industry along to make this country more energy independent. to help save our timber infrastructure because, quite frankly, if you look at some of the states in the west, that timber infrastructure is gone. and our ability to manage those forests leaves us when that timber infrastructure goes. that's not the case in montana, but we're getting very close, and it's why this bill needs to be passed. unfortunately -- unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to happen at this point in time. the other part about this bill, as i said, there were so many projects in the omnibus, the c.b.o. says that this bill is deficit neutral, no cost to the taxpayers. is it a bipartisan bill? it's a bill that we have support from both sides of the aisle with governors, senators, congressmen, local county commissioners from both parties. it's a bill that the forest service through secretary vilsack supports. it is popular with over 70% of

montanans. and as i said earlier, it's in dire need because our forest is dying with over one million acres of dead and dying trees. this bill has been a subject of intense public debate for the past year and a half since i dropped, we had a senate hearing a year ago, a year ago yesterday, i believe it was. we have had town hall meetings, 11 in total across montana. we have had unprecedented transparency with this bill with it being on-line and explaining and taking input and changing the bill as it's moved forward, making it a better bill. we've taken suggestions from the public and where we've been able to address those concerns, we've been able to address them straight up and move forward. it really is a new way of doing business for the forest service, for our forested lands, our government-owned forested lands in this country. it has not been an easy go.

this bill would not have happened 10 years ago. it absolutely wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. because for the last 30 years accident we've had gridlock in our forest industry. we've had conservationists and environmentalists and loggers and mill owners, recreationists all fighting with one another and nothing's gotten done in the last 30 years. well, about five years ago, these folks got degree on and they said you know, we've all been losing, nobody's been winning in this. we need to set our differences aside -- and this body should listen to this -- set our differences aside, find a common ground and move forward with solutions. and they did exactly that. it was not easy but they did exactly that. where everybody gives a little but get a lot. and they sat down at those tables and they met, and they met for years, and they came up with this proposal. and shortly after i was elected, they came and said, would you

carry it? and i looked at it and i said, you know what? this bill makes sense. it makes sense for montana. it makes sense for the west. and we were on track to get this bill passed until the omnibus was pulled the other night because of a lack of support. mr. president, our number-one responsibility right now is jobs. jobs, jobs, jobs. this bill helped create jobs, helped put people to work in an industry that needs help. regardless what happens from here, it is going to be critically important that we stay focused on jobs in this body. i will tell you that i think that if we -- if we do that and

we're successful in that, this country will be a better place. it will be a better place for our kids and grandkids. it will be a better place for the people right now. quite frankly, i haven't seen a lot of that working together in the last four years. and when we have a piece of legislation that really isn't a democrat piece of legislation or a republican piece of legislation but, rather, a good piece of legislation, it gets caught up in the process. i will continue to fight for jobs for everybody in this country, particularly in montana. we will continue to work to get this bill passed and bills like this passed because it's good for the country. and it gives -- it gives the agencies, in this case, the forest officer, the kind of tools they need to -- the forest agency, the kind of tools they need to manage our forests. as i said before, i was going to ask for unanimous consent for passage of that bill. i've been informed that that

will be objected to, so there's no reason to go through that form. formality. but i will say we hope to bring it up again and we hope we will be successful. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to respond briefly to my good friend from montana. first of all, let me say, i, of course, was at the hearings that the good senator referred to in our energy and natural resources committee, and ordinarily i wouldn't involve myself at all in -- in the internal matters in montana. natural resource issues are best decided by the people who live in the particular counties and the particular states where that resource is located. on this particular issue, however, one of the areas of land that's included in the land mass that my good friend from montana described in his bill is an area that's referred to as

mount jefferson. and mount jefferson and the area included admittedly is entirely within the state of montana. however, the only way the southern part can be accessed is through the state of idaho, and i -- and i have to say that i couldn't agree more with my good friend from montana and that is that we need to keep our eye on the ball on jobs, jobs, jobs. the particular area in question is not a large area. i think that the total amount of is 4,400 acres. the amount i'm talking about is about 2,200 acres. but it is used intensively, intensively by idaho people engaging in recreation in the wintertime. and under my good friend's bill, that would have been closed out and the snowmobiling, particularly, would have been prohibited on this area that's

