seek to destroy others because of their religion, it is important to remember that there is a lot of real estate between a political opponent and true enemy. in government we expect debates. there will be issues where people of good conscience cannot come together. let us never not what cannot be done interfere with what can be done. even events in the world will continue to have challenges, the growing debt, nearly 24 years ago i was sworn in as u.s. senator. since that time i've been honored to work with you and others on all of the priorities facing our country and many more. public service has been a blessing and a labor of love for me and little in life could be more fulfilling. but i look forward to the next chapter of my life. i'm neither shy nor retiring, there are ways to serve.

elective office is only one of them. i plan to continue to fight for missouri national priorities from a different vantage point. through 40 years in public life, i've met many wonderful people. i visited every area of the county, of the state, every term i served in office. the people i met in office and the people i worked with have made the job so rewarding i decided to stay longer. the people of missouri have been my most trusted and valuable advisers, i thank them for giving me support. in addition to my colleagues and friends there are too many to thank but let me give you the first one first, my patient family, my wife linda, the light and love of my life, my talented charming daughter-in-law margaret and my son sam, whom i regard as my personal hero for his service as a ground intelligence officer in iraq.

thanks to all who worked for me in my office on my committees and those who helped me with political activities, hundreds and thousands over the years. some were not born when i started, others have passed away fortunately many are still here. as mitch said, i thank my political adversaries for keeping me nimble and the media for keeping me humble. most of all i thank the voters in missouri who sent me to jefferson city three times and to washington, d.c., four times to represent them. there's no greater honor. i have been truly blessed to be entrusted by them with the responsibility of public office. and i thank you from the bottom of my heart. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized.

mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i -- i think it goes without saying that there are things that senator bond and i might disagree on, but today is not a time to talk about those things. i would rise just for a few minutes to talk about senator bond and the things that i most respect and admire him for. it could be a very long list, and i don't want to take too long, but i'm going to hit the high points of the things that i think demand that anyone who's paid attention to missouri, they need to respect and admire this man for. for 42 years he has served the state of missouri, and let's start there. he loves the state we call home. i would say that he knows it

better than any living person in the world. he understands it. he is dedicated to it. and he has made missouri his life work. for that he deserves my respect and admiration. secondly, he's made major sacrifices to serve. as the leader said he graduated first in his class from virginia university law school, a graduate from princeton. i don't need to explain to anybody in the senate what that could mean in terms of one's career in terms of making money. christopher kit bond could have been wealthy beyond anyone's imagination. he had the intellect, he had the personality to succeed in any business that he decided to engage in and certainly in the practice of law. i think in today's world there's so much cynicism about the people who choose a career of

political service. this is a great example for civics classes throughout this country to see this is really what we're talking about. someone who chose not to make big bucks, not to travel the halls of power in the private sector, but to toil in the fields of being a public servant. and, yes, there are many things about being a public servant that are grand and glorious, but there is a lot that is not. i would challenge anyone who go to as many farm bureau picnics as my colleague has gone to and not admit a little bit of fatigue. i would challenge anyone to have attended as many state fairs as my colleague has attended and not confess a little fatigue. i would challenge anyone to go what my dad used to call the slick ham suppers in small communities across the state after a long week of work because he knew there were people there that were going to

be rewarded by his presence and that it was part of his job that he realized was very important. so i am very respectful and have great admiration for the fact that he has toiled in the field of public service for all these years. the their thing that i respect and admire about him is how proud he is of his family and how devoted he is to his wife. it is a wonderful thing to behold when someone just ex you'ds love -- exudes love, admiration and devotion to those people who are most important to all of us, their family. and i've watched senator bond as he began to really immerse himself in foreign policy, and i know it was because he went to bed every night an woke up every morning -- and woke up every morning thinking of sam and sam's service and feeling compelled to do as much as he

could in the halls of congress to help men and women like sam bond throughout our world. fourth, and maybe this is the best one, senator kit bond is not afraid of a fight. i think that is terrific. you know, missouri's a tough state. it's a tough state in that anybody who tells you their reelection is certain does not know or understand missouri. every election is a battle in missouri. he has a record of 9-2 in those elections and for our beloved team the missouri tigers, we would take that record any year in football. he's had three campaigns for governor and four campaigns for the united states senate from state of missouri and his record is 9-1 in those elections. let me tell you, that is one remarkable achievement. because in missouri we have some

strong-minded folks. we have a bunch of folks on one end that are very loud and they opinion 8ed and they're not going anywhere and we have a bunch of folks on the other end that are just as loud and opinionated and they're not going anywhere. but in the middle we have a grand and glorious group of stubbornly independent people. i would like to say that they elected john ashcroft and harriet woods in the same election. my colleague knows who he is and we know these are two people, john ashcroft an harriette woods who believed in nothing in common. they had completely divergent views of the world. i'll tell you what that grand and stubborn streak wants, they want someone with a smile. check for kit bond. when you think of kit bond, you think of him smiling. even if his teeth are gritted and he's telling you something

you don't want to hear or you can tell he's angry at you, he is still grinning. they appreciate his intellect. he has always been an intellectual giant and that is important in -- when you're toiling the fields of public service. his integrity. there was never a doubt in all of these years of kit bond's service that this was not a man of the very highest integrity. and, finally, a work ethic. and yee-howdy missourians want a work ethic. they want somebody who understands that they're working hard and they want to see you working hard and that's exactly what senator bond has done for these 42 years. he's worked very, very hard. even now to planting his ches chestnut trees himself on the farm in mexico. so the magic formula of a ready smile, intellect, integrity, and an amazing work ethic has put

him in the same category as some of missouri's very greatest from thomas hart bitten to senator christopher kit bond, he has shown the world and shown our country what hard work, what somebody who loves the middle of america and all that it represents can do in the united states senator. he has been a wonderful role model for many of us in missouri, even if we don't always agree on every issue. and, by the way, i will tell this story today that when i took my desk in the state auditor's office, there is a tradition that all of the previous state auditor's pictures are around your office at the top on a poet yes rail at the top -- photo rail at the top. i stat down at my desk on the first day and looked up and who was directly across from me? kit bond and john ashcroft. i will confess, i moved the order so i didn't have to look at both of you every single day.

but you were a reminder to me that there is many different ways to serve and it is with a great deal of reluctance that i say farewell to senator kit bond in the united states senate. he has served here well. he has served his state well. i hope he remains a colleague and friend of mine for many years to come. and with the utmost admiration and respect, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota's recognized. a senator: i also want to add my voice in respect and recognition for the service of senator kit bond. mr. conrad: he has been a terrific colleague. and we have jostled over issues like water policies affecting our two states, but he has also conducted himself with honor and integrity and he will be missed in this chamber. mr. president, for just a moment i also want to note the passing

of richard holbrooke, a distinguished ambassador, somebody who played a key role in working on the policy toward iraq and afganistan. richard holbrooke was a giant in american diplomatic history. richard holbrooke was a friend. i actually was with him the sunday before he passed away. and was shocked to learned that he had been stricken. even more shocked to learn that he passed away on monday. richard holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace and for advancing the interest of this country. richard holbrooke will be missed. mr. president, separately, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that

these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. conrad: mr. president, i come to the floor to discuss the tax extension package before us. i support this package because it will provide, i believe, a significant boost to the economy next year. it is necessary because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millions of middle-class families in just a matter of weeks. mr. president, i recognize that this package will increase the deficit over the next two years, but we need to distinguish between what is the right economic policy short term and longer term. short term i don't think there is any question that this economy remains weak, unemployment stubbornly high, and that means we need to do

more to provide liquidity in the short term. that does not mean that we should ignore the growing debt that is all around us. that is a longer-term challenge, but it requires our urgent attention. mr. president, we need to put together a plan this year to deal with our deficits and debt. that's what the fiscal commission was all about that senator gregg and i pushed for, which was just recently concluded its work with 11 of the 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt long term by $4 trillion. mr. president, just as with that package, there are not all elements of this package with which i agree. in fact, part of this tax package i strongly oppose. most noteliably, i am topped -- most noteably, i am opposed to those provisions that i think

giveoverly generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax area. but i understand that the president did what he had to do to get an agreement. this economy clearly remains in a fragile state, and we can't afford to wait until we get everything we want. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. mr. president, too often in this chamber, in this congress, people insist on having it their way or take the highway. and, unfortunately, that prevents us from doing things that are absolutely essential for the nation. mr. president, economists project that a failure to pass this package could reduce economic growth next year by as much as 50%. that would mean millions of jo jobs, mr. president, so those

who say, well, let's just scuttle this, they got to think very carefully. what is the risk to the economy of the united states? mr. president, just to review where we've come from, the federal response to the recession and the financial crisis, i believe, has successfully pulled this economy back from the brink. we were headed, i believe, for financial collapse. economic growth has returned -- not as robustly as we would have liked, but nonetheless it has returned. in the fourth quarter of 2008, levment est we forget, economic growth was 6.8%. now it is 2.5%. that is a remarkable turnaround. the the same can be seen on the job front. in january 2009 this economy lost over 800,000 private-sector jobs in one month.

the next month we lost another 700,000 jobs. the next month another 700,000. the next month almost 650,000. now we fast-forward to today, november of 2010, 50,000 jobs were created. that is a dramatic turnaround. and we can see in -- for month after month after month we you a have positive job growth. mr. president, this economy has turned in the right direction and done so in quite a dramatic way. we've also seen the rebound in the markets. the stock market hit a low of 6547 back in march 7 of 2009. we're now well over 11 now tho. on economic growth, on job creation, on the stock market we have seen dramatic improvements. i think as a direct result of things that were quite unpopular

-- the tarp prarnlg the stimulus program. mr. president, this economy still remains too weak, too fragile. unemployment stubbornly high at 9.8%. by the way, without tarp, without stimulus you the best economist -- the best economists in this country, including alan blinder and the chief economist at moody's mark zandi said, without tarp, without stimulus, unemployment today would be 15%. 8 million more people would be out of work. so, mr. president, despite some who say these haven't worked -- tarp and stimulus -- you i believe the evidence is quite clear they have worked. so what more needs to be done? as we enter the holiday season we can't forget that one in six americans is now unemployed or underemployed. and so we must do more to create

jobs. in a recent speech to the european central bank ben bernanke went about as far as he could go on the question of fiscal policy. and he urged congress to do more to help the near-term economy while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-term deficits. here's what he said: "on its current economic tra john kerry trirks the united states runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for many years. as a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable. monetary policy is working in support of both economic recovery and price stability, but there are limits to what can be achieved by the central bank alone ... [a] fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits would be an important complement to the policies of

the federal reserve." the chairman, i think, has it right. he is clearly saying the fed alone does not -- and their actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. congress also needs to act. it needs to act in the near term by taking steps to generate economic growth and it needs to act on the long-term challenge by putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in the medium-term and in the longer term. this package, the one before us, will ensure that middle-class taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of the year. it extends for two years all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. it -- and, by the way, by far the most important thing for the economy is the middle-class tax cuts. that is what is critically important to the economy. the tax cuts for the high end, we could either do or not do.

they're mildly stimulative, mildly stimulative, but according to c.b.o. they have pretty low bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. that's the high-end tax cuts, pretty low bang for the buck, according to the congressional budget office. this package also has expanded child tax credit and earned income tax credit for working families. the american opportunity tax credit for college expenses, the alternative minimum tax fix, otherwise millions of people would be getting a tax hike completely unintended. and the r&d tax credit and other expiring tax provisions. so, mr. president, this package, as a package, according to the best economic advice that we can get, will help economic growth, will help job creation create as many as 2 million additional jobs in the private sector next year. the package also includes three critical measures to help the

economy. it includes a payroll tax cut for working families. this will provide a two percentage point reduction in employees' social security payroll taxes. a worker with $40,000 in income would save $800. this measure is widely recognized as one of the most tbective ways to -- effective ways to boost near-term growth. in fact, i asked c.b.o. last year, what are the most effective steps we could take to promote economic growth? number one, interestingly enough, extend unemployment insurance. that's in this package. number two, a payroll tax holiday. that's in this package. in fact, as i indicated, this package has an extension of unemployment insurance benefits at their current level for 13 months. this will prevent 7 million workers from losing unemployment in 2011.

economists also rank this measure as high on bang for the buck, as i indicated. it also includes a business expensing provision allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital purchases in 2011. this is a useful incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011, and again c.b.o. rated this measure as high on bang for the buck. here are some of the examples of the tax cut benefits provided by this package. a mother with one child with $20,000 of income will receive an $1,100 tax cut. a married couple with $40,000 of income will receive a tax cut of almost $2,000. and a married couple with two children with $60,000 of income will receive a tax cut of more than $3,300.

mr. president, mark sedan -- the chief economist for moody's, former advisor to senator mccain's presidential campaign, has examined the potential economic impact of this package. here's what he concluded: "the fiscal policy compromise ... will be good for the economy next year. the planned temporary tax cuts and spending increases will provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that the still-fragile economic recovery evolves into a self-sustaining economic expansion. the deal's surprisingly broad scope meaningfully changes the near-term economic outlook." that according to mark zandi, the chief economist for moody's. mr. president, for those who are concerned about the deficit, as i am, job one is to get this economy growing more strongly. that is job one. then we've got to pivot and deal with the long-term plan to deal with the deficits and the debt.

as i noted before, the one provision in this package that i am particularly unhappy with is the estate tax provision. i support the continuation of the 2009 level with an estate tax exemption of p $3.5 million for an individual, that would be $7 million for a courages and the a rate of 45%. only .25% would be subject to any estate tax in 2011. .25% of estates would be affected. that means 99.75% of estates would be exempt from any estate tax under the levels that i am proposing and did propose in the budget. unfortunately, under the compromise package, certain of our colleagues on the other side insisted that the exemption

level be raised to $5 million for individuals or individuals n for couples with a rate of 35%. this will reduce the number estates subject to the estate tax to .7%. it adds about $20 billion to the cost of the package over two years and will do absolutely nothing to generate economic growth and create jobs according to the economic analysis made available to us. if made permanent, this provision would add $100 billion in lost revenue to the treasury over the next ten years -- $100 billion more than the package that i proposed. i don't think that's fiscally responsible. i don't think it's wise. and i don't think it should be approved. while we need to pass the overall package to give a near-term boost to the economy, we must also now pivot to deal with the nation's growing debt.

gross federal debt is already expected to reach 100% of the gross domestic product of this country in 2011, well above the 90% threshold that many economists see as the danger zone p. one of our nation's leading economists, dr. carmen reinhardt, came before the president's fiscal commission. she had recently coauthored a study of the impact of debt on more than 20 countries over the last 200 years. she concluded that when government debt as a share of the economy exceeds 90%, economic growth tends to be about one point lower than if debt levels were not so high. but don't be misled by one point lower. that sounds like nothing. if the economy is growing typically at 3.5%, one point

less would be about one-third less economic growth. so we need to understand the consequences of debt are lower economic growth for the future. mr. president, our long-term debt outlook is even more serious. according to the congressional budget office, federal debt could rise on the current trend to almost 400% of g.d.p. by 2054. that is a completely unsustainable course. i personally believe the deficit and debt reduction plan assembled by the president's fiscal commission on which i serve could prove a way forward. even though the plan did not receive the necessary 14 of the 18 votes on the commission to guarantee a vote in congress, it did receive the support of 11 of the 18 commission members, which is more than 60% of the panel.

60% here, we can pass anything. but on our commission, we required 14 of 18 of the commissioners to agree to assure a vote in congress this year. and, by the way, the 11 who supported the plan was completely bipartisan, five democrats, five republicans, and one independent. that outcome proved that democrats and republicans can come together to solve this challenge. here's a quick overview of the fiscal commission plan. it provides nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. it lowers the deficit from 8% of g.d.p. in 2011 to 2.3% in 2015 and 1.2% in 2020. it stablizes the debt by 2014 and then lowers it to 60% of g.d.p. by 2023 and 40% of g.d.p. by 20356789 it reforms social security to ensure its solvency

for at least 75 years and puts the program on a more success sphainable path beyond -- sustainable path beyond the next 75 years. a understand it includes fundamental -- and it includes fundamental tax reform make the tax code simpler and more efficient while also raising more revenue for deficit reduction. so now we have a responsible and realistic bipartisan plan on the table and national attention is focused on the issue. it's up to congress and the president to finish the job. mr. president, tax reform may be the most important component of the fiscal commission plan. here are the key elements included in the fiscal commission plan: one, it eliminates or scales back tax expenditures that are currently runnin running $1.1 tn a year. and lowers tax rates. that will promote economic growth and dramatically improve

america's global competitiveness. and it makes the tax code more progressive. the commission's illustrative tax reform plan demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures can lower rates. mr. president, this plan is a beginning, it's got to become law in order to have its full effect. mr. president, i hope very much our colleagues will consider supporting this plan, the tax plan before us and the deficit-reduction plan that needs to be an integral component of a long-term fiscal plan for the nation. i thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree amendment to the reid-mcconnell substitute to offer amendment number 4763. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. brown: mr. president, senators stabenow, democrat from

michigan, wicker, a republican from mississippi, and i bring this amendment to the floor to extend for one year modest enhancements to the health coverage tax credit program. i'm going to throw a start curveball and start with the cost of this amendment, which will help place its benefits into context. while we're awaiting the final score based on preliminary numbers, this amendment should come in under $50 million. that's less than .006% of the cost of the legislation. less than .006%. it's $50 million out of roughly $800 billion-plus. now, let's look at who the amendment helps. it helps americans who took a kidney punch when the companies for which they worked either packed up and moved their operations overseas or when the companies for which they worked went bankrupt and turned their pensions -- their pension obligations over to the pension benefit guaranty corporation. i don't have to tell what you it means when americans' pension

goes over to pbgc. it means that an american's pension is slashed, often dramatically. so these are americans who either lost their jobs and their health coverage or lost large chunks of their pensions and their health coverage. as i stated earlier, this amendment would extend modest amendment to the health coverage tax credit, or the hctc. the hctc was established eight years ago to help these workers and retirees purchase private health coverage to replace the employer-sponsored coverage they lost. unfortunately, because of the modest size of the tax credit and other limitations, many credit eligible individuals have remained uninsured. and as too many americans know, the combination of no health insurance and a dramatically reduced pension spells financial hardship. dramatic financial hardship, particularly for people forced into early, unplanned retirement. these are americans who worked hard, who were loyal to their companies, who were often involved in their communities, who earned their pensions and

employer-sponsored health coverage day after day after day until the day when they watched it all evaporate. americans, like mike from brookville, ohio, wrote to let me know how important the tax credit is, how worried he is that he'll have to revert back to covering only 65% of premiums. mike's an adelphi retiree, those of whom were left high and dry when the new g.m. abandoned them. larry from miamisburg, ohio, in the other end of the state, is another adelphi retiree. in his letter, he said, "i'm writing to ask for help for us retirees. first for the hctc increase ultimately for the loss of our retirement. sir, they've taken everything from us, even now our dignity." larry and mike are victims of what can only be called myopic pension deal cut by the new g.m. during its bankruptcy proceedings. the new g.m. clung to an agreement signed back in 1999 in order to provide full pensions to some union dell phi retirees and allow other union and

non-union retirees to receive deep pension cuts. both groups o are former employees, those who received their full benefits and those who did not, devoted most of their careers to g.m. before adelphi was spun off. both groups earned their pensions by working hard for g.m. year in and year out, buttbutbut mike and larry and sy others like them were forced to live with financially devastating pension cuts while their counterparts received full pensions. and now these same retirees may once again lose access to health coverage to. prevent it, we need to extend the enhanced hctc provisions. under the recovery act, the health care coverage tax credit was increased slightly and the rules surrounding it were made more flexible. these modest changes enabled tens of thousands of trade affected workers and retirees to use -- retirees to use the tax credits and purchase private health insurance to replace the employer-sponsored health benefits they lost. specifically, the tax credit now covers 80% rather than 65% of

coverage costs. beneficiaries are allowed to use the coverage to purchase coverage for themselves and their spouses and they are allowed to apply the credit to less expensive coverage under a veba, under a voluntary employee benefit association. since these provisions were put into place, the number of displaced workers and retirees using the health coverage tax credit has more than tripled, increasing from about 14,000 to about 50,000. but the hctc provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. we just can't let that happen, mr. president. doesn't matter where the enhanced coverage tax credit provisions came from. could have been the recovery act, could have been a bill the minority championed. the vehicle doesn't matter, but the merits of these provisions do matter. that's why senator stabenow and wicker and i bring this amendment forward. they will keep americans insured and in an environment where they lack -- where the lack of coverage coupled with pension cuts could mean impoverishment. if we don't extend these provisions, the spouses of former workers will definitely

lose their coverage and these former workers themselves likely will. that's in no one's best interest. approving this amendment, as i said, would likely increase the cost of this bill by less than .006%. that's a small price to pay for a lifeline. it's a small price to pay to keep middle-class americans from slipping into poverty. this, mr. president, shouldn't be a matter of debate, it shouldn't be the focus of a partisan divide, it should be a small step all of us take together on behalf of americans who did what we asked them to. they deserve our respect, they deserve our consideration, and as our economy continues to pose challenges even before the hardship these americans face, they deserve this modest extension of tax credit benefits. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the amendment number 4805 be printed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it will be printed.

mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized of the mr. isakson: i ask consent to be recognized for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, thank you very much. i rose yesterday afternoon when we opened the vote at 3:00 p.m. and voted in favor of going to a final vote today on the tax package before us. like many have expressed in this body, there are things i like and things i dislike about it, but i come to the floor today to talk about the things i like about it and to make a particular point with regard to scoring. first, i want to point out that 41 days ago, the people of the united states went to the polls and voted, and in the state of georgia, they voted for me. and i ran a campaign on the basis that we do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. i ran a campaign based on the american people wanting us in washington to do what they've had to do the last three years: sit down at the kitchen table, reprior despise spend within their means. -- reprioritize and spend within their means. and we must do that. i commend what senator conrad from north dakota and said i

commend his courage and those others that voted for the deficit reduction commission report, because it's the kind of shared sacrifice and tough love that all of us must do next year to rein in the spending in this country and get our balance back. but in the immediate future, in the next 3 1/2 weeks, americans' taxes are going up at a time of recession and high unemployment. that doesn't make any sense. i didn't like puts a sunset on the tax package when i was back in the house because i feared what was happening now, protracted uncertainty, two-year rules, american business not knowing what to do. so while i'll vote for this package today, i hope we'll learn the lesson that two-year i incremental sunsets or things like that are not good for the economy and not good for mechanic. we as members of this congress and this united states senate, must deal with challenges with they confront, not by arbitrarily setting times for sunsets and sunrises that make us set policy under duress and difficult circumstances.

but on the scoring issue, i want to point out two things about the tax rates and about the estate tax. there are those that say by extending the existing tax rat rates, we cut revenue that would have come in. well, hypothetically, that's correct. but in reality, that's not correct. because historically, from john kennedy to ronald reagan to george w. bush, republicans and democrats who were confronted with difficult economic times, when they changed tax policy and lessened the burden, they increased the revenue. and so my forecast, based on the next two years, is we'll see for the first time a clear example of dynamic scoring and hopefully change a little bit of c.b.o.'s mind on how they look on tax policy. because i think you're going to see more employment, you're going to see more risk capital put out by business, you're going to see a sense of certainty and a sense of optimism which certainly our country needs. now, as far as the estate tax -- and i love very much the senator from north dakota but i disagree vehemently on his explanation of

the way he explained the estate tax. let me tell you the reality of the h estate tax. i've dwelt it and i've dealt with it for 33 years as a real estate broker in the state of georgia. the assets of most american families are real estate, whether it's farmers and landowners or whether it's simply a homeowner. other wealth in america is by people who have a small busine business. with a confiscatory tax rate of 55%, which is what it would be january 1 and an inordinately low deduction or unified credit of $1 million, most american landowners, most american business owners who had an estate worth anything over a million dollars would have had to liquidate their assets to pay their tax. a little-known fact about the i.r.s. code that a lot of people don't realize but we all suffer from is when you die, you've got nine months to file your taxes and pay your taxes with the government. they have three years to say whether or not they'll accept it or not. so in a nine-month period of time, a family at a point of bereavement, with some assets, find themselves taxed at a rate

of 55%, that's con tisk to her and it's not -- co confiscatoryd it's not right. number two, if they have to liquidate their property or sell their business, that's set no longer produces income, therefore, income taxes go down. committee demonstrate on a graph or a chart or a blockboard that an asset that has to be liquidated to pay a tax of 55% one time does not over ten years pay as much as would have been paid of the earned income that that small business or that land would have created. so the estate tax two-year deal is a good deal and it should be permanent. $5 million is a lot of money but in the scheme of things, for a small business, a family farm, a cooperative, it's not a lot of money. but it's the lifeblood of a lot of families. and if we confiscate that business or confiscate that land because the tax rate forces a sale, then we're actually hurting ourselves in the long run and we're hurting families in the long run. now, lastly, there is a spending component and we're going to have to next year sit down and deal -- sit around the kitchen

table of the united states senate and deal with our spending because it is out of hand. but i do believe, mr. president, that the tax policy we are extending for the next two years will bode well for our economy. i agree with senator conrad that it will probably help increase productivity by about a third which will be good for our country, it will be good for our tax rates. if we can combine that with a fiscal policy that has shared sacrifice and tough love when it comes to spending, we can regenerate the american dream and the great engine of american entrepreneurship and return our country to the prosperity we all hope and desire it will be. and with those remarks, mr. president, i yield back. the president pro temporethe pre previous order, the senate stands in recess until the hour of 2

we'll have more live coverage for you when the gavel comes down at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. we've got more live events coming up for you on the c-span networks. in about an hour and a half the focus is the white house where spokesman robert gibbs will brief reporters that gets underway at 2:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. later a look at the impact of recent wikileak releases have had on public policy and journalism. moderated by cbs's bob schieffer. that starts at 5:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> it's hard to get here and it's also hard to leave here. but all of us do leave and the senate always continues

>> we mentioned the senate continuing work on the tax cuts and unemployment benefits deal. we want to show you a portion of today's debate. it starts with minority leader jon kyl and includes remarks from california democrat barbara boxer and texas republican kay bailey hutchison. this is an hour. for a few minutes about the

tax package or tax t legislation that the senate is debating and, we'll be voting on here before long. there's been b dismay on both b sides of the aisle regarding the merits of the package.ri i emphasize a point that has been made by others. no one thinks this is as. perfect bill. most conservatives are upset about theat unfunded extension of unemployment benefits. b the fact that the tax rate extensions are not permanent. on the left there are those who dislike the death tax reform and would haveha prefered the top marginal income tax rates be increased and there aregr other concerns as well. i agree with some of the criticisms my conservative friends have made.ou this not the bill i wouldth have written.ro there are some things in the package that i disagree withly on the other hand this is not the bill president obama would have written.tt he made it clear he doesn't like everything in itth either. the package represents a p true bipartisan compromise.

that's something we talk a lot about but seldom seemt able to do. but political circumstances will not allow either party to dictate its perfect bill. so, while neither party got b everything it wanted thereth are provisions in thehi package to appeal to both sides of the aisle and most of us agree it would be very bad for americans to allow taxes to be increased. most important things the bill does in my view freeze all existing income, capital gains and dividends taxti rates and reform the death tax.nd without legislation, taxes are set to go up for every taxpayer in just 17 days and so by maintaining current s tax rates and instituting death tax reform, the bill will provide positive economic certainty to both families and the job creators. development for american taxpayers and for ourve economy. in fact according to the new data from morgan stanley, this bill could boost

economic growth to 4% or t more next year. that's a lot better than the anemic 2% achieved in the t third quarter of this year. ironically some commentatorse argued that this economic growth will benefit president obama's re-election prospects and therefore should be opposed that is not clear thinking. some other conservatives say if we wait in the next year to pass tax legislation, t then the gop-controlled house could pass a better bill than this one.r that's true from my perspective but there's no guaranty that the senate or the house, the white house, rather, would go along withse such a bill or that we could get any better compromise inha the end. and in the meantime every taxpayer would have been hit with a tax increase in theet first paycheck of the new year and for many weeks thereafter. tax increases would almost. certainly hurt the economy. look back to 1936 for example, when president roosevelt raised taxes on high earners. the shaky economy plunged

back into depression and unemployment skyrocketed. freezing the tax rates on potential to help theon economy and job growth. seem to think tax provisions in this bill should implement their particular philosophy of class warfare. but the tax code is not a vehicle for punishing certain taxpayers as some on the left seem to think. want to help job creators asll well as job-seekers. ideology should not trumpee those concerns on either the right or the left. a key thing is the tax rates matter to growth. businesses must be allowed to return, retain earnings so they can expand and invest and hire new workers. as i've come to the floor to point out again and again, many successful small businesses that create jobs,s pay taxes at the individual rate and would be hurt by the increases in the topl marginal income tax brackets. according to irs data citedgi by economists kevin hassett and alan beard and i'm

quoting here, fully 48% of thef net income of sole proprietorships and partnerships and s-corporations reported on tax returns went to households with income above 200,000 in 2007. which is the last year incidentally we have these figures. other businesses would haveee been hurt by skyrocketing capital gains and dividends taxes. raising capital gains and a dividend taxes would greatly our economy so urgently need. indeed capital taxes are theng among the most distorted and least efficient taxes the government collects. in my view any comprehensive tax reform should include significant reductions in capital taxation. for now i'm glad both parties at least decided to block a capital gain tax increase which would have a severe impact on jobes creating investment. death tax reform is another that will provide certainty to job creators. i want to thank senator lincoln for her leadership on this issue.

we spent a lot of timer together over the past few years working on the issue and she deserves much credit for her expertise and devotion to crafting this plan which will provide relief to job creating small businesses. the result is a true compromise. there will be a large increase from this year's zero percent estate tax rate which is one that i favor, to a 35% rate.or but, that's much less thane. the 55% rate that will be in place on january 1st. and the exemption is five 1 million which is much preferable than to the one million dollar exemptionft after january 1st. should death tax reform not occur and the rate rise to 55%, small businesses could be forced to reduce theire payrolls by more than 500,000 workers over the next 10 years according to former cbo director douglas holtz-eakin. think about that. that is half of a million people whose jobs could bez- threatened. a the effect of the compromise will be to eliminate the death tax liability for about 90% of the states that would otherwise oweta

exorbitant sums. according to the institute for research and economics taxation the death tax reform proposal in this bill would add more than $200 billion in annual economic growth relative to currentco law.ow so this is not abouthi giveaways to the wealthy as g some have asserted.e most of the people helped by this measure are small business employers. madam president, a final word about the deficit. t it's true that extending unemployment compensation e without cutting otherat government spending will add to the deficit and there are some tax incentives in the bill that are similar to spending and should also be offset with spending cuts. i it is important to note thatse we should not raise taxes to provide the revenue. that would just grow theou size of the federal government. and, democrats are unwilling to find spending cuts. so we're left aaccumulatingso more debt instead. the political reality is that the unemployment benefits would certainlynl pass both chambers and there are not and will not be the

votes in the senate to cutn spending to offset the costs either this year or next. ir admit i'm surprised to hear some conservative commentators lump the extension of current tax rates and death tax reform into the same argument about the deficit. congress has never offset theoretical revenue loss from the annual amt relief for example, because we all.t know there was never any to collect it.ev likewise, republicans have always viewed the taxen extender package and extension of other rates ast. exactly that, extensions of existing law, not new tax cuts. the left in some commentators delight inin misrepresenting the legislation as providing tax cuts for l the rich but these are not tax cuts. only extensions of decade-old existing tax rates for everyone.ld the only new tax cuts are the expensing for businesses sought by the president, b which with republicans generally agree and the

payroll tax holiday. the actual revenue loss therefore is about $237or billion, not the 900 billion $ that some assert. while any increase in the deficit is unwelcome, theme overall merits of this bill including preventing of a massive tax increase on each and every taxpayer outweigh that deficit increase in my opinion.tw in conclusion americans are looking for economic growth and solutions to unemployment. keeping tax rates where they are and providing some certainty is a good place to start.la i urge my colleagues to support the bill and see to it that job-killing rates are not imposed on anyone. >> madam president?oxer >> the senator from california. >> thank you so t much, madam president.m i just had a number of issues i wanted to bring up today for the record to

explain a lot of the things that we're faced with here as we wind down before christmas eve, maybe. the first thing i am going to ask you to do is placek into the record the california connected t in afghanistan and iraq.af i put their names in the t record continually and sometimes i have time i read them. i i want to say this. since august the 5th, 52 more california-connected servicemembers have died in d afghanistan and two moreis have died in iraq. and, i would ask unanimous content to place their names in the record. -- consent.an >> so moved. >> thank you these heroes,er these americans who have sacrificed and given it all

for this nation, i am humbled by their service. i'm humbled by the service of their families because this is a family commitment. i'm so proud with senator byrd to be the co-chair of the military families caucus. and i pledge to continue what i can do to make sure that our commitment to our military families is m constant. that we're, fulfilling our role to make sure that they get feeted -- treated with honor and respect and that we lessen their hardships.th we can not take away the pain of their loss. i also want to say that i'mo working in every way i canry to end this war in afghanistan. i support beginning to bring the troops home in 2011. there is some talk that it might be extended to another year. ier don't support that.

as someone who voted to go after usama bin laden and a the taliban and go into afghanistan, we lost a lota of years because president b george w. bush turns anden focuses attention in iraq, a war i did not support. i didn't think it was based on truth. turned out it wasn't. and history will speak to that. but we've been in afghanistan a long time and they're going to have to stand up and defend their t own country as all nations have to do, defend themselves.nt we've given so much and today, 52 more californi california-connected servicemembers since august 5th. it is an ongoing sacrifice. a we just heard yesterday about a tragic explosionin

against nato forces there on a headquarters in southern afghanistan where we lost six.e so, i support thatup withdrawal, and doing it in a way that makes sense. not going to do it in one i day or six months. but we should start it. connected to that, the second issue i wanted to bring up is the passing of ambassador richard holbrooke. someone i considered to be a friend, an advisor, a brilliant mind, a warm personality, a man who lived for his work and his family.is it's so ironic in a sense. i saw him twice last week. because he and his wife hadee gone to the kennedy center awards and he seemed so fine

and so engaged and so well.d and it was a shock to readan about what happened and, i just send my love to his family. his wife and his children. and he will be missed so much because he had a very unique approach to diplomacy. it was a love of what he did.e that you can't create. and when you talk to him he engaged you because of his deep commitment and his loveca of his work and his understanding that diplomacy is really the answer, not war. and that you had to be tough. w and as he pointed out, meet t with people that you wouldn't want to be in a room with. i as he had to do when he negotiated the end of theth war in bosnia. i will miss him both personally and certainly as

as a member of the foreign relations committee with you, madam president. i wanted to talk about a couple of other issues, just to express my, my disappointment that because of an artificial line laid down in the sand by ourl colleagues on the other side, that they wouldn't vote on a civil rights matter to end "don't ask, don't tell"t our nation weaker, not stronger. it is a policy that bringsai pain to so many of our fellow americans where they have to keepwh a secret who they are and how they live their life? a it runs counter to this country because the thing is, when you're in the military, and you are side by side and

you're in trouble, whether you're gay or straight has t nothing to do with the mission you're facing. it is a very strict military code of conduct in the military that says, whoever you are you can not yourou rights and privileges. whether it is about sexual ha last of asment orny anything else. that is very clear -- harrassment. we have a code of conductpp that could apply to everyone. i was proud that oury military said wouldn't harm us in terms of our ability to have a strong defense. good for them. i read it into the record a number of cases of just heroes, who have been run out of the military because

of their sexual orientation heroes. a couple of them have been reinstated. the courts are going to do away with don't ask don't t tell. i would rhetorically ask my colleagues, why on earthn would we leave this to the c courts when we could havehe the pride to standing up to civil rights. it is just unfortunate. have flip-flopped on this issue.av said, oh, well, when the military leaders say it is okay i'll be there and nows they're not. they set the bar every day a different heights. now there was an excuse, let's do the tax cut first. okay, we did the tax cut. so i'm hoping they will let us go to this and vote on this, and we could be proud as americans here across party lines that we

put aside partisan differences when it comes to civil rights. i just was watching a tv special on civil rights law that passed in 1964, and the beautiful part of it was the coming together of the parties at the end of the day on an issue that was so right for this country. i hope we can do this again, i just hope we can do this again. and if not, i say to the courts do the right thing. you're doing it, but keep it up because we are not any stronger as a nation. we are weaker when incredibly talented, dedicated, patriotic americans are turned away for absolutely no reason. and so i want to talk about that as well as the "dream" act, another area where this country is made stronger. when we look at a child that may

have been brought here by their parents, their parents broke the law, brought a child here, say 3 months or 4 months. the child doesn't even know they don't have their papers until they get to be 18 years old. this is their country. they love their country. a lot of them are president of the student body. since when do we win the cri since when do we pin the crimes of the parents on a child? we don't do that here. and again, what are we gaining? we're losing. so the dream act, which started off with huge bipartisan support suddenly has gotten into the place where don't ask, don't tell has gotten. where we're moving away from justice. and everybody has got their -- oh, it can't be part of the military bill and then if it's part of the military -- if it's not part of the military bill, they say why isn't it part of the military bill? it just it seems to be a moving bar.

you know, as there is a big meeting -- i read about it called no labels. where people got together and said we're tired of the two parties not working together. and it was sort of interesting 'cause it was on the day when the two parties did work together. and we got over 80 votes. but be that as it may, we'll set that aside. here are the two issues that have nothing to do with partisan politics because they're good for the country to help our young people and to make sure that people can serve in the military if they're qualified and their sexual orientation essentially has nothing to do with it. we have a chance to come together for the good of the country on these. and i still hold out hope that we can do it and we can also take care of those heroes, talk about heroes. in 9/11, those who went to the

toxic pile in new york and look for the survivors and look for the remains and reap in those toxic years in which the epa said was safe it wasn't safe and they are sick and we can't seem to get the votes to help them. but i don't give up, i think, you know, we can do this. so let's work together on those things. now, another areas where we've been able to work together in the past where i hope we can continue to work together is the transportation bill. we usually enact our highway trust fund programs for about four or five or six years at a time. the last time we extended it for a year. and now the extension is ending and we need to extend again the existing transportation authorization. i'm optimistic on this one.

because in the house, it didn't seem controversial. they added it to the continuing resolution, extended it to the end of the fiscal year 2011, september 30th is this date. it's important to note that 900,000 jobs nationwide depend on this highway trust fund and the reauthorization of it. and all of those programs. 85,000 jobs in my home state of california. and it's very important that we do this work, whether it's through an omnibus budget or through the continuing resolution, however it ends up. this is an area again where the political parties have come together. my ranking member, jamie inhofe and i have been very -- working very closely on this. and we support this extension. it has the support of the members of the americans for transportation mobility coalition.

i'll name some of them, the american public transportation and the american road and transportation builders, the associated equipment distribute injuries, the associated general contractors, the society of civil engineers, the international union of operating engineers, labors international, the national asphalt paving association, national stone, sand and gravel, the united brothers of carpenters and the u.s. chamber of commerce, now, listen, that's quite a group. when you got unions and you've got the employers and you've got the u.s. chamber of commerce, which is negative on so many things, unfortunately, positive on this, that's a good match-up. so i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for transportation mobility be placed in the record. so this extension will save jobs not only in the short term but it gives -- it really gives

certainty to our states, madam president. we know our nation's highways, bridges and transit systems need to be in good repair. i could say this, with the construction industry still in a downturn, it's tough for them because of the housing crisis, construction work is few and far between, and we have a very high unemployment rate in the construction industry. this extension is important. it gives the certainty. it will save hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will improve our infrastructure. and provide that foundation that we need for a solid recovery and i look forward to taking that up. and madam president, the last topic i wanted to talk about and i ask how much time remains in my 25 minutes? >> the senator has used fifteen minutes. >> thank you. the last topic i wanted to talk about was my vote was to move

forward on the tax bill that was the framework was sent to us by president obama, and there were negotiations with our republican colleagues and then a couple of -- one very important addition was made to the bill because many of us here in the senate wanted that, and i'm grateful for that addition, and it was the 1603 program, which is critical to our clean energy businesses and will result in tens of thousands of jobs because it allows companies that are moving forward with solar, wind, geothermal projects, clean energy projects to essentially get a tax credit up front. and it's essential. because there's a lot of plans on the drawing boards. and if this hadn't been renewed, we would have lost those plans. we would have lost those jobs. so i'm very pleased about that.

madam president, so much has been said about this tax bill. i don't know that i'm going to say anything that's going to add to the debate but i just wanted to lay out some of what compelled me to vote yes to move that bill forward. and it's really kind of summed up in a "san jose mercury news" editorial. where they say more than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle and lower-incomed families through tax cuts, tax credits for working families and unemployment insurance. that's the san jose mercury news one could quibble that this bill will be a help to the middle class. you know when i was a kid in school we had a big lecture on how a bill becomes a law. and it sounds so easy. you start in the subcommittee. in one house or the other.

subcommittee marks up the bill, the full committee marks up the bill. then it goes to the other house. they do it. if there is differences, they all meet happily in a conference and chat a little bit and then they find the differences and they resolve them and the bill goes to the white house. the president either signs the bill and everybody celebrates or he vetos it and you've got to get three-quarters of the chamber to override it. it doesn't exactly work that way. in real life. in real life, what you can't really explain in a textbook is that different parties bring different passions to the table. and those passions are held deeply. and if i could tell you where i see the passion coming from, on either side, my view is no science on this. it's just my view. i think the passion that the democrats brought to the table

was that we needed to make sure first and foremost that the people who have been desperately hurt by this slow economic recovery aren't left in a lurk. -- lurch for the next year because even though technically the recession has ended in terms of the gdp growth, the fact is, there's a very painful, agonizing recovery going on, yes, jobs are being created. up to now about 900,000 since january. but it's not enough to make up for the millions of jobs that were lost in the recession. so it's painfully slow. and we're worried -- we brought that passion that we had to make sure that middle class families who lost their jobs don't lose everything else. don't lose their home. don't lose the ability to send their kids to school. that they have this bridge of unemployment insurance.

