senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: is there a nominee to report? the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, bernice bouie donald of tennessee to be united states district judge for the sixth circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would like to

speak in support of the nomination of bernice bouie donald as a u.s. circuit judge for the sixth circuit. with today's vote, we will have confirmed 34 article 3 judicial nominees during this congress. we continue to make great progress in processing president obama's judicial nominees. we have taken positive action on 78% of the judicial nominations submitted during this congress. the senate has confirmed 63% of president obama's nominees since the beginning of his presidency, including two supreme court justices, which everyone may recall was a lengthy process. despite our protective efforts, we continue to hear unsubstantiated and unfounded

charges of delays and obstruction on the part of the minority party of the senate. over the august recess, opinion writers and bloggers parroted one another in churning out this message of obstruction on the part of republicans. now i'm not surprised to see this from outside groups, but i was very disappointed that the white house joined in publishing a distorted record on judicial nominations. because i had a meeting this year with the white house counsel's office, and at that meeting i expressed my intent to move forward as the republican leader of the judiciary republicans on consensus nominees. i thought we had cooperative and productive conversations with the white house. furthermore, i have demonstrated

a record on the part of republicans on the judiciary committee of cooperation and action regarding judicial nominees. but in a white house blog that was titled -- quote -- "record judicial diversity, record judicial delays," end of quote, the white house characterized -- quote -- "the delays that these nominees are encountering as unprecedented." that's the end of the quote. the white house has a short memory and a very limited definition to characterize the nominations process as unprecedented. to illustrate, the blog cites a statistic on the average wait time between the judiciary committee reporting out a

nominee and confirmation on the senate floor as evidence of an unprecedented delay. for example, it indicates circuit nominees of president bush only waited 29 days while president obama's circuit nominees waited 151 days. the nomination process, as everyone knows, but maybe the white house needs to be informed about it, is more than the senate floor action. it starts with the president actually nominating somebody. i have previously commented on the white house's delay in sending up nominations and have criticized some of the qualities of the nominees that the white house has submitted. i will not elaborate on that today. but after a nomination is received, there is a process for hearing, for questions and for

committee debate prior to our committee vote. for whatever reason, the white house blog fact sheet ignored the bulk of the process. the record shows then that we're moving nominees through committee much faster than president bush's nominees. for instance, president obama's circuit court nominees have only waited on average 68 days for a hearing. president bush's circuit court nominees was forced to wait over 287. president obama's district court nominees have been afforded a hearing in just 78 days. president bush's district court nominees, on the other hand, had to wait close to 120 days. so you can see how wrong the white house blog is when they just cite the waiting period between court reporting -- committee reporting out and are

actually voting on it. now, not only are president obama and these judicial nominees receiving hearings quicker than those of president bush, they are also being reported out of committee more quickly. circuit court nominees have been reported to the senate floor in just 118 days, while president bush's circuit court nominees were held to 369 days before they saw a vote in the committee. the same is true for district court nominees. president obama's nominees have been reported in just 129 days, while president bush's district court nominees waited 148 days. so, despite the so-called obstruction, we are confirming president obama's circuit court nominees faster than those nominated by president bush. that's the cooperation that i

promised. thus far, circuit court nominees have been confirmed on average in 259 days. president bush'sing circuit court nominees waited on average of 358 days. the white house blog also stated that 21 months is the -- quote -- "longest wait for one of president obama's judicial confirmations." this is neither unprecedented nor uncommon. the democrats should know they held president bush's circuit court nominee, raymond kethledge for 23 months before he was confirmed by the senate. and then when he was confirmed, he was confirmed on a consensus voice vote basis. in addition, the record will show district nominees who waited well over a year for

confirmation, one of them as long as 441 days. after today's vote, there will be 19 judicial nominees on the executive calendar. if you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would conclude that this too is, quote unquote, unprecedented. but again, the record demonstrates otherwise. colleagues may recall a period in the 108th congress when the democrats, in the minority at that time, completely shut down the judicial nomination process. not only were there numerous filibusters conducted by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but they would allow no votes on judicial nominees. as a result, in april and may of 2004 when george w. bush was president, 32 highly qualified judicial nominees awaited final votes while on the executive

calendar. only after a compromise was reached did judicial nomination votes resume on those who were on the executive calendar. i could continue to rebut this outrageous assertion that senate republicans are somehow paving new ground, according to the white house blog. the facts demonstrate that the current status of nominations is not, not unprecedented. it is unfortunate that the media, the bloggers, and even this administration continue to distort the facts. i would rather use my time to speak on positive actions such as the nominee we're about to confirm, but if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to continue to live in the past, then i feel as leader of the republicans of the judiciary committee to correct the record. i support the nomination before us today, and i congratulate

judge donald. i would like to say a few words about her before we vote. bernice donald is nominated to be u.s. circuit judge for the sixth circuit. judge donald received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the university of memphis. after graduating from law school, judge donald worked for a few months as a sole practitioner. in april of 1980, she began work as a staff attorney for the memphis area legal services clinic. in november of 1980, she began working as an assistant public defender at the shelby county public defenders office. in 1982, judge donald was elected to serve as a judge on the court of general sessions in shelby county. as a general session judge, judge donald presided over trials of state misdemeanor offenses and the preliminary

hearings of state felony cases involving alleged crimes against persons as well as property. in 1988, the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit appointed judge donald to a 14-year term on the bankruptcy court. in 1996, judge donald was confirmed by the senate and appointed by president clinton as u.s. -- united states district judge for the western district of tennessee. she has served as a federal judge for the past 15 years. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary has given judge donald a rating of substantial majority well qualified minority qualified. mr. president, if i could, i'd like to take two minutes to speak about the second vote that we're having today. the presiding officer: the

