from the federal government the cost of compliance, the added, you know, number of employees who are required to deal with the regulatory burden, they can't afford it. jafl all, we're in an -- afterall, we're in an age of high, high unemployment. it is persistent. so we could deal with this issue here and now. we have had a number of hearings over time on regulatory. the government operations homeland security commission has had hearings on regulatory. -- regulatory reform. the time is now to address it. and furthermore, what is the problem with allowing a vote on this amendment? that's what i don't understand, mr. president. why can't i have a vote on the amendment on regulatory reform? if those on the other side do not want to support it, they can vote against it, but let's have a vote, let's have a debate. what else are we doing, mr. president? what else are we doing? we just came off a two-week

recess. we're limited in time to debate this issue. we're limited in time. i cannot imagine if anybody went home and talked to small businesses on main street or to the average person who is searching for a job desperately that they wouldn't connect with the world here that we have got to do something about it. it's not about worrying about lunches. it's about doing our work here in the united states senate and doing it, however long and however hard it is, but to do it. that's what this issue is all about. it's about doing things that are going to matter on main street, and regulatory reform matters on main street. we can talk about it endlessly. the time is now to act, mr. president. that's what this is all about. and let's the senate work in the traditions of the united states senate, an open, deliberative process. when we had the continuing resolution, we had 700 members in the u.s. house of representatives. what -- 700 amendments in the u.s. house of representatives. what do we have here? the same is true now. they're shutting down the process. i'm told we have 137 amendments?

what to do? go on recess for two weeks. i mean, the point is here we have got a serious problem in america. it's a persistently high unemployment, it's sub par growth. the economic conditions are deeply troubling. we have to get the show on the road. that means regulatory reform. it is one of the chief, foremost concerns among small businesses. among the plethora of concerns they have about what we're doing or not doing, one of the foremost issues is regulatory reform, and we're dithering. i can't even get a vote on the amendment. vote yes or vote no. let's debate it. is there anything else we're doing in the united states senate? can somebody tell me? because we're not. we just came off a two-week recess. and i'm mystified why we're just driving this to a cloture vote and i'm denied a vote on an amendment that is so relevant to the well-being, to the survival

of small businesses than regulations. $26 billion in increased costs in regulations last year, mr. president. that's new regulations. the total cost of $1.7 trillion overall. some have debated that cost, said that's not a true cost. they said, you know, it's this cost, it's a lesser cost. some say it's less than a trillion. why? because they don't count the i.r.s. well, you ask the small business if i.r.s. regulations are hampering their well-being, if it's suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit in america? well, i think so. or the f.c.c. or all the myriad of other independent agencies that are not included. that's the o.m.b. study. they're saying well, we don't include those because that doesn't really have an impact on small businesses. oh, really? i suggest everybody take main street tours and see what's happening. if we're wondering why we can't create the jobs that's necessary for the well-being of america,

then just look to right here. we're shutting down the process with cloture votes. for what? because we can't -- we can't have a debate, we can't have -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. ms. snowe: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i would urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this important bill. it's the federal government's largest research program for new technologies and innovation, and it is a job creator. it is broadly supported by many organizations and business organizations in this country. it is a bill that should have passed six years ago. it is a bill, a statute that will expire in less than 30 days from now, and if we don't vote favorably on this bill today, there will be virtually no chance of this program being extended under law, and we will either have to eliminate the program entirely or we will revert back to no way to do

business, which is a three-month or six-month rolling extension. i'd like to answer a few of the charges made by my colleague. first of all, i have the greatest respect for my ranking member, and i can understand her frustration as being the ranking member of the small business committee and not getting her amendment on the floor. i would respectfully remind her that we could have had a vote on her amendment in committee except that her side demanded -- and i want to submit a letter to the effect -- that the bill come out of our committee clean, that the sbir bill not be attached to anything else so that we can have an open debate on it because it has been going on for six years. number two, an open amendment process which the majority leader has been more than gracious in the fact that 150 amendments have been filed on a bill that's only 116 pages long.

95% of these amendments have nothing to do with this bill. the majority leader has been more than patient, but an open debate does not -- on the senate floor, an open and free debate does not mean eliminating the committee process in the senate of the united states that has existed, to my knowledge, as long as this body has existed, and never will. we cannot trample on the rights of our committees, whether it be homeland security, which is jurisdiction, primary jurisdiction over this issue, as well as the small business committee which has some jurisdiction over this issue, but because this regulatory reform bill is so far reaching and a necessary debate to have. not here, not now, not on this floor and not in the senate, but in the relevant committees. in fact, there are four other bills besides my ranking member. senator vitter has one bill, and

i'm going to submit for the record other bills that have been filed, and, in fact, on this exact subject, the chairman of the homeland security committee that sits right here at this desk has already agreed to have a hearing on all of these bills because senator snowe, with all due respect, is not the only member that has an interest in regulatory reform. and my committee of which i chair does not have complete jurisdiction over this issue. commerce is interested in it. homeland security is interested in it. i can't pull a bill. i don't believe it's right to pull a bill from the floor to have a vote that's not had a hearing in any committee of the united states senate. that is not an open process. that is an ask that is impossible to agree to. number five in my arguments, if we vote no on cloture, i just want to remind senators, senator carper and senator vitter's amendment will see no light of

day. they have a good amendment they have been working on for three years that has had committee review to help expedite the sale of federal buildings that could save taxpayers millions of dollars. that amendment will go down. the cornyn amendment which establishes a commission to cut spending, which will also save taxpayer money and reduce the burden on taxpayers, that amendment will go down. senator paul's amendment to reduce spending by $200 billion, he will not get the majority of our votes, but there will be an interesting debate on whether we can cut $200 billion out of the federal government. we lose that amendment. senator hutchison has an amendment for us to debate all of the regulations in the entire universe on health care. people are complaining about regulations for health care. we're giving a vote on that. that amendment will not be voted on. senator carnd has an amendment -- senator cardin has an amendment to fix surety bonds.

senator snowe has an amendment to eliminate fraud in contracting. we're going to lose that. so evidently, 95% of the loaf is not enough. so we either get 60 votes on this bill or we don't. i'd like to give my last minute to senator shaheen, who i would like to ask her a question what actually did she hear in the armed services committee has relevant to this bill? if i have two seconds, go ahead and tell. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam chair. i took the opportunity yesterday at an armed services committee subcommittee to ask department of defense officials who have been responsible for maintaining our military technological edge what the impact would be on d.o.d.'s research if congress does not reauthorize the sbir program. assistant secretary zachary limnios said that -- and i'm quoting -- "sbir is something we

absolutely need." he talked about what it's like talking to small, innovative companies that he works with through sbir, and he told me -- again, i'm quoting -- "there are small companies willing to take some risk in areas where larger companies, for whatever reason, just don't. you spend a day with a small business like that and your mind explodes with new ideas. that's the kind of innovative spirit we need to stay competitive. we need this for america's national security. as you point out, this is a program that creates jobs. we need to get this reauthorization done. we need to talk about regulatory reform, but we need to do this first. ms. landrieu: thank you. thank you for answering my question. i will submit many more things for the record. but i will close. we are now over ten minutes extended for the vote. i will please ask the senate to consider voting for the sbir program. if we don't, it will expire on

may 31 this year. ms. landrieu: i would suggest a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask dispensing of the call of the quorum. i have nine unanimous consents for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. i ask that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the senate will shortly vote on the cloture motion on the jack mcconnell nomination. we have been working in good faith with our democratic colleagues to confirm consensus judicial nominees in general and to fill judicial emergencies in particular, so it's disappointing that our democratic friends have chosen to depart from this bipartisan practice and depress the mcconnell nomination, which would not fill a judicial emergency and is about as far from a consensus nomination as one can imagine. mr. mcconnell described his judicial philosophy in this way -- "there are wrongs that need to be righted, and that's how i see the law."