which by the way they paid for. they have to be actively working -- looking for work in order to get it. that passion we brought to the table. the other passion was to make sure that the middle class didn't get a tax increase. we were passionate on the point. and we wanted tax credits for business that resulted in jobs. those are the passions we brought to the table. i think it's fair to say the passions, the republicans brought to the table were to help make sure that the very wealthiest got taken care of in any deal. why do i say that? it's a fact in evidence. their nonnegotiable terms included extension of the tax cuts to billionaires, millionaires. that was it. passionate. passionate. just as we were passionate about helping the middle class. they were passionate on this point.

and they were passionate and they have been about the largest estates in america. they feel that -- a lot of them don't even think estates should be in any way taxed. now, in america, for many years, we've had -- look, i would call it an epic. that this american dream is crucial. we want everyone to have it. we're proud when people get to be multimillionaires and billionaires. but we have a defense department to run. we have an education system to help. we've got roads to be built. our national security cost money. our domestic security costs money. social security has to be taken care of. people pay into the system. health care. and, therefore, we believe for years -- and it was bipartisan.

about the wealthiest estates to have an estate tax. with something that worked. because frankly somebody who inherits, let's say, a $7 million estate from their parents, they're going to be okay. and by the way, that's a very small percentage. democrats feel, you know, 99% of the estates wouldn't have any tax under our plan. but the republicans were passionate about this. and they wanted $10 million and they wanted a lowered tax rate. so when i write the book, how a bill becomes a law, i would have a different way of writing it. i would say, yeah, technically this is what happens to get us to the president and get the bill -- but what you need to know is, what the passions are. and i think at the end of the day, both sides could come away with this saying what we felt passionate about in this bill is good. now, the one thing that wasn't

addressed in this is the deficit. and a lot of us on both sides feel passionate about that. but i think at the end of the day, there was a decision that certainly understood that this is a stimulus bill. and that we're going to have to do serious deficit reduction. and anyone thinks that we won't have to pay the piper for these tax cuts is living in another world. of course we are. and the question is, do we do it now or do we do it when this economy truly turns around? and then there will be another passionate debate, passionate debate, but who's going to help solve the deficit. i have a feeling you're going to see the same thing. and the democrats are going to say the middle class aren't responsible for this. let's look to the upper income and our republican friends are going to say, it's class warfare. don't look to the wealth. -- wealthy. so we're going to have this

battle again, but i voted for this bill because i think our economy continues to be in a fragile state when it comes to job growth. and i think we had to move forward on this. and i'm glad that we did because this has been the worst recession since the great depression. i hate to remind people of what it was like. but when george bush was president and he came to us with hank paulson, then secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke and they said to us, this economy is going to collapse. nobody is lending. capital is frozen. we're in desperate shape, i have to tell you when the stock market went down, at one point it was almost 50% down. those were tough, tough times.

and we took many steps to get this economy back on track. and i have to say things have stabilized. since january 10, we have added 937,000 jobs to this economy. but because 8 million jobs were lost in this recession, in this great recession, that's just not enough. and the president knows this and that's why he knew he needed to come to us with a framework that basically said we're not going to put a burden on the middle class, they suffered enough. and he had to swallow hard to do things that we know he didn't want to do. but i would reiterate what the "san jose mercury news" said. much more three-quarters spending will go to middle and low-incomed families. and that's an important point.

i have talked about the importance of the extension of unemployment benefits. in my state, more than 400,000 workers in california will lose their u.i. benefits by the end of december, more than 2 million workers nationwide. and i got to say, mark zandi one of jamie's current advisors said who you spend unemployment benefits you would get the best bang for the bucks. i would ask for 2 minutes and then i will stop. >> without objection. >> so this tax bill that i voted to move forward on. will help our working families. there's a 2% on payroll taxes, i know. we have a statement from the executive vice president of the aarp, the association of retired

people, saying the proposal has no financial impact on social security because the trust fund is made whole. and madam president, that is critical and when we have the administration in our caucus, we made sure of that. there's the extension of the child tax credit from the recovery act, the earned income tax credit be the child care tax credit, it's education relief, refundable tax credits for college. and again, those clean energy incentives which were critical of a 1603 provision, job creation tax incentives are indeed tax credit bonus depreciation, veterans work, opportunity credit, small business, capital gains exclusion. in closing, do i feel passionate that the people who earn over a million dollars don't need a tax cut? you bet i do. i am passionate. to me that adds to the deficit while we're in two wars to help people. so many of them say don't even do this.

we had a letter we put in the record from 90 millionaires. they said this is ridiculous. this is ridiculous. so i feel passion about that. that fight will go on because, frankly, it's a disagreement between the two parties. and that's fine. we don't -- we can't be expected to agree on everything. but i think moving ahead with this was very, very important. most economic forecasters estimate the legislation will increase gdp growth. and i think that is critical at this time. my state is struggling 12.4% unemployment. and i didn't agree with two major provisions, the estate tax which is a give-away to states over $2 million and a give-away to the wealthiest of the few and it adds to the deficit because of that. and there's no reason to do it. but on the whole, i think this is something that we should do. and i look forward to getting

this done so that maybe my colleagues on the other side will join us as we finish up a whole list of things that we need to do before we leave for the holidays. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. >> madam president -- [inaudible] >> may i put in the record a tribute to george voinovich? >> without objection. >> thank you very much. >> the senator from texas. >> thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to say that i think the president of the united states and our senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, have done a great job. as i hear the talking heads and the pundits and the different people talking about this compromise, this way forward, i am sure of it. because no one is completely happy with it. people who think that we should have a death tax are not happy with this bill.

people who think, as i do, that the unemployment goes too far and isn't paid for and should have been are on the other side. but we are now faced with a choice. are we going to allow the taxes for every single individual in our country who pays taxes to go up on january the 1st? and we could talk all day about how we should have addressed this much earlier. yes, that's true. but we are where we are. it is now mid-december. and it is long past time when we should have told the american people every family, every business in this country what the tax policy is going to be for two years. madam president, i have to tell

you that i come from a business background. i wish more of my colleagues had had real business experience. because sometimes when i hear the academics and the talking heads and people talk about what we ought to do, some say, well, let's just wait. we can do this better next year. are you kidding me? are you kidding me? have you ever been in the real world? trying to make a decision about whether you can add one more piece of machinery to your factory floor and hire people to run it? or not because you're not going to make the decision if you don't know what your commitments are going to be in taxes. and in this health care bill that is looming before every business nsdz country. -- in this country. now, not only did i come from a business background but i do talk to people in business throughout my state.

and they are not hiring. two-thirds of the jobs in this country are created by small business. and that is exactly what we should all hope for. we don't want jobs to be created in the government sector. that's a cost that you can't recoup. we need to cut down on the government sector jobs and make sure that people in the private sector are working because that is how you build a strong and vibrant economy. and two-thirds of those jobs are small business. and small business people are operating generally at low margins. and they're not hiring people when they know that this health care bill that they are seeing all kinds of estimates on the cost of that to them and their taxes are going to go up. next year. at every level, at every level

taxes will go up if we don't pass this bill. this year. capital gains and dividends are going to go up. seniors who have saved their lifetimes to be able to retire and social security was never meant to be a complete retirement plan. it was meant to be a cushion, a help with your savings that would allow you to have of a standard of living. you talk to a senior today who has saved and they're not earning one penny on their savings, and they certainly are not going to do well if we raise the tax on capital gains and dividends. what are we thinking? to raise taxes on capital gains

and dividends that is the level that allows many seniors to live at a decent standard? what about the tax rates? every person who pays taxes is going to have an increase january 1 because they're going to go into a higher bracket, a higher level of each bracket. now, if we do that, let's go back to small business. nifb, the national federation of independent business which is the largest small business in america says that 75% of the small businesses in this country are taxed at individual rates. so if their taxes go up, that is going to be the barrier to their being able to plan for the future and higher. -- hire.

what people in business want is predictability and stability. that's why having at least two years is so very important. and doing it now so they can plan for next year is so very important. because they're looking for predictability. now, if i had written this bill with nobody else's opinions on this floor, i would have made them permanent. because i know that small business would much rather have the idea for 10 years of what's going to happen or at least five years. but i didn't get to write it by myself. neither did senator mcconnell. and neither did the president. but had we written it, we would have made them permanent. we have all sponsored the bill to make the tax cuts permanent. because we want jobs to be

created in the private sector because those are the good jobs of the future that can be sustainable and grow our economy. if we allow these tax cuts to go up, the marriage penalty is going to come back. now, the marriage penalty is my amendment that finally was put in to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. my amendment was to relieve the marriage tax. the people pay a policeman and a school teacher get married and they go into a higher bracket just because they got married, not because they increased their incomes. and that is wrong. two school teachers get married they go into a higher bracket. but the marriage penalty relief bill that i passed relieves them to the greatest extent. it doubles the standard deduction instead of paring it back. and that's what we need to have.

what about the amt? the amt relief in this bill goes to the very lowest income-earners in this country. if we don't pass this bill, 21 million american taxpayers will have to pay an alternative minimum tax because the government says they're not paying enough. now, i think it's a fair question. at what point does the amt kick in? today, the amt kicks in for a single person who makes $33,000. a married couple that makes $45,000. if we don't pass this bill through this congress and let the president sign it, a married couple making $45,000 will have

to pay the alternative minimum tax. our bill gives relief. the bill that is on the floor gives relief so that it would go up to a married couple making $72,000. not to have the alternative minimum tax kick in. a single payer at 74,000. so the bottom line is, if we think that a single person making $33,000 ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax, then i can't explain it to you. if you think that, i can't explain it to you. i don't. i don't think that single person making $33,000 should be subject to an alternative minimum tax because you're not paying enough tax. the amt relief in the bill will bump it up to a level that is more reasonable, 47.5 for a single person and 72,000 for a

married couple. the estate tax relief i think that was a significant advance for the real world. again, for small business people, farmers and ranchers. if you have the $1 million exemption, you will force farmers and small business people whose equipment is valued at more than it can produce, what happens is the heirs to that estate will have to sell the equipment or the business or part of the farm or all of the farm to pay taxes to the government. and the irony is, the money in an inheritance tax is money that has been taxed and taxed and taxed again. people pay taxes on their

earnings. people pay taxes on their profits in a business. they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings. the death tax -- it does not make sense in the american dream. because we have always said this is a country where you can work hard and give your children the fruits of your labor. but because of the death tax, family businesses are cut by 50% in this country. because the heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. that doesn't just affect the family, it affects the people who work for that family business. i want to keep the american dream alive. and i think the inheritance tax should be gone away with completely. because it is not money that's never been taxed. it has been taxed in our system

again and again and again. every time something is earned on earnings, you pay a tax. so there is no policy reason for a death tax. i didn't get to write the bill by myself and neither did senator mcconnell. we would have made it permanent. but it's not going to be permanent. and it's not going to go away. it's going to be a two-year extension with a $5 million exemption and a 35% rate after that. i think at least if we can allow people to plan for their estates, i hope that we can make it permanent so that people will be able to plan into the far future so that their small business, their farm, their ranch will be able to to be held by their heirs and keep the jobs

that those family-owned businesses have produced. so i just think it is important when we get down to the bottom line, do we pass this bill or not. there's alternatives, you know, what? i want to write it differently. let's wait till next year. first of all, if we do that, and we open up what i think is a very balanced approach, then we're going to talk about this a whole lot longer than about a week next year. it's going to take a while. and in the meantime, people are not going to be hired because small business won't know what they're tax liabilities are going to be. and we will not have this settled for at least two years so that we can talk on long-term tax reform.

i thought the commission that just reported had some very good ideas for tax reform. where everyone would pay more of a flat tax. it would be slightly higher at the higher levels, but it would bring in more than -- and it would lower the tax on everyone and bring in more because it would be simpler and more fair. i think we ought to look at that. we may need to make changes and one way or the other but it's a good starting place. but if we wait until next year to pass a bill, we are going to throw this economy into upheaval. and we will certainly not create the jobs that is the motivation behind this agreement. the president and the republicans agree on one thing. and that is the goal should be to spur the economy and create

jobs. how we get there, we have differences. but at least there are some parts on both ends that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of the jobs so that they can start hiring. and that should be the dispositive part of the decision that we all need to make to vote for this bill. you've written it differently, mr. president, i'd have written it differently. the president would have written it differently. and so would senator mcconnell. if we were the king and queen of america. fortunately, we're in a democracy and not a monarchy. and so we can't have everything exactly the way we want it. this is a good start.

and let me end by suggesting that once we make this decision and i hope that we will make the decision to move forward, i hope the house will join us, then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for two years. people will know what they are going to owe for two years, and they will be able to start making plans on that. but the argument that is being made that this is going to create more in the deficit does need to be addressed. and once this bill is passed, we must get about the business of cutting overall spending in this government. and that not just the discretionary part, which is a minor part of our budget. it is also the entitlements. what can we do to make the

entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to pay for it in a reasonable economy. we must get the debt down. we must get the deficit down. and we will be able to concentrate on that if we get the tax cuts to bed. one of the things we need to address is the implement take of this health care bill. which is the other factor in jobs not being created. right now. i hope that we can repeal what we have passed. and start all over so that the business people know that what we pass is not going to work. it's going to be in the courts for a long time because of the constitutional issues. and let's go about the planning for a health care reform that doesn't put the fines and the

penalties on business and individuals. let's give them options, options so that affordable health care is there for them. we don't have to do that with a hammer. we can do it with options that are incentives for people to get health care because it will be affordable. and let them make choices for what fits their family, not a big government proscribed one size fits all. and let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cut the spending and cut the debt and cut the deficits. and let's set some parameters around extending unemployment so that more people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable for people to start giving back to the

community if they are able-bodied and have been unemployed for two years and more. if we are creative and we work together, we can do this. but tearing this package apart and saying, well, i want it all my way means we are not going to have the stability of predictability that will create jobs starting next year. and that is our stated goal on both sides. i hope the members of the house will realize that anything that we do next year is going to be with a republican controlled house and a republican controlled senate and that means everything is not going to be our way.

but senator mcconnell and the president have done what leaders need to do. they have come together on a bill that will move this country forward, and it will not increase taxes on anyone that is paying taxes today. how can anyone believe that it will be good for the economy of our country to raise taxes in a recession. so i'm sure we're going to hear a lot of debate on this floor about what different individual senators would have done differently. but the bottom line is this senate will overwhelmingly pass this package. i just hope that when all the

debate is finished, that this bill will be finished by the president and we will move forward in a giant effort to reduce the debt of this country. as adult leaders should do. that should be our goal for the next two years as we now have settled the tax cuts issues hopefully we will go with a vengeance with the debt and some tax reform and some reform in the entitlement programs, we can do it. it won't be easy but it can be done. and that's why we ran for these offices. to be the leaders when our country needs leadership. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the senate in recess now as

members take a break until 2:15 pm eastern to attend weekly party caucus lunches. >> "washington >> we're back with steven moore, editorial board member for the "wall street journal" here to talk about this tax cut deal. the senate approved it with an overwhelming vote yesterday, mr. moore. what's your opinion on this? >> you know, i like it. i think it needed to be done and i applaud the president and the republicans and democrats in congress for getting this done.

we couldn't go into 2011 with everyone's taxes going up. everyone agreed the middle class tax cuts be had. so i think this was -- i think that the main result of this, greta will be that it makes the possibility of a dreaded double-dip recession a lot less. so i think for the economy it's going to be a positive but we shouldn't oversell it because remember, this just means that the taxes that are currently in place is going to stay in please. it doesn't mean people's taxes won't go down they won't go up. >> it's written this morning, a missed deal on tax cuts. extending it for this two years would mean, we would be back here in 24 months while the productive sector of our economy held its breath. and, two, the atmosphere uncertainty will continue to cloud our economy. businesses in a free society need one thing above everything

else if they're to thrive. certainty. if they don't know whether taxes are going up in the near future they hedge their. they delay buying equipment and higher few people. but across the sprawling american economy this trend drags us down. unemployment stays high, investment drives up, recovery remains elusive. so people are saying that the economy needs this. but ed fulner is arguing that we've seen businesses staying on the sidelines with all of this cash and they are going to continue to do so because there is no certainty. they haven't solved the certainty problem. >> i mostly agree with that point, you know, the one real flaw in this plan is that we've only extended these tax rate reductions for two years. and so that's right. we're going to have -- you're going to me back in two years and we'll have this whole same debate and congress, of course, will have the same debate and by the way that will be right before the presidential election and that's probably a good time to decide what the future of our tax code should be.

i favor a steve forbes-style flat tax, low rates. fix it once and for all you. let's be the lowest tax rate country in the world. not the highest tax rate in the world but at least in the next two years does provide some businesses with some certainty well, at least they know their taxes are not going to go up. >> is it going to help the economy? >> yeah, this will i think you're going to see a pretty strong 2011 now. i think the economy is picking up. i don't know if you went to the malls this weekend. i sure did and they are pretty fool. people are starting to finally feel they can spend again which is good news. so i think for the next year or so means we're going to have a pretty strong recovery. so far this has been a very fragile and mediocre economic recovery. >> you indicated that republicans shouldn't be too happy about this tax cut deal. what don't you like about it. it >> i'm not sure freezing the tax rates where they are now is enough to get the economy really moving.

i mean, we should be growing, you know, about a 5 or 6% growth rate. we should be producing about 250 or 300,000 jobs a month. you know, our unemployment rate at 10% -- if we want to bring that down over the next couple of years we're going to have to have much more rapid growth. we're going to have to have much faster reduction in unemployment. that's not happening right now. we've really seen, you know, a kind of mediocre expansion at best. >> well, there is talk that when this legislation passes the senate which could be this evening it goes to the house and then the democrats over there don't like the estate tax provisions that have been put in. steny hoyer yesterday was held -- held a press conference where he talked about what significant or nonsignificant changes he may make. i want to show our viewers that and get your wreak. -- reaction. >> he doesn't expect any significant changes made by the -- that the health will make any changes. >> i guess the issue there is what is significant.

we passed a $3.5 million estate tax for -- 3.5 individual, 7 million for a couple, 45% rate. the proposal is 5 and 5. and a 35% rate. it certainly seems to me to be some room for change which may or may not be perceived by some as significant. >> stephen moore? >> first of all, we shouldn't have a death tax in america. this should be a death tax-free nation. it's really part of the american dream that you can build up a business or build up a farm or ranch and leave that to your children. and the idea that the government should be able to keep, you know, half of your lifetime savings at the time of your death is really, i think, just a horrible idea. it's bad for the economy and bad for the american family and american businesses and then the question becomes should there be a renegotiation of this compromise on the death tax? and i'll tell you this, greta, if the democrats try to do that in the house and they try to

say, you know, we're not going to go with the negotiated agreement of 35%. we're going to for 45% the whole deal blows up. i mean, that's how significant -- >> how can you say that, though, when there was 80-some bullets for this yesterday to move forward on it? >> well, because in the senate they voted on the package as it was agreed to by the president and the -- >> but my point being, it looks like they've got room to lose some votes. >> no, no. i guarantee you, if the democrats try -- there's you remember this from the play ground, a deal is a deal. if the democrats say, you know, we made this deal but now we're going to make some changes to it, i guarantee you republicans will say no deal. we're walking away from this. we'll fix this in january. you've made a deal, mr. president, now your democrats in the house are trying to change the deal and we're not going to try to negotiate under those conditions. >> tax rates for middle class americans will go up under that scenario? >> that's right. if the democrats blow up -- >> it's a political risk that you think the republicans should take? >> this is a risk -- look, this

is a deal that 10 days ago the president sat down with the republican leadership and said here's what i want from you. i don't think this is the most wonderful deal in the world. there's a lot who object to this. i think the president has to understand and i think bill clinton made this point when he spoke at the white house a few days ago, you know, the conditions for the democrats are only going to be worse in january because the republicans take over the house. they'll be negotiating at that point from a much stronger hand. so i've talked to the republican leaders in the house and the senate. they've assured me they will not allow this deal to be, you know, broken. and renegotiated. that's not the way you do compromise. >> unemployment benefits, also included in this package. it's written from the "washington post" the idea that unemployment benefits are just subsidizing unemployment, it speaks to a real detachment from what it's like to live in a hard hit state right now. when you hear the unemployment is near 10% you always have to remember that's an average for about half the country it's worse than that. he says for some of the country

it's much worse. what's stopping people in nevada from getting jobs isn't too much unemployment insurance. it's too few jobs. moreover, when a city has 20% unemployment a lot of the remaining jobs in that city are relying on the purchases funded by those unemployment checks. rip them out and the unemployment problem will get worse, not better. just too much unemployment insurance can reduce employment in a tight economy too little can reduce employment in a weak economy. >> well, that's just bad economics. obviously you don't -- you can't make the economy stronger by paying people not to work. there's this mythology in washington that somehow extending unemployment benefits helps the economy. that's impossible. you can't help the economy by paying people essentially to not be in the work force. however, i mean, if we're going to do this as a humanitarian policy, fine. you know, i'm all in favor of giving people, if they lose their job in a tough economy be -- giving them three months or six months or even nine months of unemployment benefits. but we're talking here, greta, giving people two years of

unemployment benefits. i don't think that's fair to people who's working 60 to 70 hours a week at two or three jobs to make ends meet. this is an admission -- the fact that we have 10% unemployment rate two years after the president launched his stimulus plan. one of the things i think we can all agree on now is that $800 billion stimulus plan we passed two years ago has been the most expensive public policy flop in the nation's history. i mean, how do democrats explain after spending nearly a trillion dollars we still have 10% unemployment. we were supposed to have unemployment less than 8% if we spent this money and unemployment goes up. i think that's what's exciting about this deal is we finally agreed that spending stimulus doesn't work. now we're trying a more traditional republican reaganite type of approaches. >> charles writes, this is the swindle of the year. he says the negotiated the biggest stimulus in history.