senator has four minutes remaining. mr. grassley: okay. i urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1249, the leahy-smith american invents act. this bipartisan legislation will make our patent system more effective and more efficient. it will enhance trainers and patent quality and improve certainty in the patent process. it will also enhance the ability of the patent and trademark office to cut its backlog and process patent applications in a more expeditious manner. ultimately, this bill will help promote innovation and technological advancements and will provide a stimulus for american businesses and obviously will help generate new jobs. my colleagues will recall that the senate passed the bill that we entitled america invents act

early this year by a margin of 95-5. the house bill is a very similar -- is very similar to our senate bill, so senators should not have a problem supporting it. in addition, the leahy-smith america invents act enjoys the widespread support of a large number of industries and other stakeholders from within the united states patent community. i'm pleased to support the leahy-smith america invents act and i urge my colleagues to vote for the cloture on motion to proceed so we can get this bill done as soon as possible. i am happy to yield the floor, but before i do, i'd like to say to senator leahy that we're all sorry for the natural disasters that have happened in his state,

wish him well and his state well, and obviously there will be obviously some congressional action to help not only that natural disaster but the rest of the natural disasters that occurred as a result of irene. mr. leahy: if the senator would yield on that point, i would tell my good friend from iowa how touched i was when i received his email saying how the people of iowa stood with the people of vermont, as we did with the people of iowa when they faced a disaster. the -- i received the email, the governor of the state -- of our state and i and the head of our vermont national guard just helicoptered into one of our prettiest towns, but it's totally cut off. the only way we could reach it was by helicopter. i saw people working together. nobody knew whether they were republicans or democrats or cared. they were all working together

to help each other. and i would tell my friend from iowa, i took the liberty of showing his very meaningful, very heartfelt email, similar to what i got from other senators, and i thought how much that meant, and if i might address the senator from iowa directly, i would tell you the people of vermont appreciate it, because i knew how heartfelt it was and it meant a great deal. mr. grassley: i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, we're on the question of the flooding in vermont. i was born in vermont. i've lived there all my life. i lived on a dirt road in small town middlesex, an 1850's farmhouse. it means a lot to us. it's the place my wife, my son and i spent part of our

honeymoon 49 years ago. but i saw something that i have never seen in vermont. ten days ago, vermont bore the full brunt of then tropical storm irene that dumped more than six inches of rain across the state in just a few hours. you have to understand in our state, our small state, with the green mountains running down the spine of it north to south, the narrow valleys of the green mountains where towns and roads and rivers are historically intertwined were particularly hard hit. the gentle rivers and streams became rushing for -- torrents of destruction. whole towns were cut off from the outside world for days. you would fly over and just see a town completely marooned. every road going into it, every bridge going into it gone. homes and businesses and water systems, miles of roads are swept away. and even worse, some vermonters lost their lives in these

devastating floods. we had an unprecedented wave of flooding this year. we had two spring events previously declared as major disasters. vermonters have shouldered these great burdens. we have pulled together from all parts of the state, all walks of life. we are meeting the new crisis with the same courage and cooperation and resilience we vermonters have always shown. i applaud the brave first responders, the police departments and the fire departments, e.m.s., others. the national guard members who have worked around the clock, and our national guard in vermont have been joined by the national guard from illinois and maine. and we have had offers from other -- our other adjoining states. power crews and road crews. i remember how impressed i was

looking down from the helicopter and seeing this long line of power trucks coming down the road, knowing they're going to be working around the clock. many others helping in the rebuilding process. our local red cross and other service organizations. but our small state, it's only 660,000 people, we're stretched to the limit right now, and we need both immediate and ongoing assistance in recovering from those enormous setbacks. winter is fast approaching. in vermont, snow can be flying in a matter of weeks, certainly in a matter of a couple of months. we must move quickly to secure our homes and businesses, restore our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our schools, our medical facilities. with just weeks to accomplish so much, we need the full and immediate support of fema and so many of our other federal agencies. i appreciate president obama's

swift approval of the governor's request to declare most of vermont a federal disaster area, something all of us in the vermont delegation join with. but i'm greatly concerned the people may not have adequate resources to meet the immediate assistance needs of the irene victims of vermont and all the other states. we don't consider ourselves an island here. we know there are a whole lot of other states badly hurt by irene. fema has less than $600 million in its disaster account for the rest of fiscal year 2011. fema needs at least $1.5 billion for recovery assistance in states affected by hurricane irene. we need to act quickly to find a solution to this pressing problem. i don't think any one of us want to get to where we underfund fema at this critical juncture and then have people run out of resources next spring just as rebuilding efforts keep going on

the east coast. given the breadth and depth of irene's destruction on top of the ongoing disasters already declared in all 50 states, i will continue to work with the democratic leader, the republican leader, the appropriations committee, all of my colleagues to ensure that fema has the resources. it needs to help all of our citizens at this time of disaster, not just in vermont but in all of our states. mr. president, as many members know, i opposed the war in iraq, feeling it had nothing to do with 9/11. turned out it had nothing to do with 9/11. thought there were no weapons of mass destruction. turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. iraq, a country that bore no threat to the united states. it did to iran but not the united states. we have spent hundreds of billions, ultimately well over a trillion dollars in iraq.

and year after year, that money is just sent. no offsets. it's put on the credit card. mr. president, it's time to get out of iraq and start thinking about people in america. it is time to take care of americans. the needs of americans not just in disaster, but the needs of americans with their education, their medical care, our scientific research to find cures to cancer and alzheimer's, take care of the housing needs of america, take care of our rivers and bridges. it's time to start worrying about this great country of ours. it's time to start paying for things that give benefits immediately to americans and make sure that we have enough to care for the families and our returning soldiers who so bravely answered the call. let's start thinking about the needs of 325 million americans.