end quote. in mr. mcconnell's eyes, the wrongdoers in america are invariably its job creators. his legal career has been marked by a pervasive and persistent hostility to american job creators. this bias against one part of american society is fundamentally anathetical to the rule of law and it has led him to take troubling actions to show his lifetime position as a fair and impartial judicial officer. for example, he has filed what his hometown newspaper described as a ludicrous lawsuit against business. this case ended up costing not just the companies but rhode island taxpayers as well. after the state supreme court unanimously rejected his frivolous legal theory, his clients, the taxpayers, had to pay a quarter of a million dollars in lawyers' fees. rather than be contrite about the damage he had done, he

lashed out at his state's supreme court, saying it let -- quote -- "wrongdoers off the hook." end quote. he has made other intemperate statements as well that underscore his bias, such as when he insisted that one american industry only does -- quote -- "the right thing" -- end quote -- when it is forced to and sued by a jury. after a long record of hostilities toward one segment of american society, it's difficult to believe mr. mcconnell can now turn on a dime and administer justice without respect to persons, as the judicial oath requires. the business community doesn't think so and it's easy to see why. in fact, the united states chamber of commerce has never before opposed a district court nominee in its 100-year history. not once. yet it is so troubled by mr. mcconnell's clear disdain for the business community that it has taken the extraordinary step of opposing this nomination. senator cornyn pointed out yesterday that there are also

serious ethical issues with mr. mcconnell's nomination. he pioneered the practice of pay-to-play lawsuits, where he solicited lucrative no-bid contingency fee contracts from public officials. he's given statements to the judiciary committee that are misleading, at best, and untrue, at worst, about his familiarity with the case involving stolen litigation documents. and there's the outstanding matter of the stolen litigation documents themselves, over which his law firm and several unnamed john doe named defendants are being sued. in light of all the problems with the mcconnell nomination, i have listened with interest to the astonish -- to the admonishments by the chairman of the judiciary committee and other democratic colleagues against opposing cloture on his nomination. i know my record of supporting up-and-down votes for controversial judicial nominees during the administration of president clinton and i'm equally aware that determined

efforts by my democratic colleagues to change the ground rules in the senate confirmation process once there was a republican president. my democratic colleagues ultimately succeeded in their efforts by repeatedly filibustering president bush's judicial nominees. i wish our friends had not succeeded and not set up that precedent but they did, and the president dent is the -- and the precedent is the precedent and their buyer's remorse again is now that there is a democrat in the oval office will not change it. now, over the years there have been bipartisan concerns with judicial no, ma'am expheez cloture has been -- nominees and cloture has been needed to end debate. abe fordice was a case. he was opposed by members on both sides of the aisle and his nomination didn't have majority support let alone the votes needed to invoke cloture. but the partisan filibuster is a more recent development. and our democratic colleagues have been the proud pioneers in this area. in 1986, they mounted the first

partisan filibuster against a judicial nominee. that nominee, by the way, was a district court nominee, sidney fitzwater. also in 1986, they mounted the first partisan filibuster against a nominee to be chief justice. that was chief justice rehnquist's nomination. in 1999, they mounted the first successful partisan filibuster of a judicial nominee. that, too, involved a district court nominee, brian stewart. both the chairman of the judiciary committee and the senior senator from rhode island voted to filibuster mr. stewart. and i and all republicans voted actually against filibustering him. our friends' successful filibuster of this nominee is now inconvenient to their narrative about filibuster norms and propriety. they claim that the filibuster doesn't count. i guess they are saying the only -- they only filibustered him to leverage floor votes on other judicial nominees and once they got what they wanted, he was confirmed.

i gather this is the coercion exception to the body of filibuster precedent that they have created. in 2003, our friends mounted the first successful filibuster of a circuit court nomination. that would be miguel estrada's nomination. he was filibustered seven times, in fact. our democratic colleagues added to this record by filibustering nine other circuit court nominees a total of 21 times. that's a record, too. and the chairman of the judiciary committee and the senior senator from rhode island participated in all of those filibusters as well. and in 2006, led by president obama himself, our democratic colleagues mounted the first partisan filibuster of a nominee to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. that would be the justice alito nomination. our democratic friends from vermont and rhode island joined in that filibuster too. mr. president, i agree that filibusters of judicial nominees

should be used sparingly. unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have filibustered judicial nominees whenever it suited their purposes to do so, whether it was to defeat nominees like miguel estrada or to leverage other nominees like the stewart nomination, given their persistent enthusiasm for the judicial filibuster, i do not view our democrat friends as the arbiters of filibuster propriety. in this case, i believe the mcconnell nomination is an extraordinary one. he should not be confirmed to a lifetime position on the bench. i will oppose cloture and i would urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on calendar number 17, s. 493, the sbbir and sttir reauthorization act of 2011. signed by 18 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the sbir and ttr -- and sttr programs and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?

on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of john j. mcconnell jr. of rhode island to be united states district judge for the district of rhode island, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by snack snack, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john j. mcconnell jr. to be the united

states district judge for the district of rhode island shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 33. one senator responded present. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. [inaudible] [inaudible] mr. reid: th reid: problems ari. it comes out in the committee. there is ample time to make it -- make the case if you don't

like a person for whatever reason. but this is a good man. he -- the biggest problem he has is he's a trial lawyer, a very fine trial lawyer. but i express my appreciation to those on the other side of the aisle who did the right thing. this is going to make the atmosphere around here so much more pleasant. i'm disappointed that we were unable to get cloture on the small business jobs bill. that was an important piece of legislation. i thought it had been so very, very fair on this legislation in allowing amendments. and we're going to continue allowing amendments. there will be rare occasions, as senator mcconnell said when we started this new senate, that -- the new congress that there would be times when he would not without a cloture vote allow us to proceed to a bill. but generally speaking, we've been able to move to legislation and that's important. and i say the same about filling the treatment. i will still fill the tree, but it will be a rare, rare occasion that we do that and i think it's

going to make things around here a lot better. so again, mr. president, i say thank you, very, very much for allowing this to go forward. this is very, very important that we are able to move on and have the nomination process as it relates to judges move forward expeditiously. there's a lot of blame to go around as what's transpired in years past. we're past that. let's move on. there are -- there are things that probably we as democrats could have done a little differently and there are things the republicans could have done as it relates to judges differently. but let's start now, as we have done today, with a new day. and so, again, i say for the fourth time, this is really a good day for the united states senate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: mr. president, i want to thank all of my colleagues, particularly those who supported this motion to invoke cloture, but everyone brought to this

floor very vigorous arguments and very clear positions. but i think what is confirmed today is not just the moving forward on the confirmation of one judge, it is reaffirming a practice here in the united states senate that if a nominee of home state senators is put forward by the president, if that person, that man or woman receives the appropriate evaluation by the bar association, the appropriate vetting by the fib fi the appropriate -- vetting by the f.b.i., the appropriate scrutiny of the committee and then the vote of the committee to bring that district court judge to the floor, that we will move to passage, an up-or-down vote on the merits of the individual appointee. there are -- were extraordinary

individuals engaged in this discussion and they may view, in fact i think they do view the merits quite differently than i. but what they had firmly in mind was not just the moment but the senate as an institution. i particularly want to commend senator alexander, senator graham, and senator collins, senator brown, senator murkowski, senator snowe, senator thune, senator saxby chambliss, senator johnny isakson, and senator kirk, as well as all of my colleagues who joined. but this vote i think fairly was less in many respects to many of my colleagues about an individual. it was about whether the senate would conduct its business in a