it will pump a trillion borrowed chinese dollars into the u.s. economy over the next two years. which just happened to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. this is a defeat? >> charles is a dear friend. i admire him so much. this is one of the few of the times i actually ever disagreed with him. this is true it will stimulate the economy because tax rates will be lower than they would otherwise be. it's keeping the capital gains low and keeping the dividend tax low and making sure business taxes don't go up. look, we shouldn't -- we want to do whatever we can to put america back to work and i think tax rate reductions is a way to do it. >> phone calls, silver spring, maryland, ann lynn on the democratic line you're on the air with stephen moore? >> caller: thank you, i have two points i'd like to make. one is this wonderful newt gingrich strategy of saying the same word over and over and over as though telling a lie would make it the truth if you say it more times. this word "uncertainty." these so-called job creators. they want the certainty of

having everything they want like school yard bullies their way or no way. i don't have certainty every morning. kids who go to school does have certainty they will get a job. people who work three jobs at minimum wage don't have certainty they are going to be able to pay their bills but they get up and do their jobs and about the stimulus and how it's working, this stimulus has given the so-called job creators, the big banks, the big businesses a huge pile of money to play monopoly. they haven't used that money to create jobs. they've used that money to consolidate their positions to buy each other out and to get bigger and bigger and bigger because that worked so well for us. >> ann lynn, i think we got your point. stephen moore, banks hoarding their cash. >> it is true that large -- we had that story on the front page of the "wall street journal" a few days ago that american corporations are sitting on about a trillion and a half dollars of cash.

that's a lot of money for them that should hopefully be invested in the economy and use to create jobs. now, i think the reason that they're not using that money right now is because there has been an environment in washington for the last couple of years that has been very hostile to business and it's not just all the talk about taxes which i think has hurt investment by business bus it's also been the health care bill that's going to add democratic costs to businesses. i think the most important thing we can do if we want to increase jobs is to repeal the obama-care bill but it's also -- just to give you an example of about a week or so ago the president announced that he's not going to allow drilling for oil offshore. well, that decision is going to cost the american economy hundreds of thousands of jobs. that's just one example of how regulations can just be such a detriment to did. we should be doing everything we can in washington to create jobs and instead washington is an inhibitor to job creation right now. >> i've read companies, though, saying that the reason why they're holding onto this money is 'cause the demand isn't there.

consumers aren't spending. >> it's partly because consumers aren't spending but the major reason that companies aren't spending right now is because they don't have any idea what the regulatory climate is going to be like next year and the tax climate is going to be next year and what they will have to pay in health care. just as an example, i was in dallas, texas a few weeks acgiving a speech there talking to small businesses and a guy who owns a restaurant there said, you know, the obama-care bill is going to cost me $1100 more per employee well, if you add those additional costs onto the backs of the nation's employers, guess what? they don't have as much minimum left over to hire more workers. >> next phone call comes from oklahoma. mike, republican line, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: in reference to the estate tax part of the bill -- or the compromise, i come from an area with large cattle ranches. this is grazing country in the part of oklahoma that i'm in. everybody is land-rich.

and i don't know anyone who hasn't had estate planning and have their trusts set up and all the devices to operate their trusts. >> right. >> caller: it seems totally unnecessary to have this in the bill. and that's all i had to say, thanks. >> first of all, one of the things that's kind of insidious about the death tax it requires people to do all of this estate tax planning which is just a waste of resources. you know, whether you think, you know, it's a good tax or a bad tax in terms of, you know, whether people should be able to pass on this wealth to their kids and their grandkids, one thing i don't think people realize about the estate tax, all of this stuff about tax, do you know how much money this tax raises 1% of our total federal revenue. we could get rid of this tax entirely and would probably get rid of all of this crazy estate tax planning and hiring all these lawyers and accountants. it would probably free up resources for the economy and, you know, what? i think we'd actually get more

money into the treasury if we got rid of this tax. but it's preposterous that we spend so much money and people have to spend so much time on a tax that only raises 1% of our revenues. >> "the washington post" revised estate tax would deprive the treasury $68 billion over the next decade depending-foot current law with a 55% tax starting in january. >> yeah, 68 billion over 10 years but remember over 10 years the federal government is going to raise $30 trillion of revenue. >> what about -- what about some sort of compromise on the estate tax if you don't -- if you think 35% is too high? i mean, do you agree there should be some tax -- >> no, we should get rid of the tax. >> well, some argue capital gains in essence and why not tax the capital gains? >> that's exactly right. you get an a for economics, greta. you got it absolutely right. the best way to tax this -- let's say you inherit money from

your father or your grandfather, or grandmother, what you should happen is you should pay the capital tax on the money that hasn't been taxed before and that's 15% and that's the way we should tax it but not tax it at 35 or 45 and under current law which is 55%. >> gwen in mark as an independent. mark you're on the air. >> caller: good morning, c-span. >> good morning. >> caller: and "good morning america." i just have to say something about the tax bill and what the elite is doing to the united states of america. they are withdrawing all of the nation's wealth out of the country and they are pumping it all of the world's poor into the country. once they get it all done, kaboom! bye-bye america. we had better stand up and get this stopped. the elites have highjacked the most powerful government in the

world, the united states of america federal government and they are using the powers and technologies of that government to benefit themselves. >> well, i agree government is completely out of control, sir. i think that's one of the reasons we're in the economic mess we're in right now. and i also agree, you know, one of the problems in washington today is we don't focus on economic competitiveness what do we have to do to make sure that america retains its economic superpower status? that we become the country that is the leader in technology and the leader in job creation and the leader in innovation. and, unfortunately, when we have some of the highest tax rates in the world, we have a legal system that is broken, when we have an education system that's broken, when we have a health care system that's broken, all of these institutions of government, i think, are broken. and it's the patriotic duty of this new congress and president obama to start doing something to fix these things and so far that just hasn't happened. >> a tweet here from a viewer says if tax cuts stimulate the economy why do we have so much unemployment after nine years of tax cuts?

>> well, actually here's the facts on the matter. in 2003 we had the big investment tax cut that's now being debated whether to extend that. now, people say wait a minute that didn't create jobs. well, actually if you look at what happened from 2003 through 2007 over that four-year period, the united states created 8 million jobs. and that's a pretty good record. we would love to have 8 million new jobs created over the next four years. that would be the average of 250,000 jobs a month or about three times as many as we created under president obama's stimulus plan. so i think the evidence is very clear that tax rate reductions are tied to job creation. look at what happened in the periods of great job creation in the united states the 1920s and the 1980s and the later in the 1990s were precipitated by tax rate reductions. so i think the evidence is pretty clear. you want to get more jobs and cut people's taxes and they reinvest it in the economy. >> houston, texas, tony, democratic line. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call.

there is no doubt that tax cuts create jobs but the jobs were not created here. tax cuts were given to create jobs here especially the second tax cut after the 9/11 debacle. what did businesses do? they went overseas and created jobs there. there was a 20% tax cut in 2001. there was a 50% tax cut in 2003. after the 9/11. how many jobs were created in this country from 2001 to 2008? contrary to what mr. moore said, there were 3 million jobs created and not 8 million. what we're witnessing with businesses is what we have been seeing since the 1960s and '70s. at that time businesses set up nontax businesses. there they would have access -- they would do like a seven-year

tax-free and after 6 1/2 years they would leave from one island and go to another. what they have done now is that they have gone through a bigger thing -- they're doing it to countries like india and china and pakistan and all in asia. so we're seeing is that we're having to rule by the corporations and by the corporations and for the corporations and businesses are just vampires sucking the blood of the sufferers. >> tony, we'll leave it there. stephen moore? >> well, there's a lot of concern in this country about outsourcing of jobs. everybody is concerned whether their jobs are going to get outsourced. how do we make sure that it doesn't happen and how do we make sure jobs stay here and they don't go to china or india or indonesia and these other countries. i'll tell you one thing we can do is a good start. we can't go forward in this without highest corporation tax in the world. there was a report put out last

month that says that the united states has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. that means we're taxing our corporations at a higher tax rate than 99 out of 100 of the rest of the countries. that is unpatriotic to support that. we've got to bring this corporate tax rate down. even president obama's own tax reform commission headed by paul volcker who said this is hurting american competitiveness that is why making sure these tax rates from going up and to prevent -- it's very simple if you have location a and location b and you raise taxes in location a and you cut taxes in location b, guess what? businesses and people leave location a and they go to location b. this isn't complicated. it's amazing that so many people in congress, you know, right across the street don't understand that. if you raise taxes companies leave. if you cut taxes they come. >> nashville, germany on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning, jeremy. >> caller: well, you know, i'm

tired about hearing increasing taxes. why don't we start talking about decreasing spending in this country? i mean, there is so much money that is wasted in this country, on all kinds of frivolous expenditures. no one ever talks -- not the democrats, not the republicans, not the independents, nobody talks about decreasing spending. and until we get our budget right, this hopeless situation is going to go on forever. we need to stop spending. we are hemorrhaging money. >> jeremy, jeremy, spending, was that a big issue for you in this last election? jeremy, are still with us? >> you know, what? it was certainly a big issue with voters around the country. >> so what do you make the first legislation since the election, big legislation, is a bill that adds to the deficit? >> well, first of all, let me

step back a minute. i probably went to anywhere about 50 congressional districts in the last month before the election. all the candidates were talking about -- at least on the republican side was cut the spending. cut the spending. stop the spending. that was the message that the voters sent. now, look, you get to do two things to get this deficit under control. number one you have to get the economy growing again. if we don't get this economy growing again, it doesn't matter how much they cut, you're never going to have enough revenue to balance the budget. this is something john f. kennedy said in the 1960s. so we do have to, you know, concentrate on number one getting the economy growing again. then the second step which starts by the way, greta in january when republicans take over congress is really take an ax to the budget and this gentleman was exactly right when he said there was so much waste in washington. i saw a poll yesterday that americans believe 30 to 40 cents of every dollar they send to washington they believe is wasted. i believe that's a pretty good -- pretty good accurate figure about one-third of the money we spend in this town is

going to wasteful duplicitous inefficient programs. and we have to start cutting out things that don't work. >> what are you hearing from republicans about when they take control, what's first on the chopping block? >> well, i'll tell you. the obama-care is. we can't -- we certainly can't afford to put 30 more million people under a government health care system when we can't even afford the programs that we have right now. so we absolutely have to cut that $2 trillion entitlement. we have to start over and do something that actually cut the health care cost. then i think republicans that i've been talking to -- i had a conversation with the republican leadership about this last week was saying, you know, one of the things we want to do as a start is just cut every program across-the-board. just, you know -- just every agency is going to have to tighten their belt by 5 or 10 or maybe even 15%. i think that makes a lot of sense, greta that businesses have been doing. when everyone has really suck in their belly and cut their expenses why is it only government gets to grow? >> well, they agreed to cut at the pentagon?

>> you know, that's an interesting question. i certainly would oppose some cuts. i think there's -- there's some waste in the military in the pentagon that could be rooted out. some republicans are saying they want to increase the defense budget. so that's yet to be determined. >> "the washington post" this morning says obama's chief economic advisor noted in his speech yesterday that boosting the economy is the most poet potent form of deficit reduction with each additional percent of growth in the gross domestic and to bring down deficits by $40 billion. >> that's the point i was making. >> baltimore david on the independent line. >> caller: thank you for having me. mr. moore, if c-span viewers -- most of the time we are much smarter than the average person. i think you're just being disingenus when you talk -- the biggest portion of our budget as you know is social security and the defense budget. and the republicans -- i'm an

independent. but i want to cut everything. including the defense budget. there's areas in defense, there's places where we are where we should not be and we need to cut -- we could cut that. health care, if somebody goes to the hospital without health care and they can walk into an e.r., we have to give them coverage. no matter what. pablo breaks his legs and he goes to the hospital he's getting a cast and he's getting stabilized. and who does that cost goes to? well, the cost goes to the american who has insurance. in the form of his premiums going up. it gets spread all around. >> david, in baltimore is arguing -- disagreeing with the judge in virginia who's basically saying when it comes to this mandate for health care coverage, inaction to get health care is action against purchasing it. >> yeah, that was an amazing --

i'm not a legal scholar, but i was -- it was an amazing decision yesterday. i agreed with it. i don't think there's anywhere under the constitution under the commerce clause or the taxing clause that the government has the authority to make people buy insurance. i looked wide in the constitution and i have not seen anything that allows that. this decision, i believe, greta, will eventually go up to the u.s. supreme court. and there's ways we can cut health care costs and i agree with this gentleman by the way. we're going to get this budget down and i've been tough on republicans for the last 10 years. i think the reason republicans got thrown out of office in 2006 and 2008 is they didn't cut the budget. they allowed in all of these programs like, you know, bridge to nowhere in alaska and all these projects that americans just thought were, you know, excessive spending, republicans forgot why voters sent them there. and they better not screw up this time because if they do, i think there will be a third-party challenge to the republicans. >> david was an independent. >> right.

>> and he's saying cut the defense department. >> yes. >> do you think it will be a big statement by republicans if they turn around and then increase the budget for the pentagon? >> that's a really tough question -- i mean, look, first of all, on defense and i'm not a military expert but the defense budget over the next five and ten years will happen in afghanistan -- we have to win the war on terrorism. that's for sure. we have to spend whatever it takes to win the war on troughism. war on terrorism. i think there's ways we can cut costs there and i don't think any agency of government should be immune from the cost-cutting that needs to happen to balance this budget. >> next phone call, win gap, pennsylvania, ralph, republican line you're on the air with stephen moore from the "wall street journal." >> caller: yes, i've been a republican all my life. i voted for ronald reagan. i changed. they have the people so mad right now. there's got to be a third-party.

it's out of control here. don't they realize -- are they really that dumb in washington, d.c., that they don't see what's happening? thank you. >> you know, i saw that everywhere, greta, i went during the campaign season. i mean, that caller, you know, is indicative of the way so many americans feel. i think that's the reason why you add hundreds of thousands of people on the mall a couple months ago, protesting the unconscionable increase on the debt and spending that happened -- >> we'll leave the "washington journal" now. the senate just gavelling back in after their party caucus lunches. more work is expected on the tax cuts and unemployment benefits deal. live coverage on c-span2. giving us the great honor and privilege to represent them. this is an extraordinary body, the senate. it's filled with wonderful people. i look around in room, and i see

a lot of friends, people that i've had the chance to do work with, i admire immensely. and i thank them for their friendship. and when people ask me about leaving the senate, what's the thing i'm going to 34eus the most, i always say it's the people. the people in the senate, because they're special. dedicated to making this country a better place. dedicated to doing their jobs well, dedicated to serving -- serving america. and so i thank you for the great honor and privilege that you yoe given kathy and i to serve and participate in this body with yourselves and your spouses. i want to thank everybody else who's been so helpful throughout our creerks the folks here at the dais, the staff, the cloakroom, throughout this building. i mean, there are so many people that make this senate work, people working in the furniture room and people working in the

hallways, our staffs, obviously. this is a special place filled with people who are committed -- committed to making the senate work well. and i thank them for allowing me to be part of that. allowing kathy and i object to part of that. but i want to take a point of personal privilege here and especially thank -- and especially thank my wife kathy, who is here today. now, you're not allowed to acknowledge people, but i'm going to violate the rules, mr. president. my wife is sitting up there. [applause] mr. gregg: thank you. we've been married 37 years and for 32 of those years we've held elective office. nine major campaigns,

innumerable campaigns, like those for other people that we've participated in. and through this whole intensity -- and we all know who participate in this process, the intensity of the process. there harass has been a rock and a solid force -- there has been a rock and a solid force in our family. she is she's raised two exceptional children in our family, molly, ver and joshua. some of them think they're aging a little bit, but they're still young. and their value system and their belief in this nation and their willingness to give of themselves to other people is a direct expression of the values that kathy has given them, sometimes a little overcompetitive on occasion, but that has been one of her strengths also. and we've been through some hard and some good times and she has been there to be our lighthouse. so i express my love to her and thanks.

bismarck at the beginning of the 20th century said -- first i should say, kathy told me i shouldn't walk back and forth like this. i've been doing it for 18 years and she says it makes people sick watching it on tv. it was like the famous time she called out -- we were having a colloquy. i'm talking to i think johnny isakson, she calls the floor staff and says go out and tell him to turn around and face the cameras. bismarck at the turn. 20th century -- bismarck was one of the true great forces in europe throughout the late-1800's and into the 1900's -- said that the defining fact of the 19th century was that england and the united states spoke the same language. what i think he meant was that the defining fact of the 19th

century was that england and the united states had a value system which believed in the individual, in liberty, democracy, and markets. it was a value system that grew out of the scottish enlightenment -- people like john locke, adam smith. and the 20th century, if you look at it was a test of that value system against the other value systems which had come up over the years, mostly totalitarianism. it was a test of democracy against fascism, it was a test of totalitarian socialism, and we won. we won that test. it was also -- the second big charge of the 20th century was, it was a test of how you would create prosperity for people. a test of markets versus communism, of markets versus

again totalitarian socialism. by the end of the 20th century, there was no longer an issue, no longer an issue. ththe american philosophy of governance had come to com domie the world. democracy, individual liberty, and markets. the whole world was moving in that direction. now we're 10 years into the next century, and we are challenged again -- challenged again. this time the challenge is different, substantive, significant, maybe not at the same level that the soviet union represented a challenge because they had the capacity to destroy us, maybe not even at the same level that the fights against japan -- fascist japan and fascist germany, but the challenges are huge and they will determine our future as a country, and they basically in

my opinion break into two primary areas. the first is, of course, the threat of a terrorist group using a weapon of mass destruction against us. and we must acknowledge that 9/11 fundamentally changed our culture. it changed our personality as a nation and caused us to realize our vulnerability. that threat of terrorism is driven by a fanatical belief in a religious philosophy. and we shouldn't deny that. we should acknowledge that because in order to defeat that threat, we have to understand that. the second major thrust that i see as our concern as we go forward is clearly of our own making, and it is a positive making, but it is still an issue, and that is that we have a nation which has always been extraordinarily prosperous where

one generation has always passed on to the next generation a better, more prosperous, more secure country. and yet today we're on the cusp of not being able to do that again. because we have this population of which i am a member, called the baby-boom generation, which is taking our retired population from 35 million to 70 million people. and as a result, we and the rest of the world -- and japan for that matter -- because of this demographic shift find our self confronted with governments which are struggling how they're going to pay for what our entitlement societies. the way i sort of phrased it is that when a populist government, a government that moves by election of the people, when a populist government meets a massive demographic shift in an entitlement society, you get unsustainable debt.

and that is something we confront right now. and we need to stand up to. those two streams are our biggest concerns, or at least my biggest concerns as i leave the senate. how -- how do we defend ourselves against a fanatical movement, which is asimple mettory -- which mass an asymmetry base, which wants to do us harm. they are not a nation staivment you can't find them easily. but they want to do us harm and will do us harm if they have the capacity and will do it with a weapon of mass destruction. and, secondly, how do we deal with this shift in our society, this aging that is driving the populist movement, which is making our structure of government unafoferreddable in many ways? -- unaffordable in many ways? well, america's greatness comes in our ability to address issues like this and comes from our people and from our constituti constitution, and it's that constitution which embraces

basically the liberties that allow our people, allow our people to create prosperity and give this nation its strength. our freedom and prosperity is absolutely r resilient. there's no question about that. but government can either be an enabler of that freedom and that resilience or it can be a stifler of it. and whether or not we are going to succeed, i believe is whether or not we continue to assert the core values which allow us to govern well and they all basically arise from our constitution. i have the good fortune to sit at the webster desk. daniel webster was the senator from massachusetts. new hampshire in an act of appropriate stealthiness had the desk designated to the senior senator from new hampshire by statute in the 1970s. it is a great honor to have the right to sit at this desk.

webster and clay kept this nation together at a time when, had it been torn apart, it would have no longer existed because we were not capable -- we had no lincoln and we had no strength of the north to survive. and webster in his speech on the compromise of 1850 said, "i mean to stand upon the constitution. i need no other platform. i know but one country. no man can suffer too much. no man can fall too soon. if he suffers on or if he fails in defense of the liberties of the constitution of our country." and at the center of our constitutional form of government, which was designed by madison and randolph, which was built on the concept that there should neverren be -- never be an overly powerful branch of the government, at the center of this government is the united states senate.