the south side of mount jefferson. now, i have to say that i sincerely appreciate my friend's willingness to talk about this and to work on this particular issue. and as we go forward with this -- and i have no doubt that his commitment to his state will cause him to continue to work with this issue and to deal with this particular bill and the -- and the areas of land that he's talking about in this bill as we go into the next congress. and i commit to work with him on this issue, and i hope that we can resolve this issue. and as i say, it -- the issue of winter snowmobiling only, as far as motorized use of -- of this particular area, s is of great, great importance to the people of the state of idaho. so i thank you for your courtesies thus far and i look forward to working with you, senator tester, on this issue in

the next congress. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. tester: real quick. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the good senator from idaho's remarks. and i understand your concern. we've talked about it before, on the mount jefferson issue. overall in the bill, just for the record, we have added 370,000 permanent recreation area for exactly that, snowmobiles. that doesn't solve your problem on mount jefferson of the 4,400 acres. but we will continue to work with you and move forward and try to get something that, you know, is close to meets the needs of everybody you can. but as vince lombardi once said, the recipe for failure is trying to please everybody. but thank you. thank you to the good senator from idaho. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, with the close of the 111th congress, the senate will lose one of its most popular, articulate, and outspoken members and i will lose a

kindred spirit, a fellow progressive populist, senator byron dorgan, who has spent his entire four decades in elective office fighting on behalf of family farmers and ranchers, struggling small businesses, ordinary working americans, anyone -- anyone who's been run roughshod over by big business, big banks, or big government. both senator dorgan and i are proud of our roots in rural upper midwest. i was raised in cumming, iowa, population 162. he was raised in regent, north dakota, population 211. byron always liked to joke that he graduated in the top ten of his class of nine students. senators on both sides of the aisle have come to respect and admire senator dorgan's distinctive voice here in the senate, a voice that mixes keen intelligence with a great sense of humor, plus a gift for making his arguments with colorful, compelling stories and language.

throughout his more than four decades in public service, he has used that voice to speak out powerfully for farm country and rural america. he has fought hard for policies at the national level to give rural families a better chance at success. he has been a strong supporter of the farm bill's safety net provisions, including countercyclical support for farmers to get them through hard times. and he has been equally outspoken in championing strict limits on federal farm payments to ensure that the lion's share go to small family farms, not big agribusiness and absentee farm owners. as a senior member of the energy and fall resources committee -- energy and natural resources committee and chair of the appropriations committee on energy and water subcommittee, senator dorgan has also been an outspoken champion of clean, renewable, homegrown energy, including wind and solar and biofuels. he likes to boast that north dakota is -- quote -- "the saudi

arabia" of wind. well, my folks in iowa might dispute that claim, but we get the point. and byron and i have both been strong advocates of building a nationwide distribution grid for wind and solar generated energy. mr. president, i'd like to make just one more point about senator dorgan. i guess i can say this now, since he's retiring and a political opponent won't be able to use it against him. byron dorgan is an intellectual. he has a passion for ideas and knowledge. he even writes books. actually, really good book, the kind that show up on "the new york times" best-seller list. i'm a great fan of his 2007 book titled "take this job and ship it," how corporate greed and brain-dead politics are selling out america. and if you want a blistering and i think dead-on account of the causes of the crash of 2008, read byron's other book titled, "reckless: how debt,

deregulation and dark money nearly bankrupted america." mr. president, byron dorgan i consider a great friend, a great senator and a great advocate for all working people in this country. he has accomplished many things in his three terms here in the senate but i can think of no greater accolade than to say simply that he is a good and decent and honest person with a passion for social justice and a determination to make life better for ordinary americans. when the 111th congress comes to a close, of course, my friendship with byron will continue, but i will miss his day-to-day counsel and good humor. i join with the entire senate family in wishing byron and kim the best in the years ahead. mr. president, with the retirement of senator kit bond at the close of this congress, the senate will lose one of its most respected veteran members. a truly distinguished individual with a distinguished career in public service.

will come to an end. of course, you would expect big things from a young man who graduated with honors from princeton, first in his class at the university of virginia law school, and kit bond did not disappoint. at age 30, he became assistant attorney general of missouri, serving under former senator john danforth. at age 33, he was elected governor of the state of missouri, serving two terms. in 1986, he was elected to the senate, where he has now served for nearly a quarter of a century. over the years, kit bond has been a great friend and a frequent collaborator, especially on the appropriations committee. for example, in 1993, when the midwest was devastated by historic floods, senator bond was the senior appropriator in the minority party from the nine impacted states and i was the senior appropriator in the majority party. we took the lead in the senate, working together very effectively to rally federal assistance to victims all across

