

importance to america. so colin is one of a number of former national security advisors, secretary of defense, secretary of state from both democrat and republican administration that have emphasized how important it is to get this done. and, you know, we discussed the fact that the senate appropriately has a role in advise and consent. and it ultimately needs to ratify this treaty. that's why we have made sure that we have had 18 separate hearings. we have answered over 1,000 questions. we have offered to brief every single senator, republican and democrat around these issues. but now it's time to get this done. i'm gratified by the leadership of the ranking republican on the senate foreign relations committee, richard lugar, as well as the ranking democrat, the chairman, john kerry for

their extraordinary cooperation and work on this issue. this is important for us to make sure that we complete the evaluation process, we finish the debate, we go ahead and finish this up before the end of the year. i just want to again thank general powell for his good counsel, his friendship, most importantly, his service to our country, and i very much appreciate the fact that he supports an effort that all of us should support in order to make america more safe. >> thank you very much, mr. president. let me begin by thanking you for the support for the america's promise alliance and gratification effort, and let me thank secretary of education arne duncan in getting the kids ready for the 21st century world that will be demanding. the president noted the issues, an emphasis on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i fully support this treaty. i hope the senate will give it's

advise and ratification as soon as possible. i have involved, as the president noted, in arms control negotiations and the ratification of arms control and negotiations and treaties for the last 25 years. what is fascinated about this whole process to me is that 25 years ago, the soviet union and the u.s. each had an inventory of something like 28, 29,000 nuclear weapons. as a result of the arms control process and the end of the cold war and the change in the world situation, the numbers have been reduced by over 80%. we are down now under 10,000. one the ways we were able to do this transparent with both sides confident in the process was because of the arms control agreement, imf, s.t.a.r.t. i, s.t.a.r.t. ii didn't get ratified, but the moscow treaty. so many other treaties that came along to give us stability, transparency, visibility in what

each side was doing. as a result of the treaties, we have both benefited, the russian federation and the united states of america. but the world has benefited by having fewer of the horrible weapons in existence. and we hope that we can continue this process. new s.t.a.r.t. is important, because it continues this process. and it's especially important because at the end of last year we lost the verification system that we had under s.t.a.r.t. i. and this is the first time in all of these years where we don't have these procedures in place. so we are not sure exactly what's going on within the russian federation. they are not exactly sure what's going on in the united states of america. and i think the most important feature of new s.t.a.r.t. is to put in place a verification regime again. it'll be a little different than the s.t.a.r.t. i verification system but it is more than adequate to make sure that we know what they are doing, and they know what we are doing. and it has been so identified as being adequate by our intelligence community. the number of warheads reduced is modest, but nevertheless

significant. it continues the downward trend. and so i fully support it. and you'll see tomorrow morning and hopefully in the "washington post" signed by me, secretary schultz, secretary baker, and secretary kissinger, former secretaries, that once again we as a group of former secretaries of the state believe the treaty is in the best interest of america, best interest of the world, and russian federation. treaty is something that both sides benefit. that has been the history of arms control with the soviet union and now the russian federation. as we noted, the senate had an important role to play on providing consent. in any of the treaties that i've belt with have seen the same kind of promises where questions are asked, challenges are made, understandings are examined to make sure the senate knows

exactly what they are getting into. i think some important issues have been raised. issue of our nuclear weapons as appropriate and the president has indicated to the senate and especially to senator kyl that a significant amount of money will be invested in the reliability and modernization of our systems and our facilities. that was very, very important. i think i've spoken to the verification issues win think they are fine. the question has come up as to whether or not missile defense, our missile defense activity is in any way jeopardized by the treaty. and it is not. the pream baja tour language in no ways restricts the united states to do what we think is appropriate in respect to missile defense. it has come up with the smaller nuclear weapons that we both have. hopefully the russian said has them. we have some. this treaty nor have any of the

other strategic arms control treaty dealt with that issue. if we get this behind us, the president has made it clear he wants to enter into a dialogue in order to capture those systems as well. so i'm sorry i missed the meeting the president had with the other secretaries and national security advisors week before last. i'm glad i had this opportunity to share my thoughts with the president. so i hope that the senate will move quickly and give it's advise and consent to the ratification of this treaty. >> thank you so much, everybody. >> thank you, guys. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i am absolutely -- i am confident that nobody wanted the taxes on middle class families to go up starting january 1st.

and so, you know, there's going to be some lingering politics that have to work themselves out and all of the caucuses, democrat and republican. but at the end of the day, i think that people of good will can come together and recognize that given where the economy is at right now, given the struggles that a lot of families are going through right now, you are going to be able to solve this problem. i think we got off to a good start yesterday. there are going to be ups and downs to the process. i'm confident that we will be able to get it done. all right. >> thank you, everyone. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span2. one the c-span's public affairs offerings.