it is the caldron of liberty for our nation. why is that? because it is the place where issues are aired, people are heard, amendments are made, and no one gets to shut down the minority until a supermajority decides to do so. the rights of the minority are the source of the power of our government. they are the source of the power of our constitution. they are the source of the power of our liberty. and this is the center. this institution is the center of the rights of the minority. i've been in the minority here. i've been in the majority here. it's almost irrelevant from a standpoint of the importance of the role of the senate. because it is the senate that gives voice to all americans. it does not allow us to shut out any american or any thought process in america that is

legitimate and which can come to the floor of the senate and make -- make its case. i've often wondered, what would this government be like if there were no senate? well, it would be a parliamentary government. for all intents and purposes, moving -- lunching to the left, lunching to the right -- lumping to the left, lumping to the right. and as a result in many ways undermining individual rights, but more importantly, having no continuity of purpose. or force. we play politics in this city and in this country between the 40-yard lines for all intents and purposes. we are not the government that ever moves too radically left or radically right. and that's the way it shouldn't. -- and that's the way it shoofnlt that's the way it should be. in this institution, compromise is required.

to govern you must reach agreement. we are 300 million people. obviously of a diverse view. if we're going to govern 300 million people, we must listen to those who have legitimate views on both sides of the aisle. so, as i leave this chairnlings i just want to say this simply: it's been a huge honor to have the chance to serve here. it's something that is the highlight of our career, kathy and mine. we move on with reservations, but we hopefully move on to something equally as interesting. but it will never be -- have the same status as being in the united states senate. this to me is the ultimate job when it comes to the governance of america. and i simply ask you who stay here -- and i know this will be done -- to continue to carry the torch. understand that it is the senate that is the center of the liberty that leads to the prosperity that our people expect.

it is the center -- senate that the the center of our constitution. thank you very much. [applause] mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would hope that it's not the intention of the senior senator from new hampshire to leave the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the accolades that our friend and colleague, the senior senator from new hampshire, has just received from both sides of the aisle are richly deserved and i would hope he might be able to stay just a bit longer, as some of us have a chance to comment on his extraordinarily distinguished career. he's devoted his entire life to public service. always served with a deep sense of purpose and with the overriding conviction we must leave america in a better place than we found it, as he just so articulately expressed. he's worked tirelessly for the people of new hampshire and for all americans and he's been a truly invaluable member of the

republican conference. he's the smartest guy in the room, usually the most strategic, and as witty as they come. and yet even as judd's national profile has increased over the years as a result of his many natural gifts, he never lost sight of where he came from or the people he represents back home in new hampshire. now, judd grew up in nashua, in southern new hampshire, was introduced to the world of politics early on. in 1952, when he was just five years old, his father, hugh gregg, was elected governor of the state. judd went on to phillips exector academy for high school and in the mid-11960's and to columbia

university after that graduating with a degree in english in 1969. it was an eye-opening experience being in new york city. particularly in those years. and judd took it all in. he jokes that his minor in college was subway exploration. even as he witnessed all the student demonstrations and clashes with police on campus, he found time to dress up as the school's mascot for a time, the columbia royal lion, working the sidelines at games. judd returned north to attend law school at boston university and got his j.d. in 1972 and then an l.l.m. in tax law in 1975. and then he returned to new hampshire to practice law. meanwhile, he began to venture into new hampshire primary politics, coordinating the

primary campaigns for ronald reagan in 1976 and george h.w. bush in 1980. it was during this time that he really developed his conservative principles. and over the years, he stuck to those principles and the voters have rewarded him for it. never lost a race -- not one. part of the reason judd wins is that he's not afraid to lose. he'd rather lose for the right reens than win fo -- right reasn for the wrong ones. over the years, he's become something of a political legend in new hampshire, and for good reason. he's the first person in new hampshire history to serve as congressman, governor, and senator. first elected to congress in 1980, where he would serve four terms, and then in what some viewed as a political gamble, he

followed his father's footsteps to run for governor in 1988. he was elected and easily reelected in 1990, and during his second term, new hampshire, like the rest of the country, faced a difficult recession. but laced with pressure to raise the state's income tax or sales tax, he cut government spending instead. the new hampshire union leader would later credit judd as being able to manage the state through the crisis far better than anyone expected, and the "wall street journal" ranked him ninth in their good governor guide for cutting spending and keeping a lid on taxes during a serious budget crisis. in 1992, judd decided to run for the u.s. senate on his strong record of environmental protection and fiscal discipline. he won a close race, and upon narveg thiarriving in this chamd immediately set out to work for the people of new hampshire. and i know one of the things he's proud of in his nearly 17

years in the senate is the work he's done to protect more than 300,000 acres of land in new hampshire from development. he can also be justifiably proud of the remarkable work he's done as the republican -- the top republican on the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee, and, most importantly from our conference's point of view, on the budget committee, where his knowledge and command of the issues has always impressed the rest of us. he was clearly the right man for the job. and when -- when the budget came up -- and i think we would all agree on our side of the aisle, when judd stood up and had something to say, everybody quieted down and listened. and you can't say that about all of us on every issue all of the time. we recognized his talents from the very beginning. just two years after arriving here, he was selected to serve as chief deputy whip as well as cochairman of senator dole's senate agenda committee, a working group tasked with

developing and managing the republican agenda back at that particular juncture. it was the first time in 20 years that a senator from new hampshire had served in a senate leadership role. he never hesitated to work across the aisle to get things done. judd understood that to make something happen in this body, as he just described, it happens between the 40-yard lines, and that means both sides have to participate. he teamed up with senator kennedy to coauthor "no child left behind," referring to that particular accomplishment, judd once said, "i don't think any of us ever gave up our basic principles. ted just understood that even though he had strong beliefs, he understood you had to legislate to accomplish things. there was no point in just standing off in the corner and shouting." history will remember that judd also played a central role in congress' response to the

financial crisis of 2008, which we all remember very, very well. with our nation on the brink of economic collapse, i knew i was to select one person to represent our point of view at that critical moment. the choice was completely obvious. the one person we had that everybody knew had no other agenda and would at the end of the day do what was right for the country. so i made him the top republican negotiator on the emergency economic stabilization act, now infamously referred to as tarp. his top priority then and throughout the entire debate over the effort was to assure that the original package protected the taxpayers by including language in the bill that stated all the proceeds from the paybacks would go to

reducing the debt, and he did a fabulous job. it was because of judd's principles, intelligence, commonsense, and ability to work across the aisle, as i just indicated, that i asked him to join my leadership time after he was elected republican leader. i've relied on him heavily these last four years. judd has been right in the middle of every legislative debate we've had since i've been in this position and he's never disappointed. he's been so effective, in fact, that senator reid gave him a couple of nicknames late in his career. first, this was senator reid about our colleague about him, i'm speak, first he called him the -- quote -- "see if we can mess up the legislation guy." after that, he described judd

as, somebody -- quote -- "who comes on to the basketball game tonight score points, just to kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a different direction." and i think judd and i would both agree that's a heck of a compliment. in fact, this is senator gregg's reaction to those nicknames give to him by the democratic leader. "i appreciate the senator's comments. i take them as a compliment. i've been active legislatively. that is, obviously, our job." it's funny how people see things differently. i never saw judd as a bill lambier-type player out on the court just to rough people up. i always saw judd just sticking with the basketball metaphors for a moment, as the intelligent point guard, as the ideas guy

with the extraordinary judgment, as the type of guy who could see the whole floor, the big picture and could make the unselfish play that would win the game. and over the years, that's exactly what judd did for our team. he's been instrumental -- he's been instrumental in our efforts to hold the line, slow down, or call out the democrats these past two years in particular on an agenda that we viewed as deeply harmful to our future. he's been an indispensable member of the team.

in fact, i'm not sure where we would be now without him, and sometimes i've wondered where we'll be a few years down the road without him. but he leaves his example and he leaves the knowledge he's passed along along the years and we'll all continue to draw on that in the years ahead. now, judd was recently asked what the hardest thing about being a senator was, and he answered without hesitation. "the hardest thing," he said, "was being away from his family." it's another principle he never, ever hedged on. he said, "i made a decision early on in my career which i've carried throughout my career

that if the choice was between being here and being with something that was important to my family, i'd be with my fami family." family. now, maybe my children feel differently but i don't think i've missed anything that was really critical in their upbringing." which brings us to kathy. as judd indicated, a wife of 37 years. a cherished member of the senate family. we're so grateful for kathy's grace and patience with the demands of public life. along with her important work in education, promoting the arts, the environment, and historic preservation, as well as her

work in raising awareness about child abuse. somehow she and judd's three children, molly, sarah and joshua, all managed to put up with judd's three decades of public service. and we thank them all for sharing judd with us all these years in washington. one of judd's greatest assets as a senator has been his profound love for this institution and his gratitude for having had a chance to serve as a member of it. he never took this place or this job for granted. as he once put it, from my first day in the senate to today, i remain in awe of this fabulously interesting place, which he just expressed again. when i'm on the floor and i look around and take in its history, it never ceases to hit me that this is the most successful deliberative democracy in

history. it's an honor to serve there. now, to say that i tried to convince judd to stay is an understatement. but he knew it was his time to move on. and to write the next chapter -- next chapter in his life. and while senators come and go all the time, i can't help but note that when judd walks out of this chamber, when he walks out of this chamber for the last time, he'll leave an enormous void behind. and so i'll close, old friend and colleague, by saying that

you're certainly going to be missed. we wish you well in your future endeavors. thank you for your service. you've done an extraordinary job. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. a senator: mr. president, i want to say a few words about the senator from new hampshire as well. mr. enzi: i've had the pleasure over the years of serving with whim and watching him and learning from him as we did once again today and it's always amazing at these going away speeches that we learn things that we didn't know about them during the 18 years that they serve. i appreciate senator mcconnell's comments and some new insights there. but i know that senator gregg at

one time moved from being the chair of health, education, labor and pension to being the chair of the budget and this gave me the opportunity to be the chairman of health, education, labor and pension, and for that i'll always be grateful and i hope i've made good use of the things that -- that he taught me when he was in that position. i know that no one knows better how this senate operates and the procedural details that -- than the senator does. if i were on the other side of an issue and i saw senator judd getting up to plead his case, i know i'd feel a sense of grave concern as i listened to him that would only increase in strength and intensity. it's always a worry for one side if he unfolds. if he is on the floor to express support for my position, i would watch him with great relish. he's a brilliant legislator and oort ar because he follows the

admonition of rudard kipling. once he determined right thing to do and how to do it, he would calmly come up with a plan of action that made it happen and follow his strategy step by step without wavering from his plan. in all my years in public life and as an observer and participant i don't think i woulworked with anyone quite lie him. no one speaks better off-the-cuff like he does. his natural talent for the art. he knows the right words to say and how and when to say them for maximum impact. that means more -- that means that more often than not he knew how to present the perfect argument that could not be refuted. year after year that great talent has shown itself on the floor and in committee as he took a more and active role in our deliberations on a long list of subjects including but not limited to budget reform, education reform and entitlement reform. he has, for instance, been a

strong supporter of the need for congress to take action to address the problems currently facing social security, medicare and medicaid. this has been mostly evident as the ranking member of the budget committee and an act ifl member of the president's national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. to put it we did if not better. i ask permission that my full statement be made part of thenoe has plans for the comingingin about we h heard the last from judd gregg. this is good for all of us, as well as the younger generatat bo continue to spend their inher transto such an -- hair transto the extent that they'll be left

with an economy so slow and weak they won't be able to pay it off s to make great deal of pain and sure that they have the same advantages and ability to access the american dream we've had. there's a native american saying, we have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children. if we follow that lead; we'll able to ensure that their future will be as promising as they have every right to expect and demand. and before i close, i'd be remiss if i didn't say a quick thank you to your wife, kathy. as we both know there are a lot of late night trips home and abroad with little notice and things that we have to deal with because they come with the job the our wives never complain but we both know they have every reason to do so. they probably don't because they know as well as we do that we couldn't do what we do without them by our side.

they're our greatest friends and most trusted political advisers and always make sure we're headed in the right political direction. i think kathy deserves a word of thanks. together you've been a remarkable team. that's why new hampshire is so proud to claim both of you as your own. in the days to come diana and i will not only miss you and kathy, and fortunately we know where to find you, right near the ocean. we had so much fun there when we had a chance to explore it there with you this year. the fishing was pretty good and the scenery was magnificent. coming to wyoming any time. good luck in your future. thanks for all you've done for us. the presiding officer: the anartica from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm honored to be here on the floor today to join senator mcconnell and my other colleagues in recognizing the service that senator judd gregg has provided to the people of

this country and for us, importantly, to the people of new hampshire. i've had the good fortune to know senator gregg since i first got elected to public office. in the new hampshire tradition, you learn to work together with people on both sides of the aisle for what's in the best interest of new hampshire and senator gregg has been a fine example of that tradition. i've enjoyed working with him over the years and his presence here in the chamber and the senate halls will be missed both by me and as we've already heard by the rest of our colleagues and i think as senator gregg was giving his remarks, the number of senators who were here to say good-bye shows the respect and the -- how much he will be missed by all of our colleagues. throughout my own public life, rival always appreciated the the civil -- public life, i've

automobile appreciated the civilly that senator gregg showed me. when i was elected it was then governor gregg who swore me in for the first time. when i was elected to the united states senate, he was the first republican to call me not just to offer his congratulations, but to offer his advice and help and getting started here in washington. the senator and i have followed similar paths to the senate. although his service has been longer than mine. though we're the same age, so i won't say that your service has been older than mine, judd. but i think that experience, both of us having served as governor, leading new hampshire, has given us a much more similar mindset than most people would expect. i think it contributes to our concern about controlling the debt and ensuring that this government is functioning in the best interest of all of its

citizens and i, again, appreciated his commitment to addressing that debt for future generations in his remarks this afternoon. while we haven't always agreed on the best approach to solve those problems, senator gregg's civility has never wavered. since coming to the senate, i noticed that he extends that same civility and courtesy to colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a town not always known for its good manners, senator gregg reminds us we can disagree without being disagreeable. senator gregg, of course, is known for his expertise on vej vegetary matters. his expertise will not be easily replaced especially at a time when our nation so urgently needs a new hampshire-style approach, strong, bipartisan, and no nonsense. it's a concern about the deficit

that we share and i hope that in some small way i can continue his search for solutions to this challenge. thousand, what might be less known to people in washington, though senator mcconnell mentioned it, is senator gregg's passion for the preservation of open lands. he's a conservationist and a -- in the fine republican tradition of teddy roosevelt and preserved the wonderful legacy of forests an lakes. for those of you who may some day visit the new hampshire state house, you'll be surprised to see that senator gregg appears in his formal gubernatorial portrait in the mountains of new hamp shies, as i think -- hampshire as i think is fitting for somebody who cares about the environment. in 2001 when i was governor and senator gregg was here, we worked together to preserve the connecticut lakes head waters,

171,000 acres, it was the largest contiguous block of land in new hampshire in private ownership. with his leadership, we were able to ensure that future generations could enjoy the beauty of this beautiful working forest and part of new hampshire. now, as another well-known senator, again, one that judd alluded to when he spoke, daniel webster once said, we have been taught to regard a representative of the people as a sentinel on the watch tower of liberty in the senate and in the governor's office senator gregg has served as that sent mal. he -- sentinel. he will be missed. i join my colleagues and the people of new hampshire wishing him and kathy and his whole family well in his future endeavors. thank you. i yield the floor.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i listened this afternoon to senator gregg's farewell address, i thought about how much all of us who have been privileged to serve with him will miss his wisdom. but for me mr. president, the loss will be even more intense for there is no one to whom i have turned more often for advice during the past 14 years than my neighbor from new hampshire unless, of course, it was his wife, kathy, who also gave very good advice. judd's extraordinary knowledge of so many issues, his keen insights into policy and

politics and his abiding friendship have met -- meant so much to me. i truly can not imagine a debate in this chamber about the budget, spending, entitlement programs, or taxes without his leading it. given his strong work ethic, his commitment to the prosperity of future generations, and his unwavering dedication to doing what is right, i am confident that his clear call for action on our fiscal crisis will continue to be heard and to be influential in the debates ahead of us. raised in a family devoted to public service, congressman,

governor, and now senator gregg has always been guided by the principle that the public interest is paramount and the public's trust is essential. as a strong voice for fiscal discipline and champion of bipartisan solutions, senator gregg has always upheld those principles. he faced up to the looming entitlement crisis and our inequitable tax system by introducing comprehensive bipartisan bills to address both concerns. his sponsorship of legislation early this year to establish a bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility brought to the forefront of the national debate

our debt, a debt that america can no longer ignore. senator gregg's service on the president's commission demonstrated his determination to present to the american people an analysis of the tough choices we must face and the means to return to fiscal sanity. as always, judd has been dedicated to one goal, ensuring that our country's children and grandchildren inherit a just and prosperous nation where the american dream can still be a reality for millions of hard-working families. the idea of saddling future generations with trillions in

unpaid bills has always been an anathema to senator gregg. although fiscal issues have been judd's passion, the soaring and unsustainable debt has not been his only focus. for example, two years ago, senator gregg helped lead a coalition that called for a bipartisan national summit to develop an energy strategy for our country. he recognized, he warned against our overreliance on foreign oil as threatening our nation and forcing one energy crisis after another on the businesses and families of our great country. senator gregg has been a powerful advocate for a commonsense, achievable energy policy that balances increased

domestic production, conservation and the development of alternative and renewable fuels. and as his colleague from new hampshire mentioned, judd's work to preserve open space in new hampshire has led to the conservation and protection of more than 330,000 acres of sensitive land, leaving a tangible legacy for future generations to enjoy. senator gregg has also committed to strengthening our national security. in 2005, i was honored to join with him and thousands of people throughout maine and new hampshire in saving the portsmouth naval shipyard, which

is, by the way, in kiterring, maine, not port smith, new hampshire, but it was a great effort. standing under senator gregg's leadership, our delegations working with the people of our two states prevailed. in addition to saving the shipyard, judd has been in the forefront in strengthening and modernizing it, and thanks to his efforts, the united states navy submarine fleet remains unsurpassed, our nation's shield and our sword. as chairman for years of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, senator gregg recognized the threat that we faced from radical islamic terrorism, and he ensured that the resources were provided to help protect our homeland, while

eliminating funding that was ineffective or extravagant. mr. president, this is quite a career. throughout his long and distinguished life in public service, judd gregg has been a champion of good government, an independent and creative thinker and a bipartisan problem solver. he has fought for the public interest and has earned the public's trust. and i know that not only the people of new hampshire and maine who know him well but people all across this great country join me today in thanking senator judd gregg for his exceptional leadership,

countless accomplishments and fierce dedication to our country and the state that he loves so much. we wish both judd and kathy all the best. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, during the 1980's, somehow the united states senators took a survey among themselves about who was the most admired member of the united states senate, and according to press reports, senator howard baker of tennessee was the most admired senator, both by republicans and by democrats. if such a survey were to be taken today, judd gregg would certainly be at the top of that list for most of us. there is not a better member of the united states senate. much has been said about him so i'll say three things quickly because there are other senators who wish to speak.

first, judd gregg is of new hampshire, not from new hampshire. we say well, sometimes senator so and so is from tennessee or from new york or from south dakota or from maine, but a senator whose roots are really where roots are supposed to be is of his state. judd gregg sounds like new hampshire, he acts like he's from new hampshire, he is from new hampshire, he votes like he's from new hampshire. the old man of the mountain, which is a rock that was up in new hampshire, those of us who have been there a lot, would drive by and see it, fell down a few years ago. i thought, well, maybe the best way to replace it is just put judd gregg back up there because he is of new hampshire. second, judd gregg is a very good politician. i know that from direct experience. there is such a thing as the gregg machine in new hampshire.

those who have the temerity to run for president find that out. it was on the other side of my efforts when i was there, and just to give you an example, one day a reporter asked me, well, mr. alexander, what's the price of a gallon of milk? of course i knew what a gallon of milk costs, but i made the mistake of turning around to someone and asking just to make sure what it was, a press person overheard it, and the next thing i knew the gregg machine had spread that all over the state as if this fellow in a red and black shirt didn't know what the price of milk was. so they are a very intimidating, effective crowd in new hampshire. the third thing and the final thing i'll say about judd is one reason that i admire and like him so much is that i so often agree with him, on conservation issues, on education issues, on fiscal issues, but especially on his view of this body which he expressed so eloquently many times, but in his remarks today.

judd gregg knows and understands that this body is the citadel of the protection of liberty in our government. he said that today. it is the place where we avoid the tyranny of the majority. it is a place where the voices of the american people are heard, where we have open amendment and open debate. he has been an effective advocate for that. he understands that we are not just a debating society, that in the end we're a governing body. that the purpose of our 60-vote majority is to force consensus and a compromise so that we can act, so that we can do our jobs. so he leaves a wonderful legacy as many friends here, he will continue to have many friends here, and the senator who is of new hampshire who is a pretty good politician and with whom i so often agree. and my special best wishes to his wife kathy.