the strickenned midwest. over the years, we have worked together to improve the locks and dams along the upper mississippi. i can say i think we're both proud of our work in the early part of this decade forging an agreement to authorize the modernization of five of the critical locks so that our goods can operate more efficiently up and down the river. we worked very hard for about four years to bring together a remarkable coalition of industry and agriculture and the environmental community to make this project possible. senator bond and i are members of a breed of senators affectionately known around here as pavers. we both believe very strongly that it's a cardinal responsibility of the federal government to invest generously in a first-class national transportation infrastructure. the roads, the bridges, the locks, the dams and so on, what we call the arteries and the veins of commerce. mr. president, senator bond and

i have also collaborated frequently to boost the rural economy and improve the quality of life for people who live in our rural communities. in particular, we have used funding through the housing and urban development subcommittee of appropriations to improve housing for people of modest means with a particular focus on rural areas. on this score, i would note that senator bond was a -- quote -- "compassionate conservative" long before that term came into fashion. he cares deeply about the well-being of the less fortunate in our society, giving them both a helping hand and a hand up. in the mid-1990's, i was proud to work with senator bond on the first bipartisan welfare reform bill modeled, i might say, on a very successful welfare-to-work program we had in iowa. mr. president, over the years, senator bond has recruited and retained an exceptionally talented staff. in particular, i would like to cite john kemark, his outstanding lead staffer for many years on the appropriations committee, with whom i had the

pleasure of working on many occasions. and i i know that senator bond current chief of staff brian clifinstein who had the good sense to marry a democrat from the state of iowa. mr. president, the senate has been fortunate to have a senator of the high caliber and character of kit bond. in so many ways, he represents the best, gets important things donald and insistence on the highest ethical standards. he has always been determined to do the right thing for the people missouri and the entire united states. for me it's been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 24 years. our friendship, of course, will continue, and i wish kit and linda the very best in the years ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i believe we have a sequence of speakers lined up and i guess i ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks, senator harkin be recognized again followed by senator carper, followed by senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i rise to make a few brief remarks in honor of congressman patrick joseph kennedy of rhode island. with patrick's departure from the house of representatives to seek new challenges and enjoy some well-earned time out of political spotlight, my home state of rhode island is losing a champion for working families and our country is losing a public servant who did as much as anyone else, to care for and lift up those in the shadows of life. as it moment to thank patrick for his many contributions to the lives of rhode islanders over his 16 years of service in the house. but also a moment to reflect on his unique place in the

political history of our country. afterall, the 112th congress, the incoming congress will be the first in more than half a century in which no member of the kennedy family is serving in either the house or the senate. patrick has proudly carried on his family's spirit of service and their fight for social justice. and to be sure, he has always been proud to be ted's son. from the countless lives he lifted, patrick said, to the american promise he helped shape, my father taught me that politics at its very core was about serving others. in that service of others, patrick, too, brought to the rough and tumble of politics traits that made him unique and he left behind accomplishments that allow him to stand on his own as one of the great

legislators of our time. indeed, of all the descendants of president kennedy and of bobby kennedy and of our own late colleague, ted kennedy, it was patrick to last held public office, patrick who longest held public office, patrick who youngest held political office, and patrick who most successfully used political office to further the family's mission of lifting up every american. in rhode island, a state that he adopted and that adopted him, he first entered public service at the young age of 21 winning his congressional seat a few short years later in 1994ings, one -- 1994, one of only four g.o.p. seats the democrats won that year. over the years patrick continually faced capable and well-funded opponents, but his constituents had come to recognize and welcome his humble

dedication to their lives, reelecting him seven times. he was my younger, but senior colleague in our rhode island delegation and i believe he took considerable enjoyment in being my senior colleague. patrick, if you ever come back, you won't be senior any longer, i've got you on that one now. the arena of politician is combative. all the more so when your last name is kennedy. but patrick persevered and he persevered despite his own health and addiction challenges. instead of running from those challenges, instead of hiding from those challenges, patrick had the courage and the wisdom to realize that the problem he was experiencing was a problem shared by millions of families in america. instead of hiding from public scrutiny, he stood tall, not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of americans who needed a champion to bring their

struggles to the forefront of the national agenda. with that resolution, patrick's campaign for mental health parity took fire, rutting in passage of the land -- resulting in passage of the landmark mental health parity act of 2008. an achievement that speaker pelosi described as the legislative feat of the century. in that fine cause patrick had the chance to work with a towering champion of civil rights, the lion of the senate, his father. peer to peer, man-to-man, they hashed out the final bill in conference together. the father, with his easy booming laugh and affectionate camaraderie, the son, with his fierce, but quiet, determination. thus did patrick help lift up millions of americans, thus did he earn a place alongside his father, a man he called his