time-honored tradition, whether the viewpoints not just of individual senators from a particular state but the community of that state, the business leaders, the -- the civic leaders, the members of the bar, their views and their evaluation would be waived successfully. and i thank everyone for the opportunity to move forward on this nomination. again, i appreciate and respect the principled debate and thoughtful debate of those who took a different position, but i think that today is not just a case of an individual nomination. i hope it settl sets the standad going forward. and, again, a standard that we, as democrats, must respect. that if a person is nominated,

if that person passes through the close scrutiny of the bar association, of the f.b.i., of the judiciary committee, and comes to the floor, that person deserves an up-and-down vote. and that is something that we all have to respect. it can be a divisive convenience for the moment. it has to be a practice of this institution, and i think today we went a long way to institutionalize that practice. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor to the senator from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i had planned to make some similar words. if my senior senator would stay just for one moment with me on the floor. he spoke so eloquently, that i am simply going to associate myself with his remarks. but i also want to add one additional point, which is how

much i appreciate his leadership and how hard he worked and the extent to which the credibility that he has built over years with his colleagues in this institution has helped to get us to this point. this was not preordained. there are times when it feels here a if the interest groups that seek our attention and our good wishes control the day around here, and there is not much of an institution. but today was a day in which te institution stood up for itself, in all the ways that senator reed mentioned. i will add my gratitude and respect to him for his leadership through this process. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: first i ask unanimous consent to speak as if

in morning business and my time be counted against cloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first, i just want to add my kudos to senator reed and senator whitehouse from rhode island for their persistence and their success today in getting to the bench a fine person. i also want to thank my republican colleagues, those, of course, who voted for cloture. and maybe that will help break some of the logjams here. i think it is very meaningful to some of us on this side of the aisle that that happened. the fact that it does happen maybe says something that this is a day after what happened over in pakistan that we can come together, and it's meaningful, and i want to thank senator mcconnell as well. he had his strong views. but obviously we know the respect that his colleagues have for him. and thank him as well for understanding that there would be differing views within both

sides of the aisle as well as on both sides of the aisle. but i rise to speak of the different subject today, and that is about what happened in pakistan and the aftermath. first, of course, the killing of osama bin laden, the evil mastermind of the world's bloodiest terrorist organization, was a thunderous strike for justice for the thousands of my fellow new yorkers and citizens from all over the world who were murdered on 9/11. it took almost a decade, but the world's most wanted terrorist finally met his fate four days ago. new york's heart is still broken from the tragedy of 9/11. but at least this brings some measure of closure and consolation to the families and the victims. when i spoke to the families, one of the things they said that galled them almost every day when they woke up was that their father or mother, brother or sister, son or daughter was, husband or wiervetion was gone d

or wife was gone, and bin laden still lived. we will, that kind of galling knowledge is no longer in their hearts and minds because bin laden at least has met his deserved fate. we have -- we owe a massive debt of gratitude to our military. they've done an amazing, amazing job. i have sat in on the briefings, and your jaw drops at their professionalism, their excellence, their sacrifice, their courage, their dedication. unbelievable. and that's true also of our civilian intelligence, the c.i.a. led by leon panetta should just be incredibly proud, and we know they are. an agency that gets too little acclaim and accomplishment deserves it. and, finally, it should not be forgotten the job that president obama did. his steely courage, his quiet

courage was incredible. all one had to do was look at some of the films from the situation room and learn a little bit of the history to know what an amazing feat this was for our president. he could have taken the easy way out in a certain sense. he didn't. the easy way out probably would have been an air bombardment. but we never would have known certainly that bin laden is gone. and there might have been -- probably would have been many unnecessary civilian casualties. and the president chose the right path. and i want to say something about this president, mr. president. he's not a chest thumper. he is not somebody who involves in a lot of rhetorical flourishes. he is serious. he is focused. he is factually driven. but let no one mistake the fact

that he is fact-driven and p often coul kauai -- and often qy said to have a lack of strength. this incident showed the true strength of the man. and his speech sunday night, modest but forceful, proud but understated, was president oba obama. and there's been a lot of talk of lack of determination or taking a side or focus. i think the people who do that mistake the president's style, often low-key, often fact-based, often without chest thumping or big slogans, for a lack of

strength. they're so wrong, and the actions show it. i think every american, regardless of political party, regardless of political attitude and conviction and ideology, should be proud of our military and of our country but also of our president. and i want to say one more thing about this. today i read today's newspapers, and there was a great deal of talk about how some of the facts that were reported in the early moments after this great victory were not exactly correct. now, there is certainly reason to correct facts. and they certainly are news. but they should not displace the importance of what happened.

and some -- for critics to dwell on the early disdiscrepancies and overexaggerate their importance would be an injustice to the magnitude of what really happened. iters a only dwo -- it's only two days after we learned early monday morning of what happened, and all of a sudden it seems, oh, they messed up this or they didn't do that right or this and that. there were discrepancies, and they should be made public. but to dwell on them to listen to the -- but to dwell on them, to listen to the morning news shows or to listen to the headlines blairing may have us miss the main point, which is that a superb, professional, well-practiced, and almost flawless military mission and civilian accompaniment got rid

of the greatest terrorist in the world. so let's keep our priorities straight. let's bein acknowledge, let's fd the facts and watch as they come out. let's make sure that some of the early comments that weren't right are corrected. but let's not let that in any way detract from the greatness and magnitude of what happened. our focus should be on the successful mission and on the message it sends to the world, which is, to those who would test the resolve of the people of the united states of america, this mission says, "do not doubt our resolve. if you do us harm, we will find you, we will mete out justice, and we will prevail." that is where our focus should

be and should stay. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that jessie becher be granted floor privileges. he is currently my military fellow. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, as jessie becher is coming to the floor and before i speak, i want to say that he has served in the army special operations command for the past 16 years. jessie, a special forces sergeant major, has deployed to iraq and afghanistan numerous times over the past decade, and he has added tremendously to our

office's military and overall productivity. mr. president, i'd like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the steady efforts of our armed forces and our intelligence community to eliminate the leader of al qaeda and to help bring some peace and relief to our nation and to those who lost loved ones in the tragedy on 9/11. you know, i've heard some people say justice has been done because the leader of this terrorist organization has finally been captured and taken and killed. you know, mr. president, i'm not one who's going to say justice has been done. i don't consider taking out the leader of a terrorist organization who killed thousands of americans who just

went to work one day to do their jobs for adding to their quality of life and the lives of their families an even trade. i don't consider that it is enough. however, it is a first step to righting the wrong that was done by not only the leader of al qaeda but all of those that he has trained through the years to give up their own lives in order to kill innocent people, because he has ruined the lives of so many americans, and he has also ruined the lives of so many young muslim followers who have given up a productive life for one of terrorism and murder. i want to thank today president george w. bush for his relentless efforts to put this accomplishment in motion.

he is the president who received the shock on 9/11, who had to deal with the immediate aftermath, and he put in place the organizations, the military control, the intelligence gathering that have brought us to this point today, and i want to commend president obama for carrying these principles through to completion. as things are unfolding more and more, we know that president obama made a very tough and very decisive and correct decision, but a very tough one at the time, and i think both president bush and president obama deserve praise today. i want to also especially say that i am proud of the navy seals who knowingly went into harm's way to take down osama

bin laden. those are the troops that probably thought there was a good chance they might not come home ever, but they are among the most highly trained forces in the world. they operate on sea, on air and on land. each and every day, they volunteer for some of the most dangerous missions, under the most difficult circumstances, and without recognition. normally, it is something that we never hear about that takes us one step closer to wiping out the terrorism that we know in the world today. they are truly our nation's heroes. while much praise deservedly goes to the two dozen navy seals who raided the terrorist stronghold, using surprise and lethal speed, we cannot even think that they went there alone because they didn't. shortly after the world saw the

brutality of osama bin laden's savage plan unfold on american soil nearly ten years ago, president bush took the decisive steps to launch an aggressive campaign to hunt down those responsible, including osama bin laden. one such step occurred on october 26, 2001, when president bush signed into law the patriot act. it provided the law enforcement and the intelligence community greater authority to track and intercept communities among -- communications among suspected terrorists. this law has proven to be immeasurably valuable to the intelligence community. it has enhanced our ability to find and capture terrorists. i hope that we will be able to reach a bipartisan agreement to extend the provisions of the patriot act that are set to expire at the end of this month.