i also agree with her. thank you. a senator: mr. president? mr. corker: i thank the senator from south dakota for allowing me to speak for about 60 seconds. i don't give long speeches on the floor and seldom use notes, but i really -- i know that senator gregg knows this, but i have been here four years and i can honestly say one of the greatest highlights in my four years has been being able to serve with senator gregg. i know of no one in the senate that i hope to be remembered even close to as far as my service. i know of no one that i think creates a better example for those of us in the senate. i know of no one that i respect more than senator gregg. i know that he knows that.

i know that his wonderful wife kathy knows that, and i think upon his departure, there will be a tremendous vacuum. i think all of us understand what each of us is going to have to do to try to fill a component of the shoes that you have -- or the example that you have set here. so, senator, i just want you to know that you certainly have raised my thinking as to what it means to be a senator in the united states senate. each of us have frailties and each of us have strengths, and there is always going to be occasions when senators cause us to -- to rise up because they inspire us, they do things that are aspirational, and there are always going to be times when senators disappoint us because we are human beings, and that's the way the -- that's the way

human beings are. but i can say that you more than anybody in the senate have caused me to want to be better more times than anyone and have disappointed me fewer times than anybody here in the senate. i will miss you, i wish you well, and i thank you for being my friend. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i also want to join with my colleagues today, and before i speak to the issue of the day and express my appreciation to senator gregg for his great service to this institution and to our country. i think it's fair to say that there is nobody quite like judd gregg. he really is one of a kind. and i remember when i first got here, i -- i thought that he didn't like me, and maybe he

didn't like me, but i concluded that part of that was just his serious misdemeanor. he's a guy who means business. once you get to know him, you not only appreciate that side of his personality, but you also gain an appreciation for the incredible wit and sense of humor that he also possesses. and i have had the opportunity to experience that on many occasions. and the thing that i think the institution is going to miss the most, and certainly as someone who cares a lot about the future of this country and the policies that we put in place is his abilities and his great skill and his great talent. it will be a real loss to the united states senate because judd gregg has a mind like a steel trap. he is able to analyze with great effectiveness the issues of the day, to explain them clearly. he is someone who i have tremendous respect for. he has been a great mentor, a great leader and someone as i said before that we are really,

really going to miss around here, and i can't say enough how much i appreciate his service and the service and the sacrifice that his family has made. he served in public life for many years, both as a congressman, a governor and a united states senator. his wife kathy is, -- like many of our wives, puts up with a lot of things. judd, like me and like many of my colleagues, i would say, i think probably married over his head. or as one of my friends said, outpunted his coverage. but we are grateful for the service of his family and are going to miss the many contributions that he has made, but probably none more than the passion with which he approaches this job and the passion with which he approaches building a brighter and better and stronger and more prosperous future for future generations. there has been no clearer voice on the issue of fiscal responsibility, no clearer voice when it comes to the important tasks that we have in front of

us here to insist that we take steps and that we put policies in place that will make the country stronger and better for future generations. i want to compliment as well my colleague from new hampshire. as i have heard folks down here from other parts of the country, and as someone who comes from the midwest just say how much i appreciate judd gregg, the incredible contribution that he has made. i like so many others are going to miss him greatly. mr. president, let me, if i might, just speak to the issue that's before us today because we are debating a tax proposal. on january 1 of 2011, just 17 days from now, families and small businesses across this country are going to see their taxes go up if congress doesn't take action on the tax relief proposal that is currently before the united states senate. now, there are elements of this proposal that i don't like. i think it's fair to say that there are a lot of us in here

who if we were able to write this certainly wouldn't have written it exactly in the fashion that we have it in front of us today. but letting the perfect become the enemy of the good will result in one thing and one thing only, mr. president, and that is higher taxes across america in two weeks. now, it's easy to stand on the sidelines and to criticize this proposal, and it's perhaps even politically expedient to stand on the said -- sidelines and criticize this proposal, but let me make one thing very clear, mr. president: advocating against this tax proposal is to advocate for a tax increase. ans something that we cannot and the american economy cannot afford. it would be great if we could wait a few weeks until we have the changeover in the congress. i frankly would be very happy to see a bill written a few weeks

from now when the newly elected republicans are going to be sworn in. but that is a luxury that doesn't exist because of this reality that we have, this deadline looming in front of us. if we wait for the perfect proposal, the perfect agreement, then american families and american small businesses are going to pay higher taxes just two weeks from now. that's not a scare tactic. that's not political posturing. that, mr. president, is simply a fact. taking action now to prevent this tax increase would do a number of things. first off, it would protect 21 million households from being hit by the alternative minimum tax in the year 2010. it would preserve relief from the marriage penalty. there are many provisions in the tax code today, some of which have been addressed in previous tax law, expiring tax law, that lessen the impact of being may rid. we eyeically, in -- we ironically punish people for

being married in this country. mr. thune: and it would protect farmers and ranchers from a death tax that would confiscate over half the value of the family tpafrplt what would happen if we don't pass this tax proposal? according to a number of economists, you're going to see a drop in the gross domestic product from somewhere between 1.7% to 2%. that's according to tpraoeuft economists. even the -- private economists. even the congressional budget office suggests next year you're going to see a 1.4% negative impact in our economy, in the gross domestic product if we don't take the actions necessary to prevent these tax increases. failure to act tphourbgs according -- failure to act now, according to the tax foundation, would cost the average family in south dakota about $1,700 in higher taxes. the average american household would be faced with higher taxes to the tune of about $3,000.

if we don't take the steps that are necessary to address the death tax, on january 1 the death tax kicks back in at $1 million, $1 million exemption, and everything above that would be taxed at 55%. so imagine the impact on a farmerer, rancher, a small business person in this country and what this would mean. as i said earlier, this is not a perfect agreement, but no compromise is. the fact that we are dealing with democrats who still run both the house and senate and the white house, if we want to stop taxes from going up on everyone, we're going to have to figure out a way to get that done. without action and we stand around to try to debate the perfect, taxes are going to go up on families and small businesses and our economic recovery is going to stall oufplt i think it's also important note it will take a toll on financial markets.

if we don't take action to prevent this crisis looming in front of us, we can expect the 9.8 unemployment rate could go significantly higher. i would argue, mr. president, that inaction is not an option. advocating against this proposal is no different than advocating for higher taxes. i hope that my colleagues will see their way to support this today and to support it in big numbers because it will go from here over to the house of representatives, and they're going to look closely at the vote coming out of the united states senate. i think it's fair to say if and when it gets to the house of representatives that it will pass provided that the united states senate sends a very strong message. and i think consistent with the will of the american people, who according to public opinion polls and one as most recent as this morning, 70% of americans believe and agree this tax proposal ought to be enacted and signed into law. the real issue, i think, mr. president, that affects our

fiscal situation in this country isn't the fact that we don't have enough revenue. it's that we spend too much. if you look at the -- it's an empirical fact. if you look historically at what happens when you lower taxes -- look at john f. kennedy, ronald reagan, george w. bush, in recent history, any time you lower income tax rates, you get not less revenue but more. that's an empirical fact. you also get a growing economy. when you have a growing economy, obviously it is creating more jobs and that's what we want to see happen. we want to get this 9.8% unemployment rate down. i would argue, mr. president, that the issue that we have in front of us here with regard to spending and deficits and debt doesn't have to do with the fact that we don't have enough revenue. it has to do with the fact that washington spends too much. and that, mr. president, is where we ought to be focusing

our efforts. if you look at the last half century i think the amount we spend as our gross domestic product hovers in the 20.5% rate. today it's about 24%, 25% we're spending on government as a percentage of our total economy. we've complicated and added to that burden by enacting major legislation in this last year, the massive new health care entitlement program when it's fully implemented is going to cost on the order of $2.5 trillion. we've got lots of other legislation that moved through here. the stimulus bill was $1 trillion of borrowed money which didn't have the desired impact. the one thing we know with certainty at least based on history is that when you raise taxes, you get fewer jobs. when you lower taxes, you get more economic activity and more jobs for the american people. and, frankly, more revenue. that helps to deal with the issue of the deficit and the debt. in this particular proposal there is some new spending. there's unemployment benefits

included in here. i would like to see that offset. i have an amendment that would do that that would pay for additional spending in this bill. we're not going to have the opportunity to offer amendments but there are going to be a couple of motions offered by my colleague from oklahoma, senator coburn, motion to suspend the rules and pay for the additional $56.5 billion in new spending as a result of extending unemployment benefits in the bill. i think that's important for us to do. since we started, we got into this recession, we spent about $124 billion that we borrowed from future generations for these extensions we continue to pass for unemployment benefits. this particular one would take us up to almost $180 billion in borrowed money to pay for these things. it makes sense in my judgment when you're spending new money that you ought to offset or pay for that. frankly, i would like to see that as part of this proposal. it's not in there. i have an amendment to rectify that which won't be considered. but i will support the motion to

suspend the rules and pass a pay-for for the unemployment benefit extension that the senator from oklahoma will offer later. all that to say again, mr. president, that the real issue here, in my judgment, comes down not to an issue of revenue. it comes down to an issue of spending. i think the american people recognize that. i think that's why there is such broad public support for this tax proposal because the american people recognize that you can't raise taxes in the middle of a recession and expect the job creators in this country -- our small businesses -- to create jobs. it's counterintuitive and it defies all empirical knowledge and experience that we have to suggest otherwise. i think, on the other hand, the american people do believe that government has gotten too big, that it is growing too fast and that it needs to be reined in. that's where we have got to attack the spending side of this equation. and i believe that when the new congress is seated next year

that there is going to be an intense focus on this issue of spending and it's high time that happened because it's high time that we get the debt, the deficit issue that will plague future generations under control. and the issue, the real issue here with regard to that, mr. president, doesn't have to do with revenue. it has to do with spending. so i would urge my colleagues to support this proposal. as i said earlier, it's not perfect; certainly not in my estimation nor i think in the eyes of many people who have looked at this. but on the other hand, it does prevent us from january 1 seeing a massive tax increase, the largest tax increase in american history start to hit american families and american small businesses. and that's why i hope we'll be able to pass it out of the senate with a big bipartisan vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first i ask unanimous consent that kim homadichi be granted

floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, for more than 50 years the federal government provided students with grants and loans to help pay for college. that's a public-private partnership between the government and students, between our taxpayers and students. it's an investment premised on the idea that higher education will strengthen our society by giving more americans the knowledge and skills to get better jobs and to be able to give back to their communities. i know firsthand how higher education can transform one's life. i went to college on student loans and law school on the g.i. bill. that's why i spent my career in congress fighting to ensure that all students who wish to learn, who wish to get a college degree also have an opportunity to do so. i worked on the appropriations committee to expand funding for pell grants and student support programs, and now as the "help" committee chairman, i've worked to expand pell grants to make

sure our student loan programs are well run. in the past two years congress has provided significant new resources to help students to access and finance a college education. in 2008 we increased the amount of stafford loans that undergraduates can borrow by $2,000 a year. the recovery act of 2009 provided another $17 billion to the pell grant program. the recent reconciliation law added another $36 billion to pell grants over the next ten years. so the congress has made hard choices to secure these increases for financial aid programs. the money is an investment in our nation's students and also in our country's future. for that investment to pay off, we must ensure that students are being well educated and that schools are using federal dollars responsibly. to ensure that our investment is paying off, earlier this year i initiated an oversight investigation into one part of the higher education system.

the for-profit education companies. education companies that also make a profit for shareholders and investors are growing at an astonishing pace. enrollments, profits and share of the federal financial aid budget going to those schools are skyrocketing. in 2008, these schools, these for-profit schools accounted for 10% of the students enrolled in higher education. but those students received 23% of federal student loans and grants, and they accounted for 44% of the defaults. again, for-profit schools 10% of the students got 23% of the federal loans and grants and accounted for 44% of the defaults. so confronted with numbers like these, i became increasingly concerned that a significant share of our federal investment in higher education is being misused and that some companies

are using the federal aid program as a cash machine to drive up profits as their main purpose. across the country some higher education companies are using a high-pressure sales force, persuading consumers in search of the american dream to go deep into debt to purchase a product of often dubious value. default rates are sky-high. taxpayer money is being squandered. top executives walking away with fortunes. you might think i was talking about the subprime mortgage industry which came crashing down two years ago because that does describe it. but what i just described is also the situation created by many for-profit colleges. just as in the subprime mortgage crisis, countless thousands of ordinary americans are being harmed in the reckless pursuit of profits by a few. this summer i heard testimony from yazmine isa, a single

mother of twin girls. two years ago she went back to school to earn her degree in medical stepb nothing if i. she went -- stenography. she went online and found a publicly traded company. the folks at sanford brown sold mrs. issa on the value of her program, they told her how it would help her provide for her daughters. she enrolled and paid out $29,000 for an 18-month program. the recruiters at sanford brown did not tell her that she could have gone to the local community college and received the same degree for $7,000. they also didn't bother to tell her that her degree at sanford brown wouldn't even allow her to sit for the stenography exam. they didn't tell her that without passing the exam she

would not be able to work as a stenographer. after $29,000 invested, 18 months of hard work, she couldn't sit for the exam. ms. issa is not alone but she and students like her are the reason i decided we in congress need to take a closer look at this for-profit college situation. after three hearings, i believe it is an important time to report back to the senate on what we have found to date. today i'm going to take the time to walk through the findings of each of these three hearings, talk about the problems facing students and taxpayers and conclude by talking about where the "help" committee investigation is going in the coming year. the first hearing: what are for-profit colleges? we held our first hearing in june following dozens of troubling reports about students being ripped off by for-profit colleges. "the new york times," bloomberg news, front line, even good housekeeping reported

extensively about the growth of federally funded for-profit higher education corporations. our first task was to get a sense of what these for-profit colleges were. how big they were, how well were they serving our students? given that these companies receive almost all of their revenue from federal dollars, one would think that almost awful this information would be easily available to the public and not require a congressional investigation to unearth. but, unfortunately, that was not the case. first, what are for-profit colleges? for-profit colleges are -- quote -- "proprietary institutions, as they are known in the law, are institutions of higher education that provide a program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. essentially, when we created the federally financial aid program back in 1965, we recognized that career, or vocational schools,

as they were then known -- career or vocational schools -- most of them were privately owned -- played a valuable role in our education system and that the people who attended the schools should be able to get financial aid to attend them. at the same time, we required these schools to demonstrate that students were being prepared for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, something we do not require of two- and four-year programs at public and nonprofit schools. so today we find ourselves in a world where proprietary schools offer everything, from basic skills training to liberal arts and graduate degrees, and for-profit schools enroll not a few hundred students but in some cases a few hundred thousand students. now, if these schools were providing high-quality education, most of the students, those numbers would be a cause for celebration. instead, they are a cause for concern.

and these concerns are long sm -- are long-standing. 20 years ago sam nunn of georgia held a series of hearings looking at the for-profit sector and because of the problems they found, they initiated a series of legislative fixes to ensure that for-profit schools were a good investment for students and taxpayers. as with many laws, 20 years have taken their toll and those reforms have been almost completely rolled back. we find ourselves today facing some of the same problems, with few tools in place to provide genuine oversight of our taxpayers' investment. what hasn't changed is that unlike public or nonprofit schools, proprietary schools are legally bound -- legally bound -- to operate in the interests of their owners. as the companies have gotten larger, they've been transformed from mom and pop operations into high-growth, high-investment,

big businesses. 15 for-profit education companies that operate 69 schools with an enrollment of 1.5 million are actually publicly traded on the new york stock exchange or an nasdaq. another 43 for-profit education companies operating 65 more for-profit schools or at least -- are at least partially owned by private equity investors or hedge funds -- hedge funds. the result is that the vast majority of for-profit schools have prioritized growth over education noshed to satisfy the demands of their -- in order to satisfy the demands of their investors. in fact, growth and return on investment for shareholders is their legal obligation. so it shouldn't price us that educating students is taking a back seat to just getting more bodies in the door.

growth. for-profit colleges traded in the stock market is a relatively recent phenomenon that has created a drastically transformed land skip for us -- landscape for us here in congress, legislators. in 1992, the last time congress took a serious look at this sec fer under senator nunn, there were no publicly traded for-profit higher education institutions. nun. zero. in 2010, 15 publicly traded institutions enrolling hundreds of thousands of students are in existence. that's just publicly traded. there are many, many more that are equity owned, owned by equity investors or hedge funds, which also did not exist 20 years ago. to satisfy shareholders, publicly traded schools must constantly focus on growth, measuring up to wall street's

laserly like attention to quarterly enrollment statistics. publicly traded schools must also generate higher revenues while keeping down costs, including teaching costs. these schools do this by raising tuition, increasing the number of enrolled students, which in turn increases the amount of federal student aid dollars flowing to the schools, but it doesn't necessarily do anything about the quality of the education received. a focus on growth at the expense of student outcomes is not just the province of the publicly traded companies. as i said, increasingly hedge funds and private equity firms invest in for-profit colleges and manage the business end of the operation. for example, how many people know that goldman sachs -- yes, the same goldman sachs -- is the owner of more than one-third of the publicly traded edmc -- a privately traded college -- the

ormter of something called the art institute and brown mackey, these are for-profit schools. a vice president and a managing director of goldman sachs sit on the edmc board. these firms are interested in short-term profit and have no interest in the long-term educational outcomes of the students attending the schools. this certainly isn't clear to the students that the school is owned by a bunch of wall street investors. i had this chart printed up here. this is not all of them, but these are for-profit schools owned by private equity and hedge funds that we were able to come up with right away. now, how many students signing up at rasmussen college or morrison university or the institute for business and technology or beckfield college or chance letter university or ashworth college, florida

coastal school of law -- how many students signing up for this know that they're owned by private equity investors or hedge funds that operate these schools? they sound like they're just legitimate kind ever colleges. an estimated 1..3 million out of 1.8 million students teandersing schools in 200 l were attending schools owned by wall street investor. out of 1 pie 8 million students going to for-profit compledges in 2008, 1.3 million students were attending colleges primarily owned by wall street investors. again, this landscape wasn't around 20 years ago. in fact, most of it wasn't around 10 years ago. here's how the hedge fund owners of westwood college -- westwood college down here someplace -- westwood college here. the hedge fund owners of westwood college state on their web site, "they always keep

their eye on the ball of what is best for the business over the long term." not students, not the education of students, but they keep their eye on the ball of what's best for the business. the hedge fund. funny, i that yo thought the bae should be keeping our eye on is how well we're doing educating students with the taxpayers' money. westwood is under investigation by the attorney general in colorado. it's had its operations shut down in texas and has been told not to operate online in wisconsin. no accrediting agency actually seems willing to acknowledge that it accredits this school. yet westwood college turned a profit of $46.7 million in 2009. $46.7 million. owned bay -- owned by a hedge fund. to distinguish them from

distinguished four-year colleges, it is real lay misnomer. since they are largely federally funded through student loans, grants, and military benefits. as a group, these publicly traded companies receive at least 85.6% of their revenue from federal dollars of one sort or another. that's for-profit? under current law -- under current law these companies cannot get more than 90% of their revenue from student loans and grants. we call it the 90/10 rule. to me, that seems like a lot. for these companies it is not enough. according to an internal lobbying document from the career college association released by the new america foundation, one of the top priorities for the for-profit college trade association is to roll call that rule and increase the amount of federal dollars these companies can get from the government. 90% isn't enough.

well, they've clearly done a good job. since at least six of the companies -- kaplan, ecpi, t.u.i., a.c.c., remington and vatterot get more than 90% of revenues from the federal government. now, you might say, wait a second, senator harkin. i that you just said they're limited to 90% by law? true, that's how they get around it. the university of phoenix, for example, in its sacramento report ang acknowledged that it received 89% of the revenues from stafford loans and pell grants. document requests that we got indicate they received an additional 1.5% of revenues from other federal sources, including military benefits. that means that even the largest for-profit school -- phoenix -- is receiving more than 90% of

their revenues from federal taxpayer dollars. again, how do they do that because if you get military money that's not counted in the 90%. that's counted in the 10% that's kind of -- quote -- "private." let's get that again. if they enroll a military person who gets g.i. bill benefits and they put it into that's schools, that's not counted as part of the 90%. that's what their nice lobbying got done for them. so they don't abide by 90%. some of them get more than 90% of their money from the federal government. so again, just looking at phoenix, the university of phoenix took in more than $1 billion in pell grants last year, $1 billion in pell grants, more than $3 billion in federal student loans, $4 billion in revenue from the american taxpayers for just one company in one year.