hero, his inspiration. thus did he emerge as a champion for so many who need one so badly. thus did he uphold the best traditions of the family and the nation he loved. patrick's success as a member of congress came not easily, not from the charm or charisma so characteristic and ready in his family, but rather from simple hard work, unshakeable integrity, and his own quiet formidable determination to win what others had only sought. henry wads worth long fertsdz wrote, the heights by great men reached and kept were not achieved by sudden flight, but they while their companions slept with toiling upwards in

the night. the story of patrick kennedy is not a story of glamorous, sudden flight to glory. it is a tale of long and silent toil, upward and in the night in the shadow of his own challenges. the best part of this story is that patrick's work is not yet finished. neither his father nor his uncles got to experience life after public service. but stepping away from the congress at the age of 43, patrick kennedy's road stretches ahead for many miles. i know that patrick will continue to look for ways to give back to state that gave new hampshire chance to serve -- gave him a chance to serve and a nation that gave his family a chance to thrive. and he will always enjoy the gratitude of rhode islanders whom he has served so well and americans whose burdens he has helped to relieve.

and i, mr. president, will always be proud to consider him a legislative inspiration, a political ally, and a beloved friend. patrick, thank you for your service. you have done us proud. i wish you all the best in this new beginning. from congress, farewell. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, with the close of the 111th congress the senate will lose to retirement senate russ feingold of wisconsin, a proud progressive, a fearless reformer and a genuine mavrick in the very best sense of that much abused term. senator feingold has been a worthy successor to another great progressive reformer from wisconsin, senator robert "fighting bob" lathola, at whose desk i'm proud to sit here in

the united states senate and who's por rate is -- portrait is in senator feingold's office. it's not enough to have our hearts in the right place. progressivism by it's very nature is a fight against entrenched corporate interest, entrerched economic, and entrenched political fire. we have to know how to fight and willing to fight. as our colleagues here in the senate know very well, senator feingold is equally skilled at building bridges across the aisle and carrying the fight those who would -- we witnessed these tall enters during feingold's relentless campaign to pass the landmark 2002 bipartisan campaign reform act better known as the -- as the mccain-feingold law. senator feingold and his legislative partner, senator

mccain, championed this legislation for nearly two years, overcoming stiff resistance from both parties as well as powerful interests outside the senate. they faced countless obstacles. they refused to give up and they won. again in 2007 in the wake of the abe a.m. office scandals, -- abram office scandals, senator feingold pushed through a tough ethics and lob which aring reform bill, which had closure requirements and a crackdown on abusive practices by lobbyists. as chair of the judiciary committee's constitution subcommittee, senator feingold cast the senate's lone vote against the u.s.a. patriot act. mr. president, for nearly two decades in this body senator feingold has been an outspoken champion of working americans fighting for safer workplaces, right to organize, better public

schools, better access to higher education and health care. he has always stood up for wisconsin's family farmers and rural communities. senator feingold has accomplished important and even historic things during his tenure as a united states senator. in my book the highest accolade is that russ feingold is a good and decent person with a passion for fairness, social justice and honest an open government. for me it has been an honor to be his friend and colleague for 18 years. our friendship will continue as will russ feingold's fight for progressive causes that he believes very strongly in. our departed friend paul wellstone use to say -- quote -- "the future belongs to those with passion." well, by that definition, russ feingold has a wonderful future ahead of him. i join with the entire senate family in wishing him the very

best in the years ahead. mr. president, in these closing days of the 111th congress, the senate will say farewell to one of the most seasoned and accomplished members on both sides of the aisle, senator robert bennett of utah. certainly no one in this body doubts senator bennett's staunch conservative values and principles, especially on fiscal and regulatory issues. he has been a consensus builder, willing to reach across the aisle in order to get important things done for the people of utah and the entire united states. clearly this thoughtfulness has caused him to lose favor with the more extreme wing of his party for which he paid a price during the primary election this year. i know i'm not alone in mourning the loss of one of the senate's most thoughtful and hard-working

conservatives. for example, he part nerd with partnered for universal -- as a senior member of the senate banking committee, he supported the emergency economic stablization act. senator bennett was widely criticized by those on the right, but he can take great pride in it because facts are facts. the troubled assets relief program prevented a total meltdown of our financial system. and almost the entir entire $700 billion taxpayer investment has been or soon will be paid back to the treasury. this week the treasury booked a $12 billion profit on its previous $45 billion tarp investment in citigroup. mr. president, i've been proud to call bob bennett my friend for the last 18 years. i count myself fortunate to have served with him on many, many