as we have seen from various media reports -- and i look forward to getting more details -- the ability to monitor communications was a crucial lead used by analysts to determine the eventual location of osama bin laden. as my colleagues are aware, the provisions that are set to expire include the authorization for the f.b.i. to use roving wiretaps on surveillance targets, because at the time that we took up the patriot act, we were still having to get permission from authorities to wiretap a telephone number. not keeping up with the technology advances that allow you to have a cell phone and never have a land line and throw away a cell phone every 15 minutes if you think that you are in danger of being surveyed. so, of course, we had to lock it

into the target, not to the phone number. that's part of what the patriot act does. it also has a lone wolf provision that allows for the investigation of individuals who are acting alone but who have been radicalized and are sympathetic to terrorist organizations and pose a significant national security threat. these are just two of the provisions that have enhanced our capabilities to obtain information that has been crucial in capturing not only terrorists that we know have already plotted against us, but also to uncover their plots before they are able to do the harm. we must not allow the provisions of the patriot act to expire, especially at a time when al qaeda is reeling from the death of their leader and could be plotting revenge. stepping back our intelligence

efforts now could allow al qaeda to regroup and launch additional attacks against our nation. another very important step was taken in signing the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act in d.c. of 2004. this act created the national counterterrorism center. this center is the primary organization in the united states government for integrating, analyzing and sharing all intelligence, from the c.i.a., the f.b.i., the department of defense and others that pertain to counterterrorism. this was a very important tool for assimilating the various information that were being gathered by many of the intelligence organizations and putting it through one grid, one analysis, and it was that painstaking analysis through the last ten years that allowed

actionable intelligence to be the instigator of the effort to take out osama bin laden. within our military, we have a small group of tier one units that are especially selected and highly trained for this exact type of counterterrorist mission. they have gained fame in the last few decades through books and movies. these heroes are real. i would like to point out that the commander of these elite warriors, vice admiral william mccraven, is a proud texan from san antonio who is also an alumni of the university of texas. admiral mccraven is a highly decorated navy seal who lives by the seal code and earns his trident every day. vice admiral mccraven has been nominated by the president to receive his fourth star, and if confirmed will lead u.s. special

ops command. i can think of no one better qualified to lead our special operations than he is, and i look forward to supporting his confirmation on the senate floor. while these highly skilled commandos deserve every accolade that is bestowed upon them, we can't forget those who guided them to the target. the direct and indirect support personnel, the technicians, the analysts, the pilots and crews and all of those who have worked meticulously and attentively for years to finally put together the pieces to get the seals to the right place at the right time. we have seen many changes in the past ten years. departments and agencies have been consolidated or created. military commanders have retired. administrations have changed hands. most of the soldiers who conducted that first raid in afghanistan, in october of 2001,

are no longer wearing the uniform. most of those in the military today were still in school in september, 2001. many of those in the military signed up to go into the military after 9/11 because they felt so much of a loyalty to our country. i'd like to acknowledge those who devoted so many years to pursuing osama bin laden. to those who have retired or moved on to other professions, i want you to know that we appreciate you and your work was not in vain. our leaders said from the beginning after september 11 on that fateful day we would get osama bin laden, and through the efforts of thousands, we did. we have the most professional, the best trained, the best equipped intelligence and military agencies in the world. while there are sighs of relief

now from the public, our work is clearly not done. al qaeda is still plotting against our freedom. other groups are just as zealously dedicated to the mission of destroying our way of life. so while taking down the head of al qaeda was a victory, of course, it is also a stark reminder that we must remain vigilant. as we speak right now, our intelligence experts are exploiting, analyzing, disseminating the information gleaned from the bin laden raid, and our special operators are preparing for the next mission, whatever it may be. mr. president, i believe our country is united in the commitment to protecting what makes america great -- our freedom and our way of life. i look forward to a day when we will not have to walk through a body scan or put our shoes on an x-ray machine to get on an

airplane. i look forward to a day when we will not have to fight against an enemy that is living among us, an enemy that is plotting against us in our own country, an enemy that is willing to kill itself in order to kill innocent people and destroy our way of life. i look forward to a day when we never see a body bag at dover, delaware, one of our military elite coming home having made the ultimate sacrifice. that day will only come if we as a nation remain willing to fight and even die to protect the ideals of america. the foundation that was laid by our founding fathers and has been protected by every generation since that time. today is a day that we reflect on those principles. it is a day that we renew our

commitment to uphold them at all costs. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: i would ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. bingaman: mr. president, the country faces two large economic challenges. the first is growing our economy, creating jobs, getting the economy back on track. the second major challenge is cutting the deficit. i'd like to talk about both of those very briefly. i have four charts here. one that relates to jobs and growing the economy and three that deal more specifically with the deficit.

unfortunately here in washington, the debate has shifted almost entirely to a discussion of the deficit. too many people in washington are pretending that our efforts to generate growth in the economy have been accomplished, that it's a done deal, that we have recovered from the recession, we can now focus full time on how to cut the deficit. the facts are that this is simply not true. professor alan pwraoeurpbd, an -- blinder, an economist at princeton, former deputy chair of the federal reserve, testified before the senate finance committee a couple of weeks ago, and he made the following statement: he said the economic recovery is mediocre at best, and unemployment remains high. to me, these conditions describe a bad time to put the economy on a diet. on a diet of either spending cuts or tax increases.

end quote. let me point to the first of these charts to underscore the point that professor blinder made. the recession that we have just gone through created a very deep hole. and if you look at the number of private-sector jobs that were lost between november of 2007 and the end of -- and essentially march of 2010, you can see that it is the -- for february of 2010, it is 8.8 million jobs that were lost as a result of the recession. while things are getting better, it's clear that they have not gotten enough better. we have now created 1.8 million new jobs since we began adding private-sector jobs. so we still have a shortfall of about 7 million jobs that need to be created in order to get back to where we were in

november of 2007. and of course there have been a lot of new people come into the job market since then. so we really need to create more jobs than that. we are encountering some strong headwinds in our effort to dig out of this recession. the strongest head wind, of course, is the high price of oil and gas, which is a tax on consumers. it is a tax on our businesses. and it comes at a very bad time. and we all are looking for ways to try to deal with that, but frankly, it is a difficult thing to legislate a solution to. another headwind is one of our own creation, and that is the constant drumbeat that we hear to cut spending at all levels of government. cut it here in washington, cut it at the state level, cut it at the local level. my own strong view is that we should heed professor blinder's advice. we need to continue to work to

keep investing in those things that will help us create good-paying jobs. timing is important. we clearly need to reduce the deficit, but we should adopt policies this year that will put us on a long-term path to reduce the deficit. but i hope these policies will delay major cuts in spending and major increases in taxes until we can come out of this recession some additional distance. now let me talk about the deficit, the second of the challenges that i talked about before. we have a chart here called federal revenues and outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product. this is for a 40-year period, from 1970 to 2010. and it's a chart that the congressional budget office prepared and has presented to us. clearly there are some important

points you can take away from this chart. number one, on average over the last 40 years -- that's since 1970 -- the federal government has accounted for 20.7% of gross domestic product, the spending by the federal government on average has accounted for that. over that same period on average we have raised 18.1% of gross domestic product in the form of revenues. so on average we have been running a deficit of about 3% each year, 3% of gross domestic product each year during this 40-year period. today that 3% of gross domestic product is about $450 billion. the one time during this 40 years when we achieved a balanced budget and even ran a surplus for a four-year period was at the end of the 1990's and in the year 2000. how did we manage to do that?