let's come home to the things we need, because if we do that, we can then still be the force for good throughout the world. we can still fulfill commitments, legitimate commitments we have around the world. we can still be the humanitarian nation we have always been when there have been disasters in haiti, in indonesia, in africa and elsewhere. but we have negligented america too long, mr. president. and i understand, mr. president, that i have requested the senator from iowa for time, i understand i also have some time. the presiding officer: the senator has eight minutes remaining. mr. leahy: how much? the presiding officer: eight minutes remaining. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished chair, and i ask consent that my full statement

be included in the record praising judge donald and urging her confirmation. i also outlined how we stand in comparison to the progress we made when the senate moved to confirm 205 federal circuit district judges during president bush's first term. almost three years into president obama's administration, we have yet to confirm 100 judges. we're going to have to move pretty quickly to catch up, especially to what a democratic-controlled senate did for president bush. i'd like to do the same for president obama. i ask consent my remaining time to speak as if in morning business about the america invents act and the cloture vote that will be taken tonight preceding that important measure. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. leahy: the senate is today -- i ask concept my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: the senate turns its tension to the america invents act, a measure that will create jobs, and promote innovation without adding a peppy to the deficit. this legislation is a key component of both republican and democratic agendas and is a priority of the booption. too often legislation has failed because bills have become politicized. that certainly shouldn't be the case with patent reform. innovation and economic development are not uniquely democratic or republican goals or objectives. they're america's goals. that's why so many democratic and republican senators have worked so closely with me on this legislation for years. we also sought out a similar

bipartisan coalition of members from the other body. and that is why a democratic chairman of the senate judiciary committee can stand on the floor of the senate and advocate as i do today the senate pass a house bill, h.r. 1249, sponsored by the republican chair, chairman of the house judiciary committee, lamar smith of texas. this bill which passed the house with more than 300 votes will make crucial improvements to our outdated patent system. the house has improved on the senate bill in this area by including an expanded prior user right with a transition to first inventor to file system. and prior user rights are important to american manufacturing in particular. now, the house bill is not the exact bill by have written. it contains provisions that were not in the senate bill and omits or changes other provisions in

the senate bill i supported. but that's the legislation process and the core elements of the house bill are identical or nearly eye identical to the core elements of the senate bill. mr. president, each of the 100 senators could rye wri a slightly different bill. i suspect each of the 4 3r5 members of the house could each write a slightly different bill but you only pass one bill and they have incorporated so much of our bill that i support what they have. it is the legislation process and the way it should work. republicans and democrats have come together to create legislation that helps all americans. and i thank senator kyl, the republican whip, the deputy leader of the republican party for his comments earlier today. i agree with him that this house passed bill directly to the president will begin the process of demonstratingto the american people we can work together, democrats and republicans,

house and senate, on behalf of the american people p. i appreciate what the senator from iowa said about it. american ingenuity and innovation have been 0 a cornerstone of the american economy from the time thomas jefferson examined the first patent application to today. our patent system is actually this our constitution. a retirement to have it. -- requirement to have it. discoveries made by american inventors and research institutions. and then used commercially by american companies and by -- and protected and promoted by american patent laws. have made our system the envy of the world. we can no longer stand on a 1950's patent system and expect our innovators to flourish in a 21st century world. let's go from the 1950's to the 21st century and then

unleash, unleash the genius of the american people. and our inventors in the united states of america. when we proceeded to the senate version of this legislation last february, we did so by unanimous consent. the senate proceeded to approve patent reform legislation with 95 votes. republicans and democrats alike. now, as disappointing we're being delayed from completing this important legislation but i'm sure we'll vote to proceed tonight. we'll get past or at least vote to end the filibuster. further delay does nothing for american inventors, the american economy or the creation of american jobs. it's time to take final action on the america invents act. certainly no american i've talked with would understand a

filibuster or delay on such important legislation. i see the time has arrived. is the -- is the roll call automatic on the -- i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. is all time yielded back? if so, the question is on the donald nomination. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 96, the nays are 2. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.

the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the senate will come to order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 87, h.r. 1249, an act to amend title 35 united states code to provide for patent reform. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. by unanimous consent, the

mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1249, an act to amend title 35 united states code to provide for patent reform shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 93, the nays are 5. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to spoke as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order.

please take your conversations out of the wells -- out of the well. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. yesterday, on labor day, i was in cincinnati, ohio, it's the home of -- heralded as the largest labor day gathering in the united states of america. thousands, 15,000, 20,000 roam coney island and just southeast of cincinnati not far from the ohio river, a picnic every year celebrating workers, not just organized workers but workers generally. i met a woman there who by -- by the name of lillian brayhound. miss brayhound was wearing a t-shirt that said service employees international union. i asked where she worked. she's a custodian in downtown, cincinnati. i remember a story that three or four years ago i was at a dinner and there was a group of workers, mostly -- all ailed

aged women, mostly minorities, mostly african-americans, a couple latina women and they this had just signed their first union contract to represent the custodians in downtown cincinnati office buildings. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i sat down at this table and i said what is this new union contract mean to you, to the workers there? and a 50-year-old woman turned to me and she said this is the first time in my life i've ever had a paid week vacation. think about that. this is the first time in my life i've heifer a paid week vacation. that was because those workers, each of them working separately before, for a building owner at a downtown cincinnati office building had gotten together, had voted to join a union, had the right to organize and bargain collectively. they still weren't getting rich, still weren't making more

than, i believe if i recall $10 or $11 an hour, but now a bit of a exception, health care and a chance to actually earn a one-week vacation, something many, many, many workers in america don't have the opportunity for. and that tells me when i hear people say unions, they meant something in the past, but they've outlived their usefulness. that tells you what that's all about. we celebrate that on labor day, but we also know that the union movement is under attack. we look at what's happened in the ohio state house, where legislators in clumb who most -- columbus who were elected talking about lost jobs in large part because of tbhapped the bush administration and the eight years previously but people were very unhappy, as they have a right to be, as they should be because of lost jobs, and what they've done is gone after -- they've after getting elected they've