issues in the appropriations committee. he is a gentleman, a bridge builder, a person of rock-solid character and integrity. i join with the entire senate family in wishing bob and joyce the very best in the years ahead. mr. president, in these closing days of the 111th congress, the senate will be saying farewell to one of our most popular members, senator blanche lincoln of arkansas. at a time when the senate has become increasingly partisan, senator lincoln charted an alternative choice. she had cultivated friendships on both sides of the aisle. she -- last year senator lincoln succeeded me as the chair of the senate agriculture committee. i would note that she is the first arkansan and the first woman to chair the senate agriculture committee.

she has used that position to champion causes that have been her passion for many years including revitalizing rural communities, supporting family farmers, promoting biofuels and advocating for better nutrition for our school-aged children. senator lincoln is leaving the senate at the very top of her game. this week president obama signed into law the claims resolution act of 2010, a culmination of senator lincoln's efforts to provide justice for african-american farmers who suffered decades of discrimination in agriculture programs. also this week, president obama signed into law the healthy hunger-free kids act, which will become a major part of senator lincoln's leg says a united states senator. when i handed over the gavel to senator lincoln last year, much work had been done on the child nutrition bill but much remained to be done.

senator lincoln did a fantastic job, a masterful job of taking over the child nutrition reauthorization and sheparding it to a -- shepherding it to a unanimous approval in the united states senate. thanks to her leadership, low-income children have increased access to federal nutrition programs, the nutrition quality of the programs will improve and the school lunch program will be greatly reinforced. senator lincoln also exhibited extraordinary leadership earlier this year in the wall street reform bill, again as the chair of the senate ag committee, she was able to forge bipartisan consensus for strong reform of the derivatives market. indeed, the provisions she championed will help to restore integrity to the drive riffs markets. it will allow companies to safely use derivatives to manage their business risk and will help to prevent future financial crisis. i was proud to support her in those efforts.

mr. president, for the last 12 years in this body, senator lincoln has been a tireless advocate for the people of her state of arkansas, for american agriculture, for rural americans, and for families with small kids. she's been an outstanding senator and a wonderful friend. i join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing blanche and steve and their twin boys the very best in theees ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. casey: before senator harkin leaves the floor, i am pleased to be here on the floor and hear you talk about our colleagues. what a wonderful thing to do and to single out democrats and republicans and to reflect on their service to their state and to our country. i just have to mention, you mentioned blanche lincoln. many people say, i respect highly of my colleague.

here in the united states senate, we love blanche. she is such a joy to work with. she is sea always upbeat. she'd say, whatever doesn't kill makes you stronger. she has come through this with a smile and shown such grace. i loved working with her on the finance committee and especially on the health care bill that was designed to provide better outcomes for less money. bob bennett and i served on the banking committee for many years. in the end he lost his seat, i think, because of his willingness to reach across the aisle and find new ways for republicans and democrats to get things done. and russ feingold, best known for his work on campaign finance reform. but i admire his work helping to strength -7b the president's rescission power. i think the seeds that he's plant there had will bear fruit, maybe next year. to him and the others who are leaving you i just say, what a joy it was to serve with them and i especially want to commend and thank you for remembering them as you have done today.

mr. harkin: thank you very much. mr. casey: mr. president, in november of 1948, that was one year after my birth, president harry truman issued a highly controversial executive order, a call for beginning the process to bring to an end the long-standing policy of racial segregation in the armed forces of our nation. just a few years earlier my father and three of my uncles had served on active duty for much of world war ii. mr. carper: one of them was killed in a kamikaze attack on his u.s. carrier. but all three of them were born an raised near the coal mining town of beckley, west virginia, where my sister and i were born after the war. neither my father nor my uncles ever discussed with us the implementation of president truman's executive order. having said that i later learned that many of the people in my native state opposed it, as did

many people in danville, virginia, the last capital of the confederacy and the place where my sister and i would dwell up. the transition that followed president truman's actions was not an easy one. but history would later show that the steps he ordered 62 years ago this year were the right ones for our military and for our country. 20 years after truman's historic action, i was commissioned an ensign in the navy and headed for pensacola, florida, to begin the training that would enable me to become a naval flight officer. i just graduated from ohio state university, "the" ohio state university, i guess, which i attended on a navy rotc scholarship. my sister was not in our rotc unit in ohio state. in fact, there were no women in that unit and to the best of my knowledge, there were no women in any of our rotc's across the country or in our military service academies in america either. a lot of people thought that was