more thank 93% of the students in these schools take out federal student loans and the loans go to these schools. by relying so heavily on federal subsidy, these for-profit colleges have privatetized the process of collecting federal subsidies but they've left the students holing the bag. the cost of a subpar education at a very high price. of course the term "for profit" is not completely misplaced because regardless of how poorly students perform, as long as these companies can demonstrate enrollment growth, they remain profitable. in 2009, the same 30 schools that received 85% of revenues from federal dollars generated $3.5 billion in profits. for the hedge funds, the equity investors, or stockholders. shareholders. together the schools, get this,

mr. president, together the schools last year -- together, all the schools -- had a profit margin of 19%. how many businesses in the state of west virginia have a profit margin of 19%, i ask? or iowa? but that's overage. some schools had profit margins of 33%. the highest we found was 36%. 36% profit margin, last year. and where did the money come from? the taxpayers. the taxpayers of america. not a bad deal, if you can get it, huh? and then -- and then look at what happened with the executive salaries. so that 85% to 90-plus percent of the revenues coming from the taxpayers really paid for some high executive salaries. "businessweek" recently reported that the c.e.o. of strayer -- strayer, one these schools -- strayer was paid $41.6 million

last year. that's the president of the school. 26 times the highest salary paid to a nonprofit or public university president -- 26 times -- probably more than that at university of west virginia or iowa state. combined the executives at the 15 publicly traded schools received stock. let me repeat that. over the last seven years, these executives that run these schools started dumping stock. they started selling all their stock back. you know what they got? $2 billion in the last seven years from the sale of their stock. un, if they love these schools so -- you know, if they love these schools so much, you think they'd be investing the money in these schools to help some of these students, maybe tutoring, some kind of support mechanisms for these poor students that come in that don't have an experience of going to school, that they would be doing everything they could to make

sure that students who came in stayed and didn't drop out. huh-uh. they just sold stock, walked away with $2 billion in the last seven years. the co-c.e.o. of the company that owns the university of phoenix was paid $11.3 million last year. that's more than seven times the $1.6 million paid to the highest paid head of a nonprofit, more than 14 times i, just found out here, the compensation paid to the president of harvard. hmm. boy, they're walking away with money. well, that was our first hearing. what are these schools? now, our second hearing that we had in august, we featured testimony from the government accountability office, the g.a.o. focused on how for-profit schools go about recruiting students. we had heard companies with these private schools complained that their rapid growth was nothing more than students voting with their feet. unfortunately, the g.a.o. and our witnesses, including a former recruiter at westwood

college -- i just mentioned -- made clear that for-profit college growth is actually the result of an aggressive, well-funded marketing effort by the schools, including lies and deception. using undercover agents and hidden cameras, g.a.o. presented a troubling picture of student recruitment. undercover investigators from g.a.o. visited 15 campuses of 12 companies -- 15 campuses of 12 companies -- and they found misleading, deceptive, overly aggressive or fraudulent practices at every one of those campuses. every single one. we watched the films. we watched them. they had these little hidden cameras and microphones. we watched them in our committee hearing. startling. startling. students were lied to about the cost of the program, about what they could expect to earn, about

how many students tbrad waite waited -- graduated, whether their credits would transfer, and whether the program was accredited. they were misled about whether their student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy. and even were prevented from having a conversation with a financial aid officer until after they signed on the dotted line. so you sign on the dotted line, then you get to talk to the financial aid officer. that doesn't happen at west virginia university or iowa state. you can see the financial aid officer and see what you're eligible before, before you decide to go there -- eligible for before you decide to go there. now, i want to just digress for a minute, mr. president, about this dischargeable in bankruptcy. that's one thing that very few of these students know. let's face it, a lot of these students are -- are -- are -- come from low-income families -- and i'll goat that also in a -- get to that also in a minute, they probably had a good educational experience in secondary school, but they want to better themselves. and so they listen to this hig high -- high-pressure sales

tactics. what they don't know is if they borrow this money -- and the other thing these schools do, they get these kids on-line and stuff and they call them on the phone and then they say, don't worry about a thing, we'll fill out all the paperwork, we'll take care of all the paperwork, and based upon what you said, you're eligible for this much pell grant -- you'll get the money -- and loans and you can get these federal loans. and we'll take care of all the paperwork. you don't have to worry about a thing. you just sign up. what the students don't know is that the loans they're taking out can never be discharged. never until they die. now, we talk a lot about the subprime and how many people were left with houses they bot both -- they bought and they couldn't pay for. here's one difference. you can walk away from the house. if you buy a car and you get a loan on a car and you can't make it, you can walk away from the car. students cannot walk away from

these debts. once that school gets that money and they drop out, they got that debt hanging around their neck. and do you know what happens -- and i'll get to this later too -- those students then can't go on to another school, they can't get another loan, they can't do anything until they pay that debt. the federal government will be after them on that debt even when they get social security, they'll go after the social security payments. how many students would borrow $29,000 if they knew that? if they knew that debt will be yours until you pay it off? they don't know that. they drop out of school, they think they borrowed the money, they gave it to the school and that's it. not true. and schools don't really inform them of this. the committee received recruitment training manuals from several different campuses. they have one thing in common -- manipulation. get this, and this is written up, they encourage their sales staff to identify the emotional weaknesses of prospective

students, to exploit the pain to motivate students to enroll. again, don't take it from me, a recent "business week" article described a document from kaplan university that urged recruiters to focus on -- quote -- "the fear, uncertainty and doubt of their prospective students." these recruitment practices are more like caricatures of boilerroom sales tactics than trying to get one someone a good education. these abusive recruitment practices result in students unprepared or poorly matched to their academic programs with the high probability of dropping out, leaving school not with a degree but with a mountain of debt. some for-profit companies spend in excess of 30% of total costs just to fund an aggressive sales force. 30%. of total costs just on their sales force. these abusive practices so widespread that g.a.o. found them at every campus of every

company it visited, are the symptoms of a very sick industry. while g.a.o. made some minor revisions and clarification to the long list of misleading practices that it documented and that the industry has now tried hard to use to discredit the work of the g.a.o., the essential finding stands, that every single school engaged in misrepresentation, deception, or outright fraud. i urge anyone interested to go to our committee web site, the "help" committee web site, and listen to those g.a.o. tapes for themselves. in fact, the 30 companies from which i requested information spent a combined $4.12 billion in marketing in fiscal year 2009. $4.12 billion they spent on marketing. and if you say, well, what's wrong with that? well, just think, 85% of that came from the taxpayers. six companies, apollo wall den, grand canyon, bridgepoint, strayer and i.t.t., actually

spent more than 50% of their revenues on a combination of marketing and profit. so you add up their marketing and their profit -- over 50% of their revenues. the second "help" committee hearing made clear to me that the problems of the for-profit sector cannot be chalked up to a few bad actors. the opportunity for great profit in spite of poor student outcomes has become the bits model in this -- the business model in this sector. i became worried that this approach characterized by aggressive recruitment, high-cost, high-debt, low graduation rates was creating a vortex, sucking in even the good actors in the industry. i mean, think about this business model. think about it. if you're one of these for-private schools, these for-profit schools, you make the most money by recruiting the poorest students. now, here's why. because if you get the poorest

student, mr. president, they're eligible for the maximum pell grant. you get the poorest student, they're eligible for the maximum federal loans. and that's profit. that's profit to these companies. so they are the business model. and since they, the companies, are legally bound to try to increase their returns, either to their equity investors or hedge funds or their shareholders, they have to have this growth. so they keep aggressively recruiting more students. and the poorer you are, the better they like it. it gives them more money. and then if you drop out, no skin off their teeth. they don't owe you anything. so the poor students get recruited. they don't get any support or very little. little help. they drop out. i have a chart, i'll show you that after a bit, and they got all this dell and the schools

have -- all this debt and the schools have all the money. that's the business model. that's the business model. the "help" committee held its third and most recent hearing in september with the focus on answering the question: what is happening to all the students that these schools are pushing so hard to bring in the door, the ones i just talked about? unfortunately, according to information provided by the 30 schools and analyzed by our "help" committee, it appears these students are not fairing very well. at the 30 companies we analyzed, 54% of the students who came in the door in the 2008-2009 school year had left without a degree by the following year. okay? at 30 companies that we analyzed, 54% of the students who came in the door that year left the following year without a degree. they just vanished. 54%. one out of every two. they just left. that number is striking.

we know from the department of education that nearly every student at a for-profit college will take out a federal student loan. and, of course of course, of cot their pell grants too. that means more than half of these students are being saddled with debt and dropping out without a degree. the numbers are even worse when we look at students enrolled in associate's degree programs. associate's degree programs. these are -- this chart here will show this. this chart here shows that -- shows the ten associate's degree programs with the worst outcomes for students. these ten here. the column in yellow shows the percentage of students leaving. right here. so here's the institution. total students. here's the withdrawal rate. this is the withdrawal rate in the first year. in the first year. 84% from bridgepoint. bridgepoint, $84.4% of the students that signed up dropped out in the first year. what do you think happened to their loans?

what do you think happened to their pell grants? students get those back? not on your life. bridgepoint got them. went to their shareholders. and that program, bijpoint, 84% -- bridgepoint, 84%, nearly all of the 7,900 students that they have, left before obtaining their associate's degree. i'm not talking about a bachelor's determination i'm talking about a two-year degree. nearly 70% at the second school, lincoln, with the rest in the 60% range. so they had 69% didn't finish. now, just among these ten schools here, 375,000 students enrolled -- enrolled -- in the 2008-2009 school year. nearly 250,000 dropped out with a -- without a degree a year later.

250,000. this is staggering numbers. now, behind them are students who are fed up with the lack of help or support from the school behind these numbers. they can no longer justify the level of debt they're taking on because they realize the dream job that the recruiter sold them on isn't waiting at the end. and i should be clear that these are not the complete dropout rates. more students are actually likely to quit by the time we would actually measure that. these are students who are gone within a year, many of whom never even register in the department of education's annual enrollment count. guess where they're counted, though? they're counted by investors looking to value the company and measure its likely profit. so when i say all these students dropped out, that's just one year. how many dropped out the second year? we don't know that. now, let me focus for a moment on bridgepoint. bridgepoint operates ashford

university based sort of in clinton, iowa. a group of private equity investors purchased a small catholic school in 2004 when it had about 375 students. now -- listen to that. in 2004, this small catholic school in clinton, iowa, had 375 students. they transferred it into -- transformed it into a for-profit school. it now has 67,000 students. a 17,000% increase in student population in six years. 17,000%. now, ashford still operates the small campus in iowa, about 600 students go there. the other 67,000 take classes on-line. i obviously was very interested to know how the heck they can be doing such a good job for students with that kind of growth. what the data we have collected through our investigation can tell us, for the first time, is that they're not doing a very good job for their students. 84% of the students seeking an

associate degree and 63% of bachelor degree seeking students leave ash ford within a year without fin -- ashford within a year without finishing their programs. but look at the growth, 17,000% growth. you know, this isn't terribly surprising, because bridgepoint offers no tutoring or other student services. if a student starts to have difficulties at ashford on-line, they have two options: talk to their part-time teacher on-line or ask the computer avatar, who is the on-line student resource center should a student succeed in completing a degree at ashford, they best not expect a lot of help finding a job. while bridgepoint employs 1,703 recruiters, they employ, get this -- they employ just one person to handle career

planning. they hire 1,703 recruiters, one person to handle career planning for the entire student body of 67,000 students, one person. -- for career planning and placement. according to a recent study 60% of all community college students new extra help to succeed in school. they need tutoring and classes to make up for what they may not have learned in middle school and high school. for-profit colleges serve a similar population with similar needs as they often remind us the for-profit sector serves a group of students that -- quote -- "traditionally lacked access to higher education." their students are the ones who are the most vulnerable, the ones who maybe didn't have colleges that went to college, who didn't grow up in a fairly wealthy household, they need a

significant support structure. like bridgepoint, schools that have large online programs seem to have particularly troubling outcomes. this becomes clear when you look at a large publicly traded school that has a large online program and a large campus-based program for associate's degree seeking students. i'm talking about a two-year degree. you can see it on this chart. career education corporation. that's another one of these for-profit schools. has a withdrawal rate of 44% on their campus base programs. a whopping 69.5% in their online programs. campus-based programs withdrawal rate 44%, online withdrawal rate 69.5%. so something's very wrong here. to me this suggests that the online students are not getting the support they need. it's inexpensive for a student

to enroll a student online. but to ensure that those students are learning and succeeding would require a major investment that for-profit schools obviously are not willing to make. what these high dropout numbers illustrate is a phenomenon called churn. churn. c-hunch-u-r-n. that's an industry term for bringing in students, signing them up for loans and pell grants and then leaving them to sink or swim and then they go out the door and they bring in more. that's what they call churning through the students. because so many students at these for-profit schools come in the door and then leave within four months, five months, six months, many of these students don't even show up in the data that the department of education collects. so at bridgepoint, for example -- at bridgepoint -- at

bridgepoint on the first day of classes in fall 2009 there were about 48,000 students signed up. over the next year recruiters signed up 77,000 additional students. ok. let's keep these figures straight. follow 2009, 48,000 students signed up for bridgepoint. in the next year they signed up 77,000 additional students. then at the end of that school year in 2010 there were only 67,000 total students enrolled. that means that the school's actual head count for that year was about 125,000 students enrolled at some point. but 58,000 students, nearly half of them, didn't stick around. they were out the door. now, these are the kind of things that people don't moment this is what our investigation has uncovered. by getting the documentation that led us to these figures.

the picture is much the same at other for-profit schools. in fact, most schools that we analyzed recruit at least the equivalent of their starting student population and new each year. again, that bears repeating. most of the schools that we analyzed recruit at least the equivalent of their entire starting student population anew every year. now, this is the university of phoenix. we've all heard of the university of phoenix. if you've never heard of them you don't watch tv or read the newspapers or ride a bus or anything else to see all their ads. they do a great job of advertising. at the university of phoenix in 2008 -- right here 2008-2009, the school started the year with 443,000 students. 443,000 students. they ended the school year with

470,800 students. so what's that? about 27 -- almost 28,000 students increased. okay. 27,800, to be exact. so they grew their enrollment by 27,800. in fact, they actually recruited and enrolled 371,700 new students. - student tt year to get 27,800. again, these numbers can get a little confusing. let me try it again. the university of phoenix started the school year in 2008 with 443,000 students. they ended the school year with 470,800. a growth of 27,800 students. how did they get 27,800? they recruited 371,700 students just to get that 27,800.

that means almost 350,000 students passed through the university of phoenix in 2009 without anything to show for it. they came in, a lot of them gave them their pell grants, they turned over their student loans, and then they vanished. and the students got the debt and the university of phoenix, a nice little profit. a nice little profit. i should say a nice big profit. at another company, edms, the marketing and recruiting machine signed up 124,000 new students in the last school year, but they ended the year with only 19,000 more students than when they started. recruiters for these schools face the imperative of enrolling large numbers of new students each year to replace those dropping out and eventually reached the point where the

number of new students caused enrollment to grow. that's what the shareholders demand. that's what the hedge funds who own them demand. that's what their equity investors demand. so the schools may be very successful as companies, making profits for their investors and their owners, and i might say huge compensation for their executives and their presidents. it's hard to say that they're successful as educational institutions. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. harkin: i'd be delighted. bush tush most people -- bush bush most people say that -- mr. durbin: businesses that most will make a profit what percentage of revenues like at university of phoenix come from federal taxpayers? mr. harkin: i'm glad that the senator asked that question. i went over it earlier. i'll go over it again. at the university of phoenix, they can only get 90% of their

revenue from federal sources, loans or grants, pell grants, loans, that type of thing. 90%. well, university of phoenix reported last year they got 89% of their money from the federal government. here's the kicker. if you are a g.i. and they recruit you and you're giving them your g.i. benefits and other educational benefits you get through the military, that's not counted in the 90%. for some reason that's not taxpayer money. so actually the university of phoenix got more than 90% of their money from the taxpayers money. mr. durbin: didn't we ask the g.a.o. to do a study about the g.i. bill benefits and how much we were actually spending through the g.i. bill for education to the for-profit schools compared to the public schools, community colleges, colleges and universities. we asked for that number and we ended up, if i'm not mistaken,

learning that these for-profit schools were charging g.i.'s and veterans three times -- three times the amount that was being charged for those who went through other traditional schools, public schools and universities. and it strikes me that we have a legitimate concern -- i know the senator from iowa and myself have been dutifully and loyally voting for federal aid to education. i don't know his story, miory is because of a -- my story is because of a government loan that allowed me to finish law school. think that the, for goodness sake, if that's how i reached this point in my life, other people deserve the same chance. i have been almost an automatic vote when it came to this kind of assistance. i want to thank the senator from iowa, now that you've had these hearings and i joined you in

investigating it, i find that a growing percentage is going for-profit schools that operate with 90% of federal tax dollars and don't end up providing the kind of education that these young men and women need to succeed and many of them end up defaulting on their student loans so there trade, as they say, i bet if i asked the senator, i bet if i asked most senators here to describe a semester, what's a semester. well, you would think a semester that goes from usually september to january is one semester, maybe january to may is another semester. then there is summer school. that's not it. a semester is what you make it. some of these schools have a semester that's five weeks long. so if you can keep your students in for 60% of the semester, you keep all their money, and then they drop out and they have got the money. now, this is something else we have to work out, better definitions of what the time frames are here. what do we mean by a semester and how much time is that and

how much time does a student have to stay there before the school can keep the grants and keep the loans from the student? again, these are things that i think that our committee and others we're going to have to wrestle with as we -- as we -- as we go ahead on this. mr. president, i know others are backed up here to speak. i started a little bit late. i was supposed to start at 3:15. i think i started at 3:30 if i'm not mistaken. i don't want to keep other senators waiting. i just, again, wanted to just close on this, on the cost and debt. at these for-profit schools, many students don't leave with a degree but most leave with debt. the average student attends for about 128 days before dropping out. that's a little over four months. that's the average. for most schools, that's two terms. that's enough time for students to rack up thousands of dollars of debt, anywhere from $6,000 to

to $11,000, depending on the program of the school. that's because for-profit schools are far more expensive than comparable programs at community colleges or public universities. the average tuition for a for-profit school is about six times higher than community college, twice as high as four-year public schools. average annual tuition at a for-profit school was about about $14,000 in 2009, while tuition at community colleges averaged about $2,500. and in-state four-year tuition was about $7,000. of the 15 schools investigated by g.a.o., 14 had higher tuition than the nearest public college offering a similar program. one that we looked at offered a -- quote -- computer-aided drafting certificate, computer-aided drafting certificate for $13,945. the same program at a nearby community college cost $520.

the cost of an associate's degree offered by the second largest for-profit is over over $38,000, and a bachelor's degree can cost up to $96,500. again, i just -- i just referenced to the senator from illinois the recent study that we had done regarding the g.i.'s and what the g.i.'s are coming out, and they are paying three, four, sometimes five times as much going to an online school as they could at a community college or a -- a local public or even a nonprofit university. on the placement, mr. president, i -- i know others are here, and i don't want to, again, hold them up. i mentioned -- i talked about senator nunn, what he had done back in 1992. let me just respond on one thing

on the creditors. the senator from illinois mentioned accreditation. i wanted to just respond to that, because a lot of people think if they are accredited, they must be all right, but here's what we found. all institutions of higher learning are governed by a combination of the federal department of education, state agencies and private accrediting agencies, which ought to act as a safeguard against the proliferation of high-cost, low-quality educational institutions. a few states have passed strong state authorization requirements which have made it difficult for some questionable for-profit colleges to shop in those states. unfortunately, those states are the exception rather than the rule. accrediting agencies are charged with the mission of ensuring educational quality. however, this doesn't happen at a lot of for-profit schools. there are two types of accrediting agencies: the so-called national ones that focus on accrediting for-profit schools and there are regional

accreditors that accredit most public and nonprofit universities. increasingly, for-profit schools are seeking regional accreditation. one particular regional accreditor, the higher learning commission of the middle states accredit its 18 of the 24 for-profit schools that have regional accreditation, and until recently it was known as the go-to accreditor for for-profit schools. they have a cozy relationship. we had testimony from a witness employed by one of the national higher accrediting organizations. he testified, and i quote -- " accreditors must hold institutions accountable to ensure that only the highest level of integrity is injected into the student recruitment and admissions process." the same witness assured the committee that in 629 on-site evaluations over the previous two years, the agency did not find even single example of

substantial noncompliance, yet this witness' organization accredit its three of the schools documented by the g.a.o. as having engaged in misleading or deceptive recruiting. so, again, mr. president, that's where we find ourselves. one quarter of our financial aid budget going to a sector dominated by education companies owned by investors and shareholders seeking to maximize short-term profit. their mission is to grow and to get profits at the expense of positive student outcomes. there are virtually no legislative checks in place, although new department of education regulations on that is a step forward. they are ill-equipped to deal with the size and relentlessness of investor-owned companies. as a consequence, as i just said, we have for-profit companies -- quote -- for-profit

companies -- financed with 85% of taxpayer dollars, reaping reaping $3.5 billion in profits, millions of students leaving these schools with a debt but no diploma. these schools will receive more than $30 billion in federal aid this upcoming year, $30 billion. it seems to me it's the obligation of us here and federal regulators to provide effective government oversight and regulation of federal financial aid dollars. the public is watching to see whether taxpayers' dollars are being used wisely and effectively. with high-cost schools and sky-high dropout rates with limited job placement and services, i have grave doubts that many of these for-profit schools are a good taxpayer investment. at stake in the debate is the future of millions of americans being aggressively recruited into high-cost programs of often dubious educational quality.