attacked, gone after collective bargaining rights, attacked voter rights, they've attacked in far too many cases women's rights. let's be clear. it's not teachers and firefighters and police officers who caused ohio's budget deficit. it's not teachers and firefighters or police officers who caused this financial implosion our nation has. it's been -- look at the history. it's been tax cuts for the wealthy, it's been reckless spending, overspending on corporate welfare, overspending on all kinds of things, it's been regulatory sleep walking which has left our economy in ruins. as a result, we have a widening income gap with wages generally stagnant for the last decade for middle class and working-class voters -- citizens, wages stagnating or declining for most of the work force, but salaries and bonuses going up for people who are the most privileged. the bankers and the wealthy executives and the c. oamplet's.

robert risch recently pointed out 5% of americans with the highest income now account for 37% of all consumption. he points out the middle class doesn't have enough purchasing power to pull ourselves out of this recession, our economy suffers. the wealt -- the wealthiest people can only spend so much if the middle class have their wages stagnate order declined; there simply isn't the purchasing power we need to create the demand to grow our economy. our economy has been most prosperous when the middle class is thriving rather than when we have huge gaps in income. today we've lost the consensus that our nation's prosperity was tied with thriving middle class, where opportunity was afforded to those seeking to join it. we used to see that consensus on manufacturing where an economy built wealth, it built strong communities for millions of americans around production.

you only really create wealth by mining, by agriculture -- growing something -- and by manufacturing. yet we've seen what's happened to manufacturing jobs. ohio is still the third largest manufacturing state in the country, below only texas -- twice our size -- and california -- three times our size. we still put out a lot of production, a lot of productive capacity in ohio and a lot of production. listen to this, mr. president, 30 years ago, 26%, 27% of our g.d.p. was manufacturing, about 10% was financial services. in those manufacturing jobs, that wealth created a lot of middle-class families. kids could go to college, they could buy a home, they could buy a car or two in so many cases. today what used to be more than a quarter of our g.d.p. manufacturing, only 10% financial services, has flipped. today only about 10% of our g.d.p. is manufacturing. we know what that's done. yet, some of my senate

colleagues don't want to extend the payroll tax. in many ways it seems they'll essentially go on strike to prevent the wealthiest in america from paying a penny more. i hope that changes now that people are back from august and listening to what voters, what citizens at home are talking about. let me, mr. president, just share a couple of letters from people in ohio, a couple of stories. i know senator durbin wants to address the senate. last april i met with workers at nav a star in springfield, ohio, building next generation military and commercial vehicles. the plant's production is up because the community and company came together, compromised between the union and employer to keep jobs and increase production. as we see it across ohio, the other end of the state, a big steelmaker in cleveland, for every one person hour, one ton of seal is produced. we've never seen that kind of

productivity, my understanding anywhere else in the world. we see it at the lima tank plant, it's a story we see in piketon, we see it across ohio, where made in ohio label, made in america stamped on everything from ables to auto parts helps -- from airplanes to auto parts helps to build our country. i got a letter from david from akron. he said i'm a firefighter for the city of akron. for 11 years i put the safety of my community above mine. i'm married to a high school english teacher. when i took the job i was told my life expectancy would be ten years less than the average man. as a paramedic i do my job all hours of the night, all days of the week. i miss birthdays, holidays and much more. i never complained until now. as our country tries to recover from hard times, i understand

there is a need for reform. it's easy to think about what someone else has and how it's not fair. my wife and i worked hard to get where we are. that's what i love about our country. if you're willing to work for something, you can be successful. public employees are once again asked to make sacrifices. he's not arguing he won't make sacrifices, but to attack public employees with all that's happened in ohio, implying they're not doing their job, they're all slackers, is too much for people who have given so much of their lives to serving the public. the last letter i'll read is anastis from canton, ohio. my father is a teacher from the canton city schools from 1957 to 1989. he and my mother raised six children. he taught and coached three sports. he went to school on the g.i. bill after world war ii. he chose teaching because he wanted to earn aing living through the hard, honest work of teaching and helping children.

my grandparents were greek immigrants that koeupl -- came to this country in 1913. my grandfather worked in the factories in canton. i taught for 17 years. my father went on strike in the 1970's so we can now have collective bargaining. i wouldn't be here today if it weren't for that. their work ethic and values of fair play helped my parents raise six children on a teacher's salary. if our rights are taken away, i can't raise my family or educate my children. going the next step, a number of teachers and a number of college students told me they're watching some young teachers, watching some of their classmates who planned to become teachers or just started their careers in the classroom and they're having second thoughts when they see conservative elected officials attack their profession as public school teachers or attack the profession of firefighters or police officers all because they have a radical political agenda

that really wants to end the practice of organizing and bargaining collectively. it really is -- it really is a disservice to our country. we know we have a middle class in this country because large numbers of workers, mostly private sector, some public sector, have had ability under law to organize and bargain collectively. it's not something we should give up lightly. that's what i hear all over ohio in the last couple of months. it's so important to our country that the focus here be on jobs, the focus here be on living-wage jobs, the focus here be on giving opportunities so americans can stay in the middle class or have the opportunity to join the middle class. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague from ohio for highlighting what has to be our focal point as we return to this senate, and that is the unemployment picture across