just fine. and while there were women who served then in our armed forces, they were denied the opportunities that i and the a lot of other men had that enabled us to advance in rank and to resume positions of ever-greater responsibility. i went on to serve in southeast asia and retire as a navy capital after 23 years of active and reserve duty. no women served with news my active duty squadron. but as the years passed, that gang to change. young women gained admission into rotc programs across america and into our service academies as well. they became pilots. they flew airplanes and helicopters, they served on ships and someday before too long they'll serve on some submarines as well. today women are admirals, generals. and while there's still resistance to the transition that continues to this day, most

of us who have lived through it would agree that this change has helped to make our military and our nation stronger. today we face a different kind of transition, a challenging one, too. that is whether to end the policy of zo of don't ask, don'. confronted with this question, i have sought the counsel of a number of people over the past year whose wisdom i value. foremost has been our secretary of defense, bob gates. he has graciously shared his thoughts on this difficult and contentious issue with me and with many of my colleagues, both in private and in public forums. today, mr. president, i stand in agreement with the secretary and with admiral mike mullen, the chairman our joint chiefs of staff. the time has come to repeal the law that requires young men and women to lie about who they are in order to serve their country. having said that however, i also agree with them that this tran

circumstance like some of the others that i've just talked about, must be done in a way that eases the military into this change over time so that it does not adversely affect or undermine our military readiness or ability to recruit and our morale. the proposal we have just approved an hour or so ago seeks to do exactly that. it will empower secretary gates and our other military leaders to carefully implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the months ahead. repeal is not something that's going to happen overnight. the secretary and the joint chiefs are going to do this in a deliberate and responsible way and it is going to take some time. our military leaders have made it clear that they want congress to act now, though, to enable them to implement this repeal of don't ask, don't tell in a thoughtful manner rather than to have the courts force them into this overnight. i support that approach.

i support the approach recommended by the military leaders. i stand behind secretary gates and our nation's other military leaders as they prepare to lead our military and our nation through this historic transition rather than to allow the courts to do it for us in ways that we may someday live to regret. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. thanks very much. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the growing threat of it corporate control on the flow of information in this country. right now, today, we've been debating incredibly important issues and i don't mean to detract from any of them. we need to be doing anything we can to protect our national security and reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. while we debate these issues in front of the public, behind the

scenes away from public scrutiny, the federal communications commission is about to decide two distinct but very closely related issues that have the potential to change dramatically the way we get our entertainment, the way we communicate with one another, and, most importantly, the way we use the internet. the first matter before the f.c.c. is the proposed merger of comcast and nbc universal. there is no question in my mind that regardless of what you hear from industry, this merger will be bad for consumers and on many levels sms it will allow comcast to exploit nbc universal's content, charge other cable networks more for access to nbc shows and movies. do you know what that will do? it will raise your cable bills. and nbc universal, which

actually owns 37 broadcast or cable networks, will be favored by comcast to the exclusion of other independent or competing networks. this means that comcast will pay less to carry channels like the discovery network, the food channel, bloomberg, or the tennis channel, threatening their financial viability, or these channels will be relegated to the graveyard around channel 690 or 691. or 692. or customers will have to pay even more each month to buy access to these channels. this is bad for consumers because it's going to put many of these networks out of business. that means less choice and more comcast/nbc programming. but it doesn't end there. comcast also happens to be the nation's leading wireline

broadband internet provider which means this single company will both own the programming and run the pipes that bring us that programming. here again comcast will be able to use its overwhelming market share and in many markets it's near none monopoly in the internet business to favor its own video services. say, its on-demand services over companies like net federalism their -- netflix that were cheaper and would otherwise win upon an overall playing field. these are ow all problems with e overall deal but it may be hard to understand so let me take a minute or two to make this more concrete. i ask the people sitting in the gallery, the senate staff watching this speerchtion and everyone at home in minnesota -- this speech, and everyone at home in minnesota, how many of you like your cable and internet provider? when you call comcast or verizon

or at&t about a problem, how many of you get good service? how many of you like the prices you pay? when you decide you want to sign up for broadband and comcast tells you that they aren't sure when they can come to install your service and then finally you get an appointment and you have to take a day off from work to wait between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a repairman to come and then he doesn't come, is that how you feel you deserve to be treated? are you getting good service? when you call verizon and spend so 10 minutes listening to automated messages and pressing numbers to direct you to more automated messages and then finally, finally you get a human being on the line, but that person tells you that he or she can't help you and you get put on hold again; is that how you