well, beginning in 1990, the congress passed and president george h.w. bush signed a bill that both restrained spending and raised taxes. again in 1993 and again in 1997 congress passed, and in that case president clinton signed budget plans that did even more to do what had been done in 1990. that is both of those plans restraeupbld spending and -- restrained spending and raised revenues. we enjoyed a strong economy during those years in question and that of course helped to bring more revenue in to the government and helped to get us to a balanced budget and a surplus. so what went wrong that caused us to once again fall into deficit? i'd cite three factors that caused it. first, the tax cuts that congress enacted in the last decade. beginning in 2001, then again in 2003, congress passed what had

been -- have come to be known as the bush tax cuts. these fairly drastically reduce the revenue coming to the federal government. at the same time that we were cutting taxes, we ramped up federal spending primarily for defense. and that's a result of the afghan war and the iraq war. the estimate there is something like $1.3 trillion has gone into those efforts. and in addition to defense, we ramped up spending on health care primarily by including a prescription drug benefit in medicare. now all of that increased spending occurred without any increase in revenues to pay for it. i repeat, none of this spending was offset with increased revenues. the third factor, of course, that has brought us into the very serious deficit that we now face is the slowdown of economic

activity. this contributed substantially to increased expenses for the government in some of the entitlement programs -- medicaid, food stamps and a variety of them -- but also decreased revenues. when people are earning less money, they pay less in taxes and less money comes to the government to pay for those services that the government is providing. the deficit, of course, has worsened substantially in the last two years because of, first, the reduced federal taxes that are being collected, largely a result of the recession. and second, increased federal spending both because there's more demand for government services as a result of the recession and also because we passed the recovery act to stimulate the economy. and i think most economists would conclude that it has helped to stimulate the economy. the pew fiscal analysis

initiative analyzed the policy's legislation that have caused the surpluses of the late 1990's to become the deficits that we see today. and they produced a list showing their conclusions. now, this is right here on this chart, and you can see these are in the order of importance. the order in which they contributed to the current deficit situation. the top two drivers in this list are the 2010 and 2003 -- are the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. they cut for about 13% of what we face today in deficits. and the iraq-afghanistan wars which account for about 10% what have we face. all told, tax cuts cost 21% of deficits since 2001. defense spending costs 15% of deficits. this is increased defense spending.

two-thirds of that was due to iraq and afghanistan. increased non-defense spending caused 10% of the deficits we currently face. the recovery act itself caused 6%. medicare prescription drug benefit caused 2%. the the next and final chart i have here shows how these policies have affected the deficit over time. the changes caused. this is a chart which is labeled "why c.b.o.'s debt projections changed between 2001 and 2011." the specific policies and drivers. i know this is very difficult for anyone to -- to see on a television, but let me just make the main -- the main point. the main points are that the changes caused by the legislation make up the large segments at the top of the chart, including interest

charges. they caused 65% of the deficits, when you -- when you look at these policy changes. the remaining 35% of deficits are due mainly to the economic and the technical adjustments to c.b.o.'s projections, primarily to reflect the lower revenue that we have enjoyed because of the recessions. now, how do we dig out of the hole we're in? i'd say some simple, obvious things. number one, we need to keep the focus on growing the economy. as professor blinder said, do not put the economy on a diet. this is not the right time to do that. second, we need to agree, as we did in 1990 and 1993 and 1997 to a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases that will once again put us on a path to a balanced budget. we have some serious proposals to work from in achieving this new deficit-reduction plan. of course, the president's

deficit-reduction commission, the simpson-bowles commission. senator domenici and alice rivlin, the former head of the congressional budget office, put out a bipartisan commission report which is very constructive. the president himself has -- has given the framework for a plan. there's a bipartisan group of senators, a gang of six, that are working to come up with a proposal. and, of course, senator conrad, who chairs the -- the budget committee, is putting together a proposed budget plan for that committee's consideration. all of these items that i've -- all of these plans that i mentioned follow the model used in the 1990's of combining both spending cuts and revenue increases. the only proposal that does not follow this model of a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases is the budget that was passed by the house republicans

two weeks ago. rather than raising revenue while cutting spending, it would cut revenue while cutting spending. in my view, this cannot lead us to a lower deficit. there's a lot of political polarization here in washington. i remain hopeful that we can get a critical mass of right-thinking people to do the responsible thing, to come together on a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases that -- that we can commit to going forward. we should be able to agree on -- on policies that grow the economy and shrink the long-term deficit. i pledge my best efforts to achieve these objectives. i urge my colleagues to work to do so as well. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call: e presiding officet

objection, senator is recognized. mr. merkley: mr. president, i

ask that a staffer from my office be given privileges for the rest of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be noted. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

frank madam president? the presiding officer: the senator minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask that the quorum calling vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: and i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: madam president, i rise today to talk about the house's effort last nonts repeal the federal communication commission's knelt retralt -- net neutrality rules. net neutrality is the very simple idea that all content and applications on the internet should be treated the same.

regardless of who owns the content or the web site. this is not a radical concept, in large part because it is what you and i see and experience everytime we use the internet. but the house wants to change all of that and effectively turn control of the internet over to a handful of very powerful corporations. i want to take a few moments today to tell you why i think the house's vote was a mistake. and why i am going to do everything in my power to make sure that we don't make the same mistake over here in the senate. but before i get into those details, i think it's important to take a step back and talk about the internet that we have today. let's be clear: the internet we have today exists because it is free and open, because we have always had

net neutrality throughout the entire existence of the internet. i have to give credit to my opponents on this issue who have done a masterful job of manipulating the american public into believing that net new tralt is something that it is not. net neutrality is not about a government takeover of the internet. it is simply the idea that all content, whether it is a web page, an e-mail, or a movie you're downloading, can load onto your computer at home at the same speed regardless of who owns or controls that content. this is not a radical idea. it is what you experience today when you use the internet. right now, if you buy rhianna's latest song from itunes, it

downloads as quickly as your friend's who has started a band in his or her garage. if you send an e-mail to your mother, it arrives in her in-box just as quickly as the e-mail she gets from president obama. and if you start a web site for your small business, your customers are able to access your web site and place orders for your products just as quickly as if they are buying from a multinational corporation. i lik would like to talk about utube's -- yewtube's early days as a start upbecause it is such a powerful example of why net neutrality is so popular and why this simple concept helped create a billion dollar company practically overnight. youtube's early headquarters were situated in a tiny space above a pis rhea in -- pits rhea

in san francisco, california. but six months after the site was activated, over 100 million people were using youtube to watch videos every day. and less than two years after its start, youtube sold its business to google for $1.6 billion. isn't that incredible? well, i am here to tell you that it wouldn't have been possible without net neutrality. at the same time -- at that time, google had a competing product, google videos, which was the standard at the time but was widely seen as inferior. if google had been able to pay comcast or verizon or any of the others large amounts of money to make its web site faster than

youtube's, youtube would still be floundering over that pisseria or most likely it would ceased to have exist at all. fortunately, google couldn't pay for priority access and the rest is history. what i'm saying here is that we take and have taken this equality that youtube enjoyed, this basic fairness or neutrality for granted, in large part because that's how the internet has always been. unfortunately, many members of the house have twisted this concept and are misleading the american public into believing that the government wants to take over the internet, and that is simply not true. one member of the house actually got up on the house floor and said that -- quote -- "over the last ten years, over $500

billion -- b with a b -- has been made to develop broadband over the country. this is without any kind of taxpayer money." he's wrong on that point, but let's put that aside for now. he went on to say, continuing on, "this is private-sector money being put into the marketplace to go and create jobs, to go and create the kinds of technology that allow us to view and use all kinds of apps that are available on these kinds of devices. devices." that was done without net neutrality. "they would tell you that they need net neutrality in order to have this innovation. of course, they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place when all this innovation happened." unquote.