>> julius genachowski outlined a plan for broadband. the fcc is scheduled to vote on the plan december 21st. the proposal aims to address concerns about the way large internet service providers manage their networks. this is a little more than 10 minutes. >> good morning. after months of hard work at fcc, and other parts of government, in the private sector, and in the public interest community, and after receiving more than 100,000 comments from citizens across america, i'm pleased to announce that we've reached an important milestone in our effort to protect internet freedom and

openness. yes i circulated to my colleagues, draft rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the internet. this framework, if adopted, later this month, would advance a set of core goals. it would ensure that the internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation. it would empower consumers and entrepreneurs. it would protect free expression. it would increase certainty in the marketplace and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks. i'm grass -- gratified by the broad support the proposal as led this morning from internet, leading technology, companies, founders, investors, unions, civil rights organization, and broadband providers.

the proposed rules of the road are routed in ideas first articulated by republican chairman michael powell and kevin martin, and endorsed in fcc policy statement in 2005. similar proposals have been supported in congress on a bipartisan basis. the proposed framework is consistent to keep the quote, keep the internet as it should be. open and free. their adoption would culminate recent efforts to find common ground at the fcc, in congress, and outside government, including approaches advanced by both democrats and republicans and by stakeholders of differing perspectives. in particular, this proposal would build upon the strong and balanced framework developed by chairman henry waxman, when garner support from technology and telecommunications companies big and small, as well as from consumers and public interest groups. the animating force behind all of these efforts is a shared

appreciation for the internet's wonderous contributions to the economy and our way of life. millions of us depend on the internet every day, at home, at work, in school, everywhere in between. the high speed networks we call broadband are transforming health care, education, and energy usage for the better. it's hard to imagine life today without the internet. any more than we could imagine life without running water or electricity. the internet has been an unprecedented platform for speech and democratic engagement and a place where the american spirit of innovation has flourished. we've seen new media tools like twitter and youtube used by democratic movement around the world. not only is the internet becomes a central part of the daily lives of americans, the internet has been a strong engine of job creation and economic growth.

internet companies have started as small start ups. some of them famously in doom rooms and garages with a little more than a company and access to the open internet. many of them have become large businesses providing high paying and high-tech jobs across our country. it's the american dream at work. small businesses and start ups have accounted for more than 22 million new american jobs over the last 15 years. and broadband has played a central part enabling small businesses to start, to lower their cost, and to reach new customers and new markets around the country and indeed the globe. why has the internet proved to be such a powerful engine for creativity and economic growth. a big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the internet's original architects. to make the internet an open

platform. it is the internet's openness and freedom, the ability to speak, innovate, and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone's permission that has enabled the internet's unparalleled success. this openness is a quality, a generative power as some have called it, that must be preserved and protected. the record and the proceeding we've run over the past year as well history shows that there are real risks to the internet's continued freedom and openness. broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position to gate keepers. even after the commission announced principals in 2005, we've seen deviation. instances when broadband providers have prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice without disclosing what they were doing. the framework is designed to guard against these risks while

recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers. in key respects, the interests of edge innovators, those entrepreneurs creating internet content, applications, and services, the interest of those edge innovators, broadband providers, and american consumers are aligned. innovation at the edge catalyzes consumer demand for broadband, consumers demand spurs private investment in faster broadband networks and faster networks spark ever cooler innovation at the edge. a central goal of the proposed internet framework, open internet framework is to foster this cycle of massive investment in both the edge and the core of broadband networks to the benefit of consumers and our economy. protecting internet freedom will drive the internet job creation engine. the proposal which would establish open internet rules

for the first time is first, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service, like how networks are being managed. the proposed framework, therefore, starts with a meaningful transparency obligation. so that consumers and innovators have the information they need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using the broadband, or how to develop the next killer app. it will help solve problems early, reducing the issues that come to the fcc. second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful internet traffic. to go where they want, say what theyment, and use the devices. thus the proposed framework would prohibit the block of lawful content app services and connection of nonharmful devices

to the internet. third, consumers and innovators have a right to level playing field. no public or private should have a power to pick which idea, companies win or lose on the internet. that's the proposed framework. it proposes a bar in permitting lawful network traffic. the proposed framework also recognized that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentive to build out and run the network. it is a national goal that will require private sector investment in our 21st century digital infrastructure. for our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all americans, we want world leading broadband networks in the united states that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.

to this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks. for example, to deal with traffic that's harmful to the network or unwanted by users and to address the affects of congestion. reasonable network management is an important part of proposal. recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved. our work is also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use, including measures to match price to cost, such as usage-based pricing. the record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principals to mobile broadband and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. this is not a new point. but one that i've made consistently since the beginning of the proceeding. for example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of

development at fixed broadband and it is evolving rapidly. accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area, including transparency, and a basic no-blocking rule. under the framework, the fcc would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address and the -- address anti-competitor conduct appropriately. the work on this has been exceptional. no more than than with the complex legal issues, informed by the staff's additional legal analysis and the comments on the issue over the past year. the proposal is grounded is a variety of provisions of the communication laws but would not reclassify broadband as a title two telecommunications service. i'm satisfied that we have a

sound legal basis. i want to emphasize that moving this to a vote is not designed to preclude action by congress. as always, i welcome the opportunity for the commission to serve as a resource to congress. the commission itselfs as a duty and an obligation to fulfill. a duty to address important open proceedings based on the record and an obligation to be a cop on the beat to protect broadband consumers and foster innovation, investment, and competition. i believe the proposed framework advances this mission and this it's adoption will provide certainty and real benefits to the american public. i look forward to ongoing work with my commission colleagues on this and other issues. we have very important work to do for the american people in the months ahead. as we strive to harness the opportunities of broadband and communications for the benefit

of our economy and all americans. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> jill recalling the strategy and resignation and pardon of richard nixon. president ford talks about the 1976 presidential election. why mr. ford decided to run and the affect of the nixon party on the outcome. and from the u.s. naval academy. professor on the confederacy on the early victims and the year that many feel peaked. american history tv telling the american story. every weekend only on c-span3. :