for all of these reasons, for every person who has been misled by a for-profit college, we have an obligation to make sure these schools are doing a decent job for their students. we need for-profit schools that put the interests of their students first. we need for-profit education companies that strive to serve the needs of the students they recruit and enroll. that is not the case today. congress and the executive branch have an obligation, i would say a moral obligation to provide effective oversight of the for-profit sector in higher education. we owe this to the students and we owe it to every taxpayer. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am aware that

yesterday by a vote of 83-15 the senate voted to reach -- ask for cloture on the tax agreement reached between the president and the republican leadership. i was in the minority, and i want to very, very briefly -- i spoke on this issue at some length the other day. i will be a little briefer this afternoon, but i think it is important to explain why i think and a number of us think and many americans think this is a bad agreement and that, in fact, we can do a lot better. just a few points. number one, this country has a a $13.8 trillion national debt, our middle class is shrinking, and it is unconscionable to me that we are in the process of providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country to drive up the national debt which our kids and grandchildren will have to pay

off. i think that that is absolutely wrong. mr. president, during the bush presidency alone, the wealthiest 400 americans saw their income more than double while their income tax rates dropped almost in half from 1992-2007. the richest 400 americans now earn on average $345 million a year and pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%. bottom line is, given all of the problems facing this country, lowering taxes for people who are extraordinarily wealthy, whose incomes are soaring, whose tax rates are going down should not be a major priority of the united states senate. mr. president, let's be very clear. if we continue to borrow money now to give tax breaks for those people who don't need it, our

kids and our grandchildren will be paying higher taxes in the future. we shouldn't be doing that. now, here's a point that i really want to emif a size -- emphasize. i know that the president and many of my colleagues are saying hey, don't worry about it. this extension of tax breaks for the wealthy is only for two years. i wonder if my republican friends would agree with me that it is not their intention to only make this extension for the wealthy for two years. i am quite sure that two years from now, they will be on the floor, maybe along with some democrats, who say oh, no, that's not enough, we have got to extend it again. so anyone who thinks they are only extending tax breaks to the wealthy for two years, i could -- maybe i'm wrong -- i think are sorely mistaken. i think we're talking about extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires into the indefinite future. now, that's just not what i'm

thinking. here is what dan bartlett, a gentleman who is president bush's former communications director, said to the well-known columnist howard kurtz, just recently, last week, december 3, 2010. this is what mr. bartlett said -- "we knew that politically once you get it, the tax cuts, into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. that's not a bad legacy. the fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth." end of quote. my republican friends know it. in two years, you will be back to extend it, and that's what we're voting on. let's be clear about it. mr. president, if, in fact, that we don't know what the future brings us, but if, in fact, we do end up extending the tax breaks for the next ten years, as our republican colleagues wanted, it will increase the national debt by $700 billion and would give a tax cut of over over $100,000 to a year to year

to people earning more than than $1 million. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. mr. president, we should also be clear that this agreement between the president and the republican leadership also, also continues the bush era of 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off of their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than firemen, teachers, nurses, and police officers. does that make sense? maybe it does to some people. not to me. mr. president, this agreement also includes an horrendous proposal regarding the estate tax. under the agreement between the president and republicans, the estate tax, which was 55% under president clinton, will decline to 35% with an exemption on the first $5 million of an individual's estate.

this decline in taxes in the estate tax applies to the top .3%. this is not just the tax breaks for the wealthy. this is a tax break for the very, very, very wealthiest people in this country. and at a time when we have a record-breaking deficit, if that makes sense to some of my colleagues, that's fine. it truly does not make sense to me, nor do i think it makes sense to most of the people in this country. the congressional budget office has estimated that this estate tax giveaway would increase the deficit by more than $68 billion. and, mr. president, while this extension is for two years, there is little doubt in my mind that our republican colleagues will continue to push for lower and lower estate tax -- lower tax rates in the future on their way to eventually repealing the estate tax permanently. i would remind my colleagues that last year some of us brought to the floor an

amendment that said that maybe at a time when our seniors and disabled vets have not gotten a cola for the last few years, maybe, maybe we should give them a $250 check. this is for people trying to live on $14,000, $15,000, $16,000 a year. we didn't get one republican vote. not one republican vote. but when it comes to huge tax breaks for billionaires, the top $3%, i guess there is -- the top .3%, i guess there is a lost support for that. there is also an issue i want to spend a moment on which i think has not gotten the attention it deserves. the payroll tax holiday. while on the surface this sounds good, it is actually a very dangerous idea. this payroll tax holiday originated from conservative

republicans. our republican friends think that this is a good idea because for many of them -- not all -- the goal is to choke off money going into social security to divert money that should go into the social security trust fund and over a period of time weaken the solvency of social security. and once again, while this is supposed to be a one-year payroll tax holiday, frankly, it is hard for me to imagine that it will not be continued next year. and i suspect it will go on and on. for many of our conservative friends, i think they're feeling good about it. less and less money is going to go into the social social security trust fund. while the administration claims the money lost from this proposal be will be paid back from the general fund of the government, this proposal would leave social security dependent on government revenues rather than the direct contributions of

workers who have successfully funded this program for the last 75 years. once you're into federal funding for social security, let me tell you it will be cut and cut and cut and cut, and you're talking about the beginning of the end for social security. so i have real, real concerns about that. frankly, maybe it's a one-year program. i doubt it very much. i think it will be extended. further, mr. president, while some of the business tax cuts in this agreement may work to create jobs -- maybe some won't -- economists, i think, from all ends of the political spectrum believe that the much better way to spur the economy and create jobs is to spend money rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. no debate. we need trillions of dollars of work to rebuild our roads, bridges, water systems, levee, public transportation, our rail system. i think most economists believe that when you put money into infrastructure, not only do you increase the long-term productivity of our country, our international competitiveness,

but also create jobs a lot faster than many of these business types do. one of the other reasons i'm voting against this agreement, i know the president and some of the republicans said we reached a compromise on extending unemployment benefits. well, i just don't believe that was a compromise. the truth is that while it is absolutely imperfect, morally unacceptable that we would turn our backs on millions of workers who in the midst of this terrible recession have for a very long period of time not been able to find a job, obviously we've got to extend unemployment benefits. but, to say that it is a compromise that our republican friends came along, this is something i don't accept. the truth of the matter is that for the past 40 years under both democratic and republican administrations, under republican leader in the house and senate, democratic leadership in the house and senate, whenever the unemployment rate has been 0 above 7.2%, unemployment

insurance has been extended. this has been for decades bipartisan policy. republicans, democrats have said you can't leave people to lose everything, leave them to lose their dignity, not being able to take care of their families when unemployment is high. not a compromise. this is just an extension of 40 years of bipartisan policy. furthermore, mr. president, there are a number of additional extenders in here dealing with ethanol, dealing with the nascar, dealing with tax breaks to oil and gas companies, dealing with rum producers in puerto rico and the virgin islands that i think, to say the least, have not gotten the kind of discussion that they deserve. are there positive aspects of this agreement? of course there are. extending middle-class tax cuts for 98% of americans, earned-income tax credit for working americans and child and college tax credits are all extremely important, and that is something that we have got to do. but when we look at the overall

package, we must put it in a broader context, what will passage of this legislation mean for the future of our country? the bottom line is the middle class is in a state of collapse, poverty is increasing. people on top are doing phenomenally well. we need to put people to work and put them to work now. i think the fastest way to address that is to address the crumbling infrastructure. the top 1% earns more income than the bottom 20%, giving breaks to those who don't need it. there are millionaires and billionaires out there who are saying we are doing great. we don't need a tax break. use it to deal with the poverty rate among our children. use it for education, use it for health care. we don't want it, we don't need it. we're throwing it at them. so, mr. president, i think and i believe at the very beginning that we could reach a much better agreement than we have

reached right now. i intend to vote no on this agreement, and i hope as many of my colleagues as possible will do the same. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to talk on a matter with my colleague, senator warner. i understood that senator warner and i had the sometime from 4:15 from senator sanders. unfortunately senator harkin used some of senator sanders time. i know senator kirk is coming down to give his maiden speech at 5:00. we have a number of folks that are going to speak quickly today on an issue of major importance to america. our fiscal house is in disarray. our budget process is broken and future generations will end up paying the price if we continue to ignore the difficult decisions required to fix things that this grave threat to this

country's fiscal stability. recently the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform has worked in a bipartisan manner to produce recommendations on how to best address our current levels of debt. while these recommendations may not reflect the beliefs of all members of this body, i commend the commission's members for having the courage and the open minds to tackle the problems. at the very least their recommendations can serve as a starting point for serious debate on how we can ensure a better life for our children and our grandchildren. today spending has reached almost 24% of america's gross domestic product while our revenues were at their lowest levels last year in 60 years. not too long ago the debt ceiling was increased by the largest amount in history: $1.9 trillion. nearly twice as large as the previous record of $984 billion. our current statutory limit on the public debt is now set at

$14.24 trillion and is expected to require an increase again sometime this spring. now, mr. president, with that backdrop, senator warner and i began talking this summer about this grave issue that's facing america and about the fact that if 2003 don't address it now then it's going to be too late and it was incumbent upon us to try to educate ourselves as well as educate other members of this body about the seriousness of this issue and what is the way forward. so we began talking among ourselves. we expanded our group, expanded and expanded and we now have a significant number of senators who are prepared to come forth and say we've got to address this and we've got to address it next year. some of the members of that group are going to be here today to give their thoughts on it. we're going to be joined by several republicans and democrats to pledge our commitment to addressing this issue and addressing it in the right way.

i want to thank my friend, senator warner, for his leadership, for his commitment to do this. it's been a pleasure to work with him. as we move forward next year, this group is going to provide the momentum to carry the ball to make sure that we address the issue of reductions in spending as well as major tax reform to get the fiscal house of the united states back in order. with that, mr. president, i would yield to senator warner. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, let me echo my comments of my good friend, the senator from georgia, senator chambliss. it is time for us in this senate -- and excuse the language -- to put up or shut up. a lot of folks talk about deficit reduction in both parties time and again. but over the next year there is a growing group of us, and i think folks will see this group in the next 45 minutes hopefulfully briefly, each one of us, start to raise the issue

that next year peeve to take on deficit reduction -- we have to take on deficit reduction and tax reform. the country is approaching $14 trillion in national debt. it's been estimated that every day that we delay we add close to $5 billion to that national debt. so whether your issue is the solvency of social security, whether your issue is tax rates, whether your issue is making sure that we pass on a balance sheet to our kids and our grandkids that allow america to continue to be the economic superpower that it has been, unless we take on this issue, we won't be able to accomplish those goals. and while i believe as imperfect as this compromise between the president and others in terms of short-term stimulus, that we will vote on later tonight, we also have to demonstrate that this body can actually walk and chew gum.

we can do short-term stimulus now but next year engage in meaningful tax reform and deficit reduction. if we act tonight we will be adding $900 billion over the next two years to our national deficit. today you're going to hear very briefly from a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i think in a new respectful way -- we may not agree on the ultimate solutions, but we are going to agree to listen to each other respectfully and recognize at the end of the day meaningful tax reform and the need for deficit reduction has to be a goal of this senate, of this congress in the next year. i yield the floor to my good friend, the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president? i'm glad to join this bipartisan group. i see ten of us on the floor at this time. we have agreed to speak briefly about this because we want to make the case that over the next several months we mean business, and we intoned do what we can to actually make some tough

choices. i join my colleague from georgia in commending the membership of the national committee on fiscal responsibility and reform and particularly the leaders of this group:er kin bowls and -- erskine bowles and alan simpson, great patriots. they've come forward with some recommendations. in their preamble they make it clear none of us likes every element of the plan, but they put forward a plan that i think is a starting point for us. and we intend to use these next few months, frankly, we intend to use the run-up to the vote we will have to take on the debt ceiling around april of 2011 to make real progress. let me subscribe to several of the statements made in the preamble. they say we cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. i think the american people know that, and they expect leadership from their elected

representatives in the house and senate in that regard. the report in the preamble goes on to say the american people are counting on us to put politics aside. that's what we're trying to do on the floor today with a bipartisan representation. pull together and not pull apart and agree on a plan to live within our means and to make america strong for the long haul. it's been pointed out that admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the most significant threat to national security today is our national debt. i agree with admiral mullen on that and i think americans agree also. picking the -- kick the can down the road is not going to suffice any longer, to quote our colleague from oklahoma, snow showe--senator tom coburn. the preamble goes on to say, the contagion of debt that began in

greece and continues to sweep through europe shows us clearly that no economy will be immune. no economy, not even the united states's economy. if the u.s. does not put its house in order, the reckoning will be sure and the devastation severe. the title of the report of the commission, mr. president, is "the moment of truth." and i think we're here on the floor of the senate today on the 14-g9s of december, 2010, to say that there is a bipartisan working group that believes we have arrived at a pivotal moment of truth, and we intend to get down to the business of rectifying the problem of national spending and our national debt. and i yield to my friend from montana. a senator: snrp. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i would like to thank senator wick for his remarks. i tries share a few words about the debt and about the bipartisan tax cut compromise that we will vote on this

evening. before i get into these remarks, i want to thank senator warner and senator chambliss for their good work in putting together a group of senators to help address there issue -- this issue in a bipartisan way. aas far as the compromise tonight, i look forward to voting for this compromise. it is a matter of rebuildin cre. it is a plan that i would have written? no. but it does cut taxes for the folks in a need it the most. they are the real job creators in this country and aiming tax relief at them required compromise and working together and it happened and it is a victory for all montanans. it is a victory for all americans. mr. president, i want to point out another example of working together. over the past few days, a number of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, independents -- teamed up to put forward a resolution that we hope will be

part of a package that we will vote on tonight. this resolution puts all of us on record expressing our deep concerns about the unsustainable path of this country's debt. ensuring our commitment to working together to pull ourselves together and dig ourselves out of the ditch that we're in and to $that any plan will have to have tax reform, spending cuts, and deficit reduction. it's not going to be an easy process. in order have a a serious debate about cutting our debt, we're going to need to make some tough decisions, not just play it lip service or play political gaisms just like the report on fiscal responsibility, there are a lot of things that members of this group and of this body are not going to like in any potential plan. but what's important here is that all of these members are serious bh putting this -- about putting this country on a sustainable path and are committed to voting on a plan to do that within the next 12 months. it's that important of an issue. this is hands down the most

important issue that this senate will deal with over the next few years. putting our nation's economy on a sustainable path, to control this country's debt, and to offer opportunity for the future. mr. president, i look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue because i know they share my same commitment to getting something done. the truth is, we're not going to be able to get anywhere unless we trust one another. this process isn't going to be pleasant for anyone but we can be successful if we have a bipartisan effort. mr. president, this bipartisan resolution is more than just lip service. it is a plan to move forward together. and i yield the floor to my friend from nebraska, senator johanns. mr. johanns: i thank senator tester. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: this is a rather remarkable moment. on each side, republicans and democrats are standing to describe a problem that literally jeopardizes not just the future of our children, our

grandchildren, but it jeopardizes our security, and that is our runaway spending and our deficit. let me, if i might, put this in perspective, mr. president. as a former governor of nebraska, i used to tell my cabinet when we were struggling through budget issues, this is not magic. it is math. and that's the reality of what we're dealing with here. we simply have a problem that is so gigantic, it can only be solved in a bipartisan way. let me offer a couple of statistics to back that statement up. if you look at the entire federal budget, mr. president, this is what you see: if you add medicaid, medicare, social security, and the interest we pay on our debt, that is 64 cents of every dollar we spend annually. let me repeat those programs:

medicaid, medicare, social security, and the interest we pay on our debt. everybody will acknowledge the importance of those programs. let's compare that to the revenues that are coming in this year. the revenues coming in don't even cover the full cost of those programs. so if anyone is out there suggesting that a little nip and a little tuck and a tweak here and a tweak there is going to solve this problem, it just fundamentally won't. you literally have a situation where if you just shut down the entire federal government -- national defense, every single program out there except the ones i mentioned -- you would still come up a bit short. we need to fundamentally change how we are operating this

government because, quite honestly, to date we all recognize -- democrats and republicans -- that we have been operating this government on the credit card of our children and our grandchildren, and it can't work. it just simply can't work any longer. so i conclude my comments today by saying, i appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to work with my colleagues on this side of the aisle to try to solve what i consider the most pressing, most urgent need our nation faces today. mr. president, i yield the floor to senator wyden. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from or our -- from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator chambliss for his important work. tomorrow it will be even more important give than this agreement will pass tonight. mr. president, there is always another election around the

corner, a big array of special interest groups that need to be satisfied, and a constant stream of public opinion polling that politicians live and die for. why take action that could offend a group today if you can put it off for a while? the agreement that will pass tonight, in my view, is a victory for the politics of procrastination. at a time when americans are swimming in debt, more water will be put into the pool. instead of taking steps to fix the market distorting, job-killing tax code, last overhauled a quarter century of ago when china and india were blimps in the global economy, this tonight will prop up our broken tax code. millions of americans are out of

work, small businesses are closing their door, and instead of finding permanent solutions to the problem, the agreement is smiling like scarlet o'hara saying, "fiddle de-de. i'll think about it tomorrow." mr. president, it did not have to be this way. as senator warner and colleagues have mention the, there was a blueprint provided by the deficit commission. i don't happen to agree with everything, but clearly it was a very important blueprint. in the 1980's -- and i see senator alexander clearly remembers those days -- president reagan and democrats worked for bipartisan tax reform to clean out the loopholes, hold down the rates and keep progressivity. in the two years, colleagues, after democrats and ronald reagan worked together, our economy grew by 6.3 million jobs, twice -- twice the number that were created between 2001

and 2008 when tax policy was purely partisan. i don't think if had to be this way -- i don't think it had to be this way. senator warner and senator chambliss tried very hard to add a provision that might at some point insert consequences for inaction. colleagues -- and i'll close with this -- nothing will happen in this town, where there is this culture of process crassty nation, unless there aren't some consequences for inaction. there are provisions in this measure tonight that i support very strongly: unemployment insurance, help for the middle class, a small business. i was willing to extend the whole bush-era program for a year in order to force action. but that's not going to be done. tonight i intend to vote "no." tomorrow i will be back with senator warner and senator chambliss to build on the good work of the deficit commission,

billetebuild on the good work tt democrats and ronald reagan did in the 1980's to give us a model so that finally in this country we tackle the major problems: debt reduction and fixing the job-killing tax code to bring back the middle class to the prosperity they deserve. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, i also -- mr. crapo: mr. president, i also have honored to join this bipartisan group who is speaking to the nation tonight about the fact that we cannot any longer delay dealing with the most significant problem our nation faces -- our debt and our fiscal difficulties. i was one of the members of our president's commission on fiscal responsibility and reform and had the opportunity over the past year to work on a bipartisan basis with people on that commission who took testimony from experts, evaluated the issues, studied the economies of the world, studied the details of what was

happening in the american economy and came forward with a plan. this plan got 11 of the 18 votes on that commission. it was required by the president's order to get 14 of the 18 votes in order to force that plan to congress for a vote. and i was disappointed that that didn't happen, but let me make a couple of points of clarification. 11 of the 18 votes represents over 60% of the votes of the commissioners on that commission. that's enough votes to pass any bill in this senate. it's enough votes to pass any bill in the house of representatives. and to get that bill to the desk of the president. 14 of 18 would have been over 77% of the votes, a margin that has rarely been met in this congress. my point in making this clarification is to say that on a bipartisan basis, we were able to come up with a supermajority of support on the commission for a plan. now, did that plan contain contain everything that i wanted and leave everything out that i

didn't like? no. tbhaw plan did put america own a path toward a balanced budget. it stopped the erosion. in fact, it stopped the explosion of our debt across this country. and it did so in a way that focused on the right elements. what were those? spending and tax reform. many of us were worried at the outset that the commission would focus on just trying to solve the problem with more tax increases. until the american people -- and tell the american people that our spending habits here in congress were too important to be dealt with and we simply have to increase your taxes in order to keep congress spending at its breakneck rate. the commission denied that. the problem in congress is they spend too much and it puts spending caps on discretionary spending and started at least -- not as much as i thought it should do, but at least started the debate about how to deal with our entitlements. and one very important addition: it proposed a major reform of our tax code, probably the most

sweeping tax reform that i've seen in my lifetime. if you were to try to come up with a tax code that was more unfair, more complex, more costly to comply with and more anticompetitive to americans seeking to do business in the world, you probably couldn't do much worse than we've done with our tax code. and one of the most important parts of dealing with our fiscal policy is to reform that tax code. so that's another reason i'm so glad to see that we have bipartisan support for that kind of reform. i would simply say, as i close, that i am heartened by the fact that we see republicans and democrats alike saying the time for further inaction is gone. the time for gridlock is gone. we do not have time to continue the kind of gridlock debate that we've seen over the years here in congress, as we deal with this issue. and it's my hope that in the near future we will force process reforms on this congress that will put votes on the

difficult issues that we must face as americans before us. and with that, mr. president, i yield my time -- or, i yield my time and yield the floor to the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: thank you. when the fiscal commission released itsz report on december 1, it started with a guiding principle that all americans can agree on: we have a duty to make america better off tomorrow than it is today. but the picture is pretty bleak right now. let me give you a few examples. in 1982 our deficit had never exceeded $100 billion. by march of 2004, 22 years later, the debt was $3.7 trillion. and today, six years passed, the debt held by the public has ballooned to $8.7 trillion. the federal debt was 33% of g.d.p. in 2