america and the desperate situation that many families are facing. as i visited my home state of illinois, i found what he did in ohio, that many people have really been desperately trying to find jobs for a long, long time. it's becoming increasingly difficult, and the hrofrpbg it goes on -- the longer it goes on the more difficult it becomes. it turns out the national statistics which i read over the weekend suggest that it's primarily males who are out of work -- not exclusively, about 60% males; 40% female. and more and more not in minority populations. they're just having a difficult time. and i'm glad that the senator from ohio focused on getting us back on track as we should be on this issue. i read with interest when republican leader mcconnell wrote an opinion article in "the washington post" yesterday. one line in that article struck me in particular, and i'd like to read it. the republican leader, senator mcconnell said -- and i quote -- "job creation should be a

no-politics zone." close quote. i would like that to become our slogan for the month of september, and i hope that both parties will live by it. and if we do, i think we can achieve some things and surprise the american people who have just about given up on us. you take a look at the numbers across the board and they say 12% or 13% of the american people think favorably of congress. as i said on on the jon stewart daily show i don't think we have that many relatives so i question that number. it has reached the point many people don't have a positive view of what we do here and we need to change it and the only people who can change it are those who serve in this chamber. unfortunately, the republican leader came to the floor of the senate today seined a -- taopbd taopbd -- today and said a different thing. he said there is a much simpler reason for opposing economic proposals that have nothing to do with politics. it's this: they don't work.

well, i think that could be read to suggest that whatever the president has to say, he's going to run into opposition. i hope that the joint session of congress is productive. i spoke to the president this afternoon. he's called a number of members. he didn't give me any inside story on what he's about to say, but my guess is he's going to make proposals and say the republicans now come up with your proposals and let's sit down together and work them out between us. that's the right way to do it in a divided government and it's the way we should approach it. i can recall when president george w. bush in 2008 felt we needed an economic stimulus. at that time unemployment was 4.8%. senator mcconnell supported an economic stimulus by president george w. bush when our unemployment rate was 4.8%. he actually said on the floor today that businesses actually don't want shots in the arm or quick fixes. but when he was supporting president bush's economic stimulus in 2008, it was called -- quote -- "a booster shot for

our economy." so i think sometimes that kind of booster shot can make a difference. mr. president, i think there are two vital elements in our economy that challenge us. i don't know how much we can change them or how quickly we can change them. as i visited with bankers in my home state, community bankers that actually loan money for mortgages in their communities, time and again they said to me the biggest single problem is we don't know where the bottom is. we don't know where fair market value is on real estate. so as a result, it's very tough to close a deal. it's very tough to get agencies like fannie and freddie to go along with them because of disputes over appraisals. the second issue is one that was highlight this had morning in the chicago sun times, and that's the spending and saving habits of the american family, and they're changing pretty substantially. the rate of savings is up from a little over 1% of income to almost 5% of income. people have decided putting some money in the bank is not a bad

idea. and they're borrowing less on their credit cards and other things. and making fewer purchases. that is the right thing for a family to do in an uncertain economy. it's not the best thing for an economic recession. in fact, just the opposite is true. but you can understand people burned in 2007, burned again in the stock market a few weeks ago. they don't want to see that happen again and don't want to be victimized about it. those two things haunt us. more than anything, mr. president, i hope in the month of september this does not become a month of confrontation on the floor of the senate and the house. the american people are fed up with it. and if we have a confrontation over extending the federal aviation administration or extending the federal highway bill they will rightly be angry that we are back to our old tricks of just staring one another down and not accomplishing what needs to be done for this nation and this economy. so i urge my colleagues, i hope that i can join in this, to look

for what the republican leader called job creation as a no-politics zone in the weeks ahead. in august the american economy added zero net new jobs. that was painful. the private sector added just 17,000 jobs and unemployment is at 9.1%. 14 million americans are unemployed. millions more are underemployed. g.d.p. growth was just 1% in the second quarter of this year. year over year real g.d.p. growth is now at 1.5%. since 1948, every time the fourth-quarter change in g.d.p. has fallen below 2%, the economy has entered a recession. these figures are stunning and worrying. now is not the time for us to shrink from our responsibilities on a bipartisan basis. the president is going to lay out a job-creation proposal this week. he'll offer a plan that should have broad bipartisan support. these initiatives have had that support in the past when suggested by other presidents.

i hope this president will call for investments in america in physical, human and intellectual capital to provide the seed money for long-term growth. among other things, that means investing in our infrastructure. mr. president, you know what's going on in china today. we've seen it. the infrastructure construction in china is mind-boggling. they are preparing for the 21st century. america is not, and we need to change that. the american society of civil engineers estimates our country's infrastructure needs at $1 trillion. our infrastructure is rapidly aging. bridges are falling down in minnesota or planes are being diverted from airports because they're not up to where they ought to be. these are things which ought to challenge all of us. dozens of commissions have told us to investigate in infrastructure. we also need to invest in human and intellectual capital. that means jobs for teachers and

job trainers, research jobs right now creating good jobs across the whole economy. congress must invest now because the private sector remains skittish. here's what bill gross, a republican and chief investment officer of the skwraoeupbd bond fund pimco said: capitalism in its raw form can't pull us out of this hoefplt that is -- out of this hole. in the near term, the private sector is not uneasy because of high taxes or government debt or the environmental protection agency or even health care reform or even wall street foreman. -- wall street reform. these things all exist but corporations are doing better. last year's 100 highest paid executives in the united states, 25 of 100 highest paid c.e.o.'s in america earned more in income than their company paid in taxes to the federal government. corporate profits grew 8.3% year over year in the second quarter.

that growth is far better than the overall growth of our economy. as of march 31, the blue-chip companies in standard & poor's 500 index sitting on nearly $1 trillion in cash. it isn't government debt, it isn't e.p.a., it isn't health care reform, it isn't wall street reform. the private sector in america is on the sidelines because it's still recovering from the wounds of the deepest global financial crisis in over 75 years. while the private sector is licking its wounds, government can promote job creation and reduce uncertainty. it's a false choice to say that government can neither create jobs or reduce debt. the truth is creating jobs will reduce debt, and the argument can be made that with 14 million americans out of work, you'll never balance the budget. creating jobs will bring more people into the tax base, increasing our revenues, take people off of safety net programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps. we need more jobs and less debt.