deserve to be treated? are you getting good service? who when you've had enough with bad service and rapidly rising bills ants you decide you want to switch to another company, how many of you have found that you don't have another choice, that there is no other cable provider in your area? well, i can tell you that right now comcast has about 23 million cable subscribers and about 16 million internet subscribers. they are already the largest provider of cable service to americans by a very large margin, and in some areas they have a total monopoly. this, ladies and gentlemen is what cable and internet customer service is like today. do you think that merging the single-largest cable provider, which is also the largest wireline internet provider, with one of the biggest tv and movie

studios in the country will make any of this better? do you think it will lead to lower prices on your cable and internet bills? do you think it will mean more choice for what you can watch and download at home? do you think it will mean better customer service? i can assure you that the answers to these questions is no, no, no and no. we count on competition in this country to keep corporations in check, and we have designed antitrust laws to ensure that companies are not getting too big or too powerful. these laws were designed to protect consumers because the one thing we know about corporations is that they are created to maximize shareholder profit, not to protect consumers, and there is nothing wrong with that. we want corporations to grow and

create jobs and provide goods and services. there are some great corporations based in minnesota, like general mills and 3m. in addition to providing cheerios and post-it notes, these companies put a lot of minnesotans to work. but when you go shopping for cereal, you have a lot of choice. general mills may produce cheerios, but they have to compete with companies like kellogg's which makes corn flakes and post which makes fruity pebbles, and they all have to compete with the store or value brands. let's look at another example of the benefits of competition. when you go out for dinner at a restaurant, you usually have a lot of options. i'm guessing you don't go back to the restaurant that served you limp lettuce, mediocre meatloaf and cold, lumpy mashed potatoes. and i'm guessing you wouldn't go back if they told you you would be served sometime between

9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. unfortunately, you don't always have that kind of choice when it comes to your cable and internet service, and this is only going to get worse if the f.c.c. allows the merger between comcast and nbc universal to sail through. it's competition and regulation where there isn't competition that keeps corporations accountable to consumers. but don't take my word for it. you can already see what comcast has up its sleeve. if the merger is allowed to go through, as i mentioned before, we can expect comcast to favorites own content and leave consumers with less choice. take the tennis channel which filed a complaint against comcast earlier this year. it alleged that comcast has been favoring the gulf channel and its own sports channel verses by making those channels available as part of its basic cable package while putting the tennis

channel on a so-called premium tier. in other words, if you get cable from comcast, you get the golf channel and versus for free, but if you want to watch the australian open on the tennis channel, you need to pay another another $5, $8 per month. yet, comcast pays the tennis channel only a fraction of what it pays itself to carry the golf channel or versus, which are much less popular. i fear that this is a sign of things to come. as media conglomerates get bigger and bigger, they have every incentive to make their own content easier and cheaper to access than everyone else's content. now, i have been talking to a lot of people about the possible impact of this merger, and do you know what i keep hearing? do you know what small businesses and cable programmers are telling me? they are coming to my office

discretely and saying that they oppose the merger but that they can't speak out because they are worried about retaliation from comcast. and to me, that is the very definition of a company with too much market share. comcast has put out the word that this merger is a fait accompli. they have announced a slate of 43 officers for nbc, despite promising to refrain from doing so until the review of this merger is complete. so it is no surprise that small and some not so small cable networks see the writing on the wall and aren't willing to take the chance of opposing this deal publicly, again for fear of retaliation from comcast, and they're probably right. if this deal goes through, comcast will have the power to

put them out of business. if you are a cable network and you knew that, would you stand up and complain to the f.c.c. about comcast? probably not. this type of anticompetitive conduct is exactly why we need the department of justice and the f.c.c. to stop this merger. and this merger is only the first domino in a cascade that is sure to come. make no mistake, if this merger is approved, if this deal goes through, it will only be a year or two before we see at&t trying to buy abc disney or verizon trying to buy cbs viacom. and do you know what these companies will say? you let comcast and nbc universal do it. now it's our turn. and what will the f.c.c. or the department of justice say to them then? now is the time to decide whether we want four or five

companies owning and delivering all content. imagine a world with no independent voices and no competition. now, let me go back specifically to comcast and not just about its cable profile. let's talk about comcast control of the internet. there is no better example how -- of how comcast plans to use its virtual monopoly than what we have seen in the past few weeks with its treatment of netflix. i think we can all agree that netflix has changed the way many americans watch movies, and it all started because one of its founders was sick of paying late fees for movie rentals. this s&p is one of -- this company is one of our nation's great success stories. it now has almost 17 million subscribers and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and it all happened in just over a decade. but most importantly, it offered an alternative and less expensive option for consumers to watch movies.