yes, it was. it was in place. that's the whole point. all of this innovation occurred while net neutrality was in place. we are not trying to change anything. we are keeping the internet the way it has been during this explosion in innovation. now, my fervent hope is that this member of congress was just horribly, egregiously misinformed. because not only is his statement untrue, it is the opposite of true. it is 180 degrees opposite of the truth. please, everyone understand this: i beg you, net neutrality has

been in place since the beginning of the internet. from the very beginning, during all of that explosive growth, the internet operated with an understanding that network providers must treat all content the same and must interconnect the pipes they have to customers' homes with the pipes that are owned by other operators. this was a fundamental design, a fundamental design principle, that was established by academics, engineers, and computer scientists who designed the earliest protocols for internet traffic. the fact is that the internet started and grew because everyone realized that they needed to cooperate and work together for customers to be able to have access to the continencontent they wanted. they realized that that's what

consumers needed to create demand for internet service, and they realized that that's what would lead to the most innovation on the internet. the f.c.c. isn't trying to change that. it has no interest in derailing free enterprise. quite the contrary, the f.c.c. is interested in protecting -- protecting -- the innovators and the entrepreneurs that have made the internet what it is today. because of the internet, you no longer need a major studio to like your film or order a television show that you produced in order to have people see it. you no longer need a major record deal to start distributing your music. and you no longer need a high school diploma or fancy degree to launch a small business and

sell your products online. we don't want to change that. we want to preserve that. the f.c.c.'s only goal here is to make sure that the internet we know and love does not become corrupted and altered by a small number of large corporations controlling the last free and open distribution channel we have in this country. as telecom companies have grown larger and fewer and started owning not just the pipes but also the content, their incentives have changed. they're starting to care more about giving their own content a competitive advantage. rather than promoting innovation and competition on the internet. the fight for net neutrality isn't about changing the internet. it's about creating a few rules of the road to keep it open and

free, to keep it the same, and to continue the innovation and growth that is such a creator of jobs and wealth. the fight for net neutrality is about making sure large corporations aren't allowed to put toll booths on the in fact superhighway. this fight is about micking sure that the internet stays just the way it is. free, open, equal, available to everyone regardless of how much they can pay to get their content on. there was a time not so long ago when net neutrality was bipartisan issue that wasn't incredibly controversial. just three years ago mike huckabee was talking about the need to keep the internet a level playing field. and in 2006, 11 house republicans voted in favor of net neutrality on the floor.

rarely do you have the gun owners of america and the christian coalition joining with moveon.org and the aclu to advocate for the same policy of nondiscrimination on the internet. but they all agree on net neutrality, and so do the catholic bishops. and later today i will receive 80,000 letters opposing the house's effort to undo the f.c.c.'s open internet rules. these letters came from americans across the u.s., including 2,000 letters from minnesotans who are worried about this. they want the internet to stay the way it is: open and free from corporate control. i am confident as more americans realize what is at stake here that we will hear from more and

more constituents who will ask us to protect them from corporate takeover of the internet. what is most striking about this issue which seems to have gotten lost in the rhetoric that my opponents use is that experts from bank of america, merrill lynch, goldman sachs, citibank, and wells fargo have stated they don't believe the f.c.c.'s current rules will hurt investment citibank called the rules balanced and goldman sachs said it is a framework with a lot of wiggle room, and that is a light touch by the f.c.c. but despite this broad and diverse coalition of business groups, we are still arguing about something that should have been settled long ago. why is that? well, a lot has changed in the

last couple years. control of the internet has been placed in the hands of a small number of players. media consolidation has raised the stakes for certain megaconglomerates which have a lot more to gain in a world without net neutrality. i was last here on the senate floor talking to you about net neutrality back in december when the nbc-comcast merger had not yet been approved by the f.c.c. or department of justice. i was warned this would be the first in a cascade of media consolidation deals. wouldn't you know it, just two months later. at&t announced another $39 billion deal with t-mobile. this merger which wall street applauded is almost assuredly going to be a raw deal for consumers.

if approved, we will have a duopoly in wireless telecommunications in this country. 80% of the wireless space will be controlled by just two companies: at&t and verizon. i look forward to the hearing next week when the antitrust subcommittee and judiciary committee so we can further explore the issues this have deal. but i think it's fair to say that i am skeptical because it's likely to raise prices and certainly reduce choice for consumers. i've always been skeptical of media consolidation because at the end of the day when corporations have tremendous amounts of power to control prices and cripple competitors to benefit their bottom line, everyone loses. but the impact of media consolidation in telecommunications is about more

than just consumer prices. we have always known that large corporations have the power to influence elections. and then last year the supreme court's decision in citizens united took a situation that was already terrible and made it worse, much worse. now at&t, verizon, time warner and comcast can spend unlimited amounts of money to support the candidate, candidates or campaigns they care the most about or try to weaken or kill net neutrality. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when a single corporation, in this case at&t, spends $15.3 million in a single year to influence congress and has 93 full-time

lobbyists on its roster, congress just might churn out legislation that at&t likes. how can american consumers stuck with rising cable, internet and cell phone bills ever be expected to counter that type of lobbying power? and with media consolidation, we have seen a shift in the net neutrality talking points of members of congress who are also receiving large checks from verizon, at&t and comcast. yet, the irony here is that the open internet rules passed by the f.c.c. earlier this year are actually pretty weak and riddled with loopholes. actually i think that is the wiggle room that goldman sachs was referring to. these rules are -- let's be honest -- the mediocre

compromise drafted to appease a handful of powerful internet service providers. i wasn't happy with these rules and thought the f.c.c. should have done more particularly to cover wireless internet networks. but it didn't. and it didn't in part because the commission wanted companies like at&t to get on board with its plan, and at&t did that more or less. at&t didn't think the rules were ideal but it acknowledged that the framework is a compromise that gives its investors certainty. but that hasn't changed how the house is framing its rhetoric about this rule, which is one of the reasons i think the vote last month was a political stunt designed to misinform americans and appease a small number of very vocal critics. this isn't what most americans, entrepreneurs or small businesses want. they and i want a world where

the future twitters, e-bays and amazons of the world can grow and thrive without interference from big megaconglomerates. finally, regardless of how you feel about the f.c.c.'s rules, i think we can all agree this issue requires thoughtful debate and discussion, not the kind of uninformed rhetoric i quoted earlier from the house debate. by forcing an up-or-down vote through the congressional review act, house leadership short circuited the normal legislative process and ignored the f.c.c.'s work on this issue. the f.c.c. spent months examining this topic and meeting with tons of stakeholders and internet companies that carefully considered and compromised on a range of issues that i frankly wish they hadn't

budged on. to claim that the f.c.c. engaged in a power grab is unfair and far, far from the truth. the white house has stated that the president will veto this resolution, but i will be working hard in the coming months to make sure that we have enough votes to stop this before it reaches the president's desk. we are at a pivotal moment. if we don't act to preserve the f.c.c.'s open internet rules, the internet as we know it today may cease to exist. i hope my colleagues will recognize this and will join with me in voting down the house's resolution of disapproval. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor asking -- noting the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. arkin:?