one begets the other. it's possible. i know that many pundits listening now will say impossible, we can't get bipartisan agreement on job creation measures now, but short-term spending coupled with long-term debt reduction had bipartisan support less than a year ago. that's when i was a member of the simpson-bowles commission voted for their findings and that's what they recommended. the commission said don't cut back on spending for two years until we get out of the recession and then make a serious commitment to deficit reduction. i think they had it right then. they still do. the commission explicitly called for near-term spending, a payroll tax credit in concert with long-term deficit reduction. 11 of the 18 members of that commission, myself included, voted for it. five democrats, five republicans and one independent. by supporting pro growth policies and locking in deficit reduction in the out years, we can turn this economy around, provide certainty in the marketplace and create good-paying jobs right here in

america. mr. president, one last point i'd like to make. illinois was largely spared of the disasters of the last several weeks. we had our problems with flooding earlier this year. 2011 is shaping up to be a record year with regard to disasters. hurricane irene could cost us at least $1 billion, maybe maybe $1.5 billion. people in illinois have been recovering from two federally declared disasters over a long term, one a blizzard in february, another major flooding in the spring. of $130 billion provided in fema disaster funds over the past decade, some $110 billion has been provided as emergency funding. in other words, we can't budget for these disasters. at a hearing before we left, and i knew that government experts would be suspect to some so i brought in experts from the insurance industry, people who write property and casualty insurance, and they said be prepared. more disasters and higher costs

and loss than ever before. that was before hurricane irene. according to noaa's national climate data center, the u.s. has already experienced 10 natural disasters with damages totaling more than $1 billion a share. the previous record for weather-related disaster of this magnitude was nine in one year. we have already broken it and more hurricanes to follow, i'm afraid to say. the u.s. has sustained 109 weather-related disasters over the past 31 years in which overall damages or cost exceeded exceeded $1 billion. the total normalized losses for the 109 events exceeded exceeded $750 billion. in 2011 alone, over $35 billion in damages has already been caused by catastrophic events. mr. president, i make that point because some members of congress want a congressman from -- of congress, one a congressman from virginia, has suggested that we can take the need for disaster

funds out of the regular budget of the united states. i will tell that you it is virtually impossible, and we don't know what the final cost will be. at this point, we expect much more. we have to deal with these disasters and come to the aid of families and businesses, communities and states as our state has been aided and almost every state has in the past. a provision in the budget control act allows congress several billion dollars in emergency spending for additional fema aid without budget cuts elsewhere. we're going to have to get together on a bipartisan basis to deal with this. fema estimates that the request leaves the disaster fund short by $2 billion to $4.8 billion in the upcoming year. these figures don't take into account the most recent damage from hurricane irene, particularly the state of vermont and many other places. so we need to work on a bipartisan basis to meet these needs for the disaster assistance all across america and put america back to work. mr. president, at this point, i would like to yield the floor to

my former remarks and engage in the closing script. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 257, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 257, relative to the death of the honorable mark o. hatfield, former united states senator for the state of oregon. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolution. mr. durbin: mr. president, first i ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of this resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i understand that

house joint resolution 66 introduced earlier today is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 66, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003. mr. durbin: i now ask for its second reading and would object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will have its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, september 7. that following the prayer and pledge, that the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. at a time equally divided and controlled between the two

leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the final half. and following morning business, the senate resume consideration on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1249, the america invents act. further, the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. at 2:30 p.m., there be 30 minutes for tributes to the late senator mark hatfield as if in morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. finally, i ask unanimous consent that all time -- i ask unanimous consent that all time during adjournment, recess and morning business count postcloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1249. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, we expect to begin consideration of the america invents act with the patent reform bill during wednesday's session. senators will be notified when the votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the provisions of senate resolution 257 as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late

senator mark o. hatfield of oregon. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. pursuant to senate resolution 257, does so as a mark of further respect to the late mark >> "washington journal" continues.gton journal" host: joining us, scott keeter from the pure research center. he is this survey research

director. here is the talk about the polls when people conduct them. what they looking for? guest: we're looking to hear what the public has their own -- on their mind and their experiences. the kind of polls that we read about in the newspapers, first and foremost, are asking opinion questions. what do people want? how they rate the president's performance in office? what did they think of the republican alternative? they also want to know how people are experiencing a daily life. house their financial situation changing, getting better or worse? what are the problems they think are facing the country? all wide range of material that bears on important questions of the day. host: you have a whole country with opinions. guest: how can a small sample of

1500 people, the typical size of the public opinion poll, represent the general public? will we tell people is that we get everybody in the country who lives in a household that has some kind of cell phone service, or landline, an equal chance of being included in our poll and that is the basis for being able to take a small sample and generalize it to the broader public. the notion of random sampling is very commonly used. it is used by accountants looking for fraud, it is used in the medical profession. if you do not believe in rampant sampling, the next time you go to the doctor and he wants to take a sample of your blood, say you do not trust samples. take all of my blood. you do not have to do that. a small sample will do. that is the basic principle that ensures that what we'd do even with 1500 people can predict the

general public. host: most of our viewers remember what happened in new hampshire with the polling and the end result. guest: it was one of the most visible polling of years that we've seen in decades. there are a couple that stick in people's minds. if you are around in 1948, the polling indicated that dewey would defeat truman in that election. that did not happen and that led to a lot of rethinking of the methods that pollsters used. and a primary failure occurred, it occasioned a similar reassessment of polling methods. it turns out based on a lot of evidence collected after that that it was a fluke. this was a consequence of the unusual circumstances of that primary coming on the heels of the iowa caucuses.