netflix now has a lot of money and can write big checks to buy movies and video content, so i didn't think i needed to worry about netflix. but then i heard that being the highest bidder for content may not be enough. as it turns out, cable companies are worried about netflix' success. it represents the first real competition they have seen in a long time, and they want to shut netflix down. how can they do that? by putting off netflix' access to things people want to watch. and when is this the most problematic? first, it's when netflix' competitors like comcast or time warner cable also own the programming that netflix carries. secondly, it's when netflix' competitors are also the ones that sell and control access to the internet. neither of these is theoretical.

just last week, time warner's c.e.o. brazenly stated that netflix' deals with time warner may not be renewed. other studio executives are saying the same thing, and what i'm hearing is that comcast, which is not yet even in control of nbc universal, plans to reverse course and ultimately pull nbc universal's programming from netflix. comcast also recently announced that they are imposing a new fee on level three communications. the company slated to become the primary delivery mechanism and backbone for netflix' online streaming of movies and tv shows. coincidentally, netflix is one of comcast' main competitors for video delivery, which makes this price hike seem just a little fishy to me. regardless of comcast's motives for charging level three, this is a clear warning sign of what

we can all expect if this deal goes through. if this deal goes in, comcast will make it harder and more expensive for you to watch movies online through any service other than its own. if this deal goes through, comcast will have the power to limit your choices, to watching comcast-owned content over comcast services like its video on demand service. i use the phrase if this deal goes through because this is exactly the sort of anticompetitive behavior that the department of justice and the f.c.c. are supposed to stop. and what is even more ludicrous is that this is happening when comcast and nbc should be on their best behavior. right now, they're under close scrutiny by two federal agencies, the f.c.c. and the

d.o.j. yet, they seem to be making even more bold-faced power grabs without any concern about government oversight. but in addition to the comcast-nbc merger, what is also before the f.c.c. is a new set of proposed rules that will make it easier for large media conglomerates like comcast to do nothing short of controlling the internet. the chairman of the f.c.c. is calling this a net neutrality proposal. but let's be clear, this is not real net neutrality. i believe this is one of the biggest issues facing our country today. let me take a step back and explain what net neutrality is. put simply, it is the idea that big corporations shouldn't be able to decide who wins or loses on the internet. it's the idea that the internet should be a level playing field for everyone, from a blogger to a media conglomerate. from a small business person to

a powerful corporation. i believe that net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time. the internet wasn't created by corporations. it was created using taxpayer dollars, and it has dramatically altered our daily lives in more ways than any of us could ever have dreamed. it's an incredible source of innovation, a hotbed for creativity, an unbelievable producer of wealth and jobs in this nation. it was instrumental in putting president obama in office, but it was also equally instrumental in helping the tea party become powerful -- a powerful force in american politics. i may not agree with everything the tea party movement has done or everything that it stands for, but i do firmly believe that the tea party has a right to organize and to post its views on the internet.

strong net neutrality principles would ensure that everyone from the most liberal blogger on "daily coast" to the most conservative fan of fox news would continue to have an equal right of access and an equal ability to communicate with like-minded people. if corporations are allowed to control the internet, all of that would change. the internet has become the public square of the 21st century, and this is why tea party activists and anyone who cares about personal liberties, freedoms, should care about net neutrality. one popular minnesota blogger should be able to get his or her information to you just as quickly as msnbc. or to say it another way, msnbc shouldn't be able to pay millions to get their website to load faster on your computer. we do not want corporations to be able to drown out the voices of smaller, less powerful

individuals. unfortunately, the proposal for the f.c.c., which i will admit i haven't seen because it's not been made public would reportedly allow companies to do just that. it would allow internet providers to create a fast lane for companies that can afford to pay for it. it would allow mobile networks like at&t and verizon wireless to completely block content and applications whenever it suits, for either political or for business reasons. let me underscore this. this is the first time that the f.c.c. has ever allowed discrimination on the internet. let me give you an example. maybe you like google maps. well, tough. if the f.c.c. passes this weak rule, verizon will be able to cut off access to google maps