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that samantha wessels, kelly morgan and kevin trager of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. harkin: madam president, everyone in this body agrees that we must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit, but we have to do it right. frankly, the best way to bring down the deficit is to help 15 million unemployed americans get good middle-class jobs again. those hardworking americans would be delighted to be on the tax rolls and to be taxpayers once again. but, regrettably, the tea party party budget passed by the house republicans last month takes us in the opposite direction. it would weaken our economy and destroy jobs. i have spoken previously on the senate floor about the grave flaws in the republican budget. but beyond the misguided priorities in this budget, i object to its premise. the premise of the tea party republican budget coming over from the house, the premise is

that america is poor and broke and we can can no longer afford the investments that make possible a strong middle class and world class economy. indeed, some house republicans take the radical view that government has no business investing in the middle class, period. madam president, i emphatically reject the defeatest premise of this republican budget. the united states of america is a wealthy nation. the wealthiest nation in world history. the problem is how that wealth has been shared or not shared among the american people. with income inequality that is the highest among developed countries. let me repeat that. right now income and equality in america is the highest among developed countries. and so the problem is how our

wealth has been invested or misininvested. with trillions of dollars squandered by manipulators on wall street or funneled throug through -- through the top on tax cuts. the tea party budget offered by congressman ryan would make these problems far worse. it lavishes yet more tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy even as it slashes investments that under gird the middle class in this country. everything from education funding to medicare and medicaid. let me state the obvious, if working people and the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to take a hit to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- and billionaires. let's look at some of the particulars in this so-called deficit-reduction plan of the house republicans.

for starters never before have i heard of a deficit reduction plan that begins by demanding trillions of dollars in new tax cuts largely for corporations and the wealthy. in addition to allow the very wealthy to keep all of the benefits of the bush-era tax cuts and to keep them permanently, the republican budget would cut the top tax rate from 35% down to 25%. let's, again, state the obvious. this doesn't reduce the deficit. it digs the deficit the a hole much deeper. next, the republican budget dismantles medicare and medicaid. and lace the groundwork for deep cuts to social security. changes that will devastate the economic security of the middle class in this country. the republican budget says that we cannot cut one additional

dime from the pentagon budget because, i guess to them, there's no waste in the pentagon. there's no unnecessary weapon systems, no troops based in japan or europe or elsewhere that could be brought home. meanwhile this tea party republican budget slashes federal investments in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920's. again, let me repeat that. it slashes federal investments and everything from education -- in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels of the 1920's. it also repeals wall street reform that we passed here as well as a consumer -- the consumer protections in the affordable care act including the ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. what's that got to with the deficit?

their budget cuts funding for food safety, workplace safety, environmental protection, gutting commonsense regulation of corporate america. it tells wall street bankers and speculators, health insurance companies, credit card companies an mortgage lenders you're free to go back to the reckless abuses of the past, we'll just trust to you do what's right for the american people. to appreciate just how extreme and idealogical this budget is, look more closely at its blueprint for replacing medicare with a voucher system. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that by 2030 future seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their private health insurance. their out-of-pocket costs would average in excess of $12,000 per person per year.

more than double -- more than double the current cost to seniors. yet, this would pay for private plans that would provide only half of current medicare coverage. how many seniors can afford to pay $12,000 annually out-of-pocket for health insurance that only gives them half of the coverage they have right now for medicare? and good luck finding affordable coverage if you're a 70-year-old with a preexisting condition such as heart disease. good luck fighting endless battles with your private health insurance company over that one. madam president, does this tea party republican budget reflect our values and priority as americans? is this the kind of country we want to live? the kind of country we want to pass on to our children? of course not. americans don't want or expect a

handup, but they rightfully expect a government that lends a helping hand. not one that stands in their way. not one that destroys the essence of the middle class. they want -- the american people want a government that helps them to achieve retirement security, a government that makes sure that when we put money away for retirement it's going to be there when we retire. the american people want to maintain strong investments in education an infrastructure -- and infrastructure to reduce deficits the american people want shared sacrifice. including an increase in revenues from those who can most afford it. they want an end to taxpayers' subsidies to oil and gas companies and they want to cut pentagon spending. yet, the republican budget does exactly the opposite in every single respect. madam president, make no

mistake, this tea party republican budget puts us on a course of disinvestment, drift, and decline. disinvestment, drift, and decline. this budget wreaks of pessimism and gloom and doom. as said, its defeatest president obamaispresidentde -- premise t. we can no longer care for our -- prepare our young or care for our elderly. yet, bizarrely, republicans insist that we can absolutely afford another enormous tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. madam president, i totally reject this premise. i reject this defeatest ryan budget. the premise that america is poor and broke. here is the truth, the united

states is recovering from the largest economic downturn since the great depression. and from the damage caused by very unwise budget decisions made over the last decade. and we're growing wealthier by the day. our economy, our technology, universities, arts, are the envy of the world. americans are still the best educated and most productive people on earth. most importantly, americans continue to be an optimistic can-to people. we have faced national trauma including depressions and wars and national -- natural disasters many times before and we have always rebounded stronger and better than ever. we can overcome our current challenges without sacrificing our great middle class. and without abandoning --

abandoning our seniors and people with disabilities and the less fortunate among us. madam president, there's one important point of agreement on both sides of the aisle here in the senate, we agree the current budget deficits are unacceptable the we must bring these deficits under control. however, deficits are by no means our only urgent economic challenge. an even greater challenge -- greater challenge is our fragile economy and the jobs crisis. and addressing this successfully will help reduce the deficit. now, the unofficial unemployment rate is 8.8%. but the real unemployment rate, including people who are underemployed, who have dropped out of the job market in frustration and are no longer working is staggering 16%. meanwhile our middle class is under siege. our middle class is being dismantled as fast as big

corporations can shift our manufacturing jobs overseas. people are losing their savings, their health care, losing their pensions. in many cases losing even their homes. with good reason american people feel they are losing the american dream for themselves and for their children. that's why we cannot look at the deficit reduction challenge in isolation. we cannot just take a slash and burn approach to the budget. smart countries do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. instead of this tea party republican budget, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects hope and the aspirations of the american people. we need a budget that brings deficits under control in a way that allows us to continue investment that's boost

competitiveness, create jobs and strengthen the middle class. and i would add this, we need a deficit reduction plan that actually attacks the sources of our current deficits. now, what are those sources? well, a remarkable article on the front page of sunday's may 1st, "washington post" by lori montgomery, documented clearly how the huge budgets of the clinton years were turned into the $1 trillion budget deficit that george w. bush passed on to president obama. as the article states -- quote -- "voices of caution were swept aside. political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending, and for the first time in u.s. history, wage two wars solely with barod bundz -- barod funds."

the article cites a new analysis by the congressional budget office which determined that -- quote -- "routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15% of the financial deterioration. the biggest culprit by far has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. the article notes that federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. in 60 years. madam president, our legislation passed since 2001 when george w. bush became president, about half of the negative impact on deficits came from reductions in revenue and nearly a quarter came from increases in defense spending. one half. one half came from reductions in

revenue. i'm talking about now what's the sources? what are the sources of the deficit hole we're in? well, if in 2001 we had huge surpluses and c.b.o. said if we maintain the same budget policies that by 2010 we've paid off the entire national debt, but that was 2001 and 10 years later in 2011 we have a $1.4 trillion deficit, what happened? what decisions were made in those 10 years that put us in that hole? as i said, the article by lori montgomery in "the washington post" 30 points out of the congressional budget office clearly points out half -- half of the hole we're in came from reductions in revenue. a quarter came from increases in defense spending. and a quarter from everything else. as a c.b.o. analysis makes clear, we do not just have a spending problem, we have a

revenue problem. the main source of our current deficit problem is not the modest increase in domestic spending, beyond the one-time spending in the recovery act, which is rapidly coming to an end. the principal source of our deficits are the deep tax cuts and the surging pentagon budget. 75% of our current problems. yet, now the tea party republican budget calls for trillions of dollars, and yet more new tax cuts, largely for those at the top. it refuses to cut pentagon spending in any significant way. it places almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on programs that support the middle class, seniors, people with disabilities and those of low income. so americans are rightfully asking some commonsense questions. if a principal source of our

deficit problem has been deep tax cuts, largely benefiting those at the top, shouldn't a big part of our deficit reduction plan include allowing those unaffordable tax cuts to expire? and if ongoing domestic spending increases are only a minor source of our deficit problem, why does this republican budget take a slash-and-burn approach to these programs which are so important to the middle class and working americans? the answer, of course, is that the tea party republican budget is not principally a deficit reduction plan. it is an ideological manifesto that encompasses the entire tea party wish list. everything from more tax breaks for the rich to dismantling medicare and medicaid.