it never happened again in the primaries. some polls to not do as well as others, but none of the primaries and certainly not the general law election produced a big failure. in fact, one of the things that makes us most confident that our method of electing a small random sample of people to represent a large population is valid is the fact that polling has a very good track record of forecasting how elections will come out. in 2008, many polling organizations came within a point or two of obama's victory for the same was true in 2004. the 2000 election was too close to call. the polling was accurate then, too. we pass our final exams pretty regularly. host: scott keeter is our guest from pew research.

the telephone numbers are on the screen. journal@c-span.org is our e- mail. caller: i like to ask the value of the iowa straw poll. and i have a comment after you respond. guest: it is not a poll like polling organizations conduct. it was of people they gather at a location. it is treated as if it is telling us something about the candidate's appeal and their ability to mobilize their followers and so forth. but it does not bear any resemblance to the kind of polling that we try to do, which gives everybody in the country or in a particular state or wherever we happen to be

polling, an equal chance of being included, whether they are motivated and interested in that particular contest or not. that is one of the major differences. host: and your followup? caller: i am a republican that used to work for ronald reagan in policy development and research. i am extremely frustrated with the file a straw poll. i do not know if you noticed in the paper, but ed rollins resigned and there is a big shake-up in the bachmann campaign. just so the public knows about this, what happened is that ed rollins brought in all of strawee's people for that poll, front loaded everyone he could get into ames to raise a lot of money, and got the vote swung over to michele bachmann. guest: an interesting point.

it is a contrast with the kind of polls that most news organizations do and other people, including the campaigns that themselves. there's not that opportunity to bus people into the polls. if we are reaching out and calling people at their homes or where they are with their cellphones and interviewing them, the fact that one of the candidates is more effective at doing that kind immobilizing is not relevant. it certainly is relevant politically, but we should take that as well -- pick that up as well. you point out an interesting contrast to the regular public opinion polls and the iowa straw poll. host: from twitter. guest: a very good question. students of democracy have puzzled over it long before polling was actually invented.

one of the debates of the founding fathers was whether or not the public really was capable of self government. so we do not have a direct democracy. we went up with the republic. it is supposed to be refined and enlarge through the medium of the congress. but even that begs the question, how the members of congress or the legislatures are going to be able to discern what the will of the people is, to refine and enlarge it. that is using madison's language group we think public opinion polls are one way to do that, recognizing that a lot of people the recall may not have the intimate detail of policies, but nonetheless, may have a good sense of what the right or the wrong direction for policy actually is. host: "the wall street journal"

released a poll today. how many calls have to happen to get the 1000 people? guest: we may take between 15,020 thousand phone numbers to begin with. a lot of those may not be in service. -- we may take between 15,020 to beginphone canumbers with. you also get a lot of people who simply never answered or refuse to take part in the survey. we're talking altogether about many thousands of calls, possibly tens of thousands of calls in order to reach the 1000 people to be interviewed. host: from a viewer on twitter they ask this question as well, this person is james parker, he says how to contact people? -- he says how do you contact

people? guest: we pick phone numbers better from the underlying databases from the telephone company. not that we have your name or address. we might be able to do that if your number is listed. if you have a cell phone, you are not listed in any kind of directory. when we dial it, we have no idea who will be on the other end of the line. we might reach your household, but not reach you. we tried to select the household in a way that does not tell people who are often at home and willing to answer. >host: can you get the same number several times? guest: it is certainly possible. you think about the size of the population, and you have a baby a few billion public opinion polls being conducted every year, but it to a small chance

of falling into any one sample, much less a couple of times. host: myrtle from texas on the democrats' line. caller: many times polls are used to structure the opinion of the people. if you ask questions a certain way, you could cause people to see things in a different way. and why are they used in such a way? i have seen that happen over and over again. guest: result is absolutely right. one of the toughest parts is writing good, biased, their questions. -- myrtle is absolutely right. it is a very difficult thing to do. it is the fundamental aspect of human interaction. we know how difficult it is to use the right words, that we do

not buy as the interpersonal relationships with some assumptions we have, that may not even be conscious to us. all of that thinking has to go into writing good poll questions. there are very concrete examples that one can point to. one of the most famous is the question asking people if they favored increasing welfare. if you get a much higher percentage of the public that they favor assistance to the poor than to welfare. welfare has a very negative tone to a lot of people. the question is how do we make sure the polls are not biased? that involves a lot of judgment on the part of multiple people for our situation. we sit around the table with a number of different people, some of you have social background

and some journalists and some that have some experience in the political world and look at the questions and think about them and how will the sound to someone who thinks very different of the way i do? we work, and then we test the questions on a small sample of people and listen to their reaction. if we hear anything that makes us think the question is not a fair one, we try to modify it. two-door larger point, the question of whether polling has been used or can be used to structure public opinion or to chase public opinion, i do not think there's any question about it, it is certainly. there are a lot of people doing polls. a lot of people have the dog in the fight. they may went to structured the survey in a way that either makes it look like public opinion is of their baby -- favor. that is the way to fight back

against that, look at the questions that were asked and ask yourself is that a reasonable way to ask the question? is there a point of you in here in the question? if there is, maybe you should not trust the polls. >host: some of the questions they ask in the pole today is asking whether you think the country is going in the right track or do you approve the way the president obama is handling it? then they asked about different categories. from those questions, how would you wait those of what would you say about the way they are crafted? guest: those are very standard kind of questions. many of the right track or wrong track questions have been around for decades. they are generally understood to be fairly balanced. they have been asked in previous administrations. in that sense we have context in

comparison. those are among the use his kinds of questions to write about. the hard ones to write about our policy issues that are on topics that may be fresh or new. one of the most difficult tasks we have of a policy issue in the past couple of years was how to pull on the subject of a carbon tax or the cap and trade legislation. we found very small numbers of people had any understanding of that issue. it was very difficult to try to characterize public opinion on that issue, because the words we will put into question could very much shape the way people would react, because there were working from such little information. -- they were working from such little information . host: a question from twitter -- guest: we poll, americans at large, 18 and older.