madam president, i have a simple test for judging any budget plan. what does that plan do to give hope and opportunity to middle-class americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn? to speak in terms specific to my state of iowa, what does it do for webster city? webster city is a community like thousands of others across the united states. it's a town where middle-class families work hard, play by the rules, sacrifice for their children. it's also a town where our decent, middle-class way of life is threatened. recently in webster city, iowa, the electrolux plant which has been in the town forral -- for 80 years closed its doors. production was moved to juarez, mexico. 500 iowans lost their

well-paying, middle-class jobs. this most recent factory closing comes on the heels of 222 plant closings just in iowa last year. destroying nearly 12,000 well-paying middle-class jobs. as we all know, each of these plant closures reverberated on main street, with many local stores and restaurants falling on hard times or going out of business themselves. let's be clear. the wrong kind of budget plan, one that indiscriminately slashes funding for education and job training, infrastructure and research, will deepen the plight of webster city and similar communities across america. indeed, by accelerating the erosion of the middle class in this country, such a plan will make our fiscal situation even worse. there can be no sustainable economic recovery in the united

states without the recovery of the middle class. there can be no sustainable solution to our budget challenges without a strong middle class, a middle class that's getting its fair share of rising national income. as i said earlier, we are growing wealthier by the day in america. we are the wealthiest country in world history, and we're going wealthier by the day, but what we want to make sure is that the middle class will get its fair share of that rising national income. so again, i think the test of a budget plan is this: will it strengthen the middle class in america, will it require shared sacrifice with the promise of shared prosperity in the long run? mr. president, madam president,e applied this test to the tea party republican budget and it comes up woefully short. this tea party republican budget

cuts the top tax rate for millionaires and billionaires from 35% down to 25%. how will that help laid-off workers in webster city? the republican budget dismantles medicare, replacing it with an absurdly inadequate voucher system. will that strengthen the retirement security of seniors? in webster city? this budget of the republican tea party people guts medicaid. will that improve the lives of seniors and people with disabilities who depend on medicare to pay for nursing home care and home health care assistance? the tea party republican budget slashes funding for pell grants. will that improve the prospect for kids in webster city who want to go to college, whose parents are now unemployed and without resources? the tea party republican budget makes draconian cuts to funding for everything from food safety

to law enforcement to environmental protection. how will that improve the quality of life in webster city and communities across america? madam president, we know the answer to these questions. the bottom line is that the republican budget offers more pain and no gain to the people of webster city. instead of increasing economic opportunity, it sends a message of surrender and defeat. indeed, let's speak the plain truth. with this tea party budget, republicans have taken their class warfare to a new level. they have launched an unprecedented assault on middle class and working americans. their message to struggling folks in webster city and communities like it across america is brutally clear. tough luck. i've got mine. you're on your own.

this republican tea party budget would drive down our standard of living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and higher education and do grave damage to our public schools' ability to prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. we can and must do better. i have come to the floor today to propose an alternative approach to the federal budget, a balanced approach that will discipline the federal budget and bring deficits under control, while continuing to make critical investments in a stronger america. and best of all, we know this approach can work, because it is consciously modeled on the successful budget policies of the 1990's. under president clinton's leadership, congress passed a bold economic plan that combined tough-minded spending cuts with smart investments and, yes, revenue increases. this created large budget surpluses, put us on a track to completely eliminate the

national debt within a decade. it created a brief era of shared prosperity for the middle class, with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic expansion, the longest in american history. so i say to the people across america, we can do this again. the key to renewing america and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. this means reducing deficits while continuing to invest in education, innovation and infrastructure. boosting american competitiveness. and it means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation and empowered work force and a strong ladder of opportunity to give every american access to the middle class. we have the resources, both financial and human, to do these things. i repeat what i said earlier. the central falsehood in the tea party republican budget is its

assumption that america is poor and broke. it's an assumption that we can no longer afford to invest in a prosperous and secure middle class. again, i say emphatically, we are not poor and we are not broke. we have the highest per capita income of any major company. as i said earlier, the problem is how our wealth is distributed, how it's managed and how it's been invested -- or should i say misinvested. income inequality in the united states has reached levels not seen since immediately before the great depression. middle-class americans are working harder than ever, but they're falling behind. real average incomes haven't gone up since 1979. more than three decades ago. let me repeat that. average real incomes haven't

gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. in fact, over the last decade, the average income of working americans has actually declined, while those in the top 10% of income earners and wealth in america, their incomes and their wealth has soared to new levels. vast wealth because of tax breaks and other government preferences has flowed to millionaires and money manipulators who pay a tax rate that is lower than that paid by their chauffeurs and their secretaries. in 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home an average income of $892 million. yes, you heard that right. $892 million each average income for one year. over the last decade, the

average income of the top 1% in america increased by an average of more than a quarter million dollars a year. again, let me repeat. and the top 1% of income earners in america, their income increased by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year for ten years. i ask who in their right mind believes that these people need another giant tax cut? madam president, people don't hate the rich. to the contrary, most americans aspire to do well and to achieve financial independence. that's a big part of the american dream. but americans do resent it when the wealthy and powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of the working people and the middle class. ordinary people think the game

is rigged and unfair, and you know what? they're right. yet this tea party republican budget says to middle-class americans again, hey, tough luck, i've got mine, you're on your own. your retirement security is expendable. your access to health care and college is expendable. your desire for quality public schools is expendable. your quest for a modernized transportation system is expendable. all of these things, according to the republican budget, are expendable in order to create a tax code even more favorable to the rich and the powerful and the privileged. madam president, this is deeply wrong. the middle class is the backbone of this country, and it's time our leaders showed the backbone to defend it. we need an alternative, a budget that invests in education and opportunity for all americans, a

budget that invests in the retirement security of the middle class, and yes a budget that does not abandon the less fortunate among us, including seniors and people with disabilities. as we saw in the 1990's, we can do these things at the same time that we are bringing deficits under control. this will require smart, prudent reductions in spending, and it will require reform of the tax code to make it fairer and more equitable, a tax code that asks more from those at the top whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent decades. let me speak first about spending cuts. i hope i have set an example with my own appropriation subcommittee, subcommittee on labor, health, human services and education of the appropriations committee. the fiscal year 2011 spending bill that was enacted last month cuts spending in these areas by almost $6 billion and eliminates

dozens of individual programs. i also serve on the appropriations subcommittee on defense. of course, i believe we can make major spending cuts without harming our national security. i agree with secretary gates who has urged us to terminate the additional c-17 cargo planes and a new amphibious fighting vehicle. i would also save $12 billion by terminating the b-22 osprey which even dick cheney labeled a turkey and tried to cancel. i would also save around $80 billion over the next decade by reducing the number of active duty u.s. personnel stationed in europe and japan. most importantly, it's time to save hundreds of billions of dollars by speeding up the return of our troops from iraq and afghanistan. it costs an estimated $1 million a year to deploy and