we think public opinion is relevant, even if it is someone who is not registered voters are likely voter. we're talking about election polling, we may want to focus of registered voters. as we get closer to election day, on likely voters. those of the people we think will show up and make a difference in the election. as we know, there are differences between registered voters in the general public. registered voters include a number of people who may not yet the citizens. it includes a lot of people that are only recently adults and have not gotten engaged in politics particularly. the larger group of all americans includes less-educated people. those individuals may have views and opinions and values that are very different from those of registered voters. in general, and this is not always the case, but we find

registered voter samples are somewhat conservative and more republican leading than samples of the general public. likely voters samples even more so. the specifics of how that matters may be dependent on the particular political circumstances. in 2010 for example the likely voter universe was a very conservative one, and we saw the results of that of the election of 2010. in 2008 the registered voter in likely voter universe was somewhat more liberal. the question somewhat depends on how things are going in the politics of the day. host: napa, idaho. printed on the line. calle -- brandon on the line. theer: hosi questioned chicken lee goes to the massive

bailout. half of the wealth in the united states is owned by the top 10 percent of wealth in the united states. how do people regard that with the upcoming election and so many people out of work? guest: that is in that area -- another area that is hard to pull long in some respects. the bank bailout, part, it was a subject on which we polled -- tarp, it was a subject on which we polled. it was unpopular with the public, and it has remained so. the stimulus program, which was enacted in 2008 and 2009 was also something that we polled about. he did have a more ritz reaction. -- it had a more mixed

reaction. in general people did say it did not have the impact it would hope it would have. you will get pulling to suggest that people do not like the fact that there is such large disparity in this country, and at the same time you do not find high percentage of the public will we distributed through highly progressive taxation that is not to say when you asked taxes on the wealthy to deal with the deficit, more taxes on the wealthy expire, you do in those instances get a majority of the public favoring. the public draws the line at a more aggressive free distribution of wealth. it remains a difficult topic to get a clear picture on.

host: philadelphia, pa., michael of the republican line. caller: my question is about internal polling. we have polls every day, and then i hear something that white house has their own internal polls or congress have their own internal polls. they suggest that these are possibly more precise and give different results than regular polls we hear about on tv. guest: i did not know. i do not think i have ever seen any of them, so i cannot say that they do or do not give more precise results. i am not sure that would be the case. presidential historians have looked going back to the kennedy era and before and found that polling has been an integral part of the white house under

both the administration's. the fact is most politicians find it prudent to keep expressions of public opinion, and being able to poll of questions, especially when they're considering the rollout of policies or change in positions or similar kind of strategic decisions that they might be making seems very routine. that is not to say it is a good thing that politicians are pulling so much or falling public opinion in that way, -- following public opinion in that way, but the question is how do you use that information you are receiving? to use it to be in tune with public opinion? to use it for manipulative purposes? the question comes down to how

you make use of the information about the public? the fact that leaders will want to know what the public thinks does not strike me as a bad thing. it is a good thing, i think. >> is it transparent as far as practices? guest: this is an issue that is very much being debated in the polling industry. the american association for public opinion research bearded lawyer research professionals. we have decided over the years that tried to be the polling police is not the best way to deal with potential problems in polls, but more consistent with the way the whole communication environment has shifted in the past decade or so with the rise of the internet and the ability of people to get information 24/7 from their own computers is to encourage polling organizations to be more transparent talk about methods

to ensure the release the full questionnaire that is released in the polling so that the reader of the consumer of the polling information can look at the questions and context in which the questions were placed and understand the psychology that the poll set up for the responded. also to see whether the poll included cell phones. if they do not, 30 percent of the american public did not have a chance in being included. pole policing is something that we're putting a lot of stock in. -- poll policing is something that we're getting a lot of stock in. host: chris from new haven, connecticut. democrats line. caller: i have done a lot of polls myself.

i ran into do see a couple of weeks ago. our mayor is running for reelection. after ascertaining that i did not want to vote for him, ask me which candidates of my likely vote for and then focused on the candidates that i wanted to vote for and that's about it of much -- a bunch of different policies that i might disagree with that he claimed the other candidates supported. i think it is called a push pole. i think people around election time have to really be worried about that kind of thing. guest: it is hard to know whether you experience the oppression pole or not. for listeners who have not heard about this, there is a type of campaigning and to the guys doing public opinion polling that is often labeled the post poll, but it is not a poll at all. they are calling you in order to put a lot of negative and

misleading information into your head about the candidates. the problem with trying to figure out whether something is a push pole or not is that legitimate campaign polling that is being conducted on behalf of the particular can get it can sometimes sound like it. for example, if i am running in an election and the person you like is someone that i think is a formidable opponent for me, i may want to find out which is the following argument and it -- and negative information about kidded it would be thee mu mocandidate would be most formidable and getting you to switch your vote? on the other hand, if i am trying to swine the sky with lots of information, i am not worried about you.

i called up thousands and thousands of voters coming up to make a difference. the key is whether it is the message desk testing type or the real push pole. sometimes it is very hard to know. host: independent line is next. joseph from kentucky. caller: i would like to know with the major parties which methodses anand they use, and when they use those, which approached as the other side take? guest: in terms of pulling, both sides use similar measures. a lot of the polling you see today there is a team of democratic and republican- oriented pollsters to do their work.

that tells me that the approach as for trying to gauge public opinion by both sides tends to be similar. part of it is because over the years we have figured out the best ways to try to do this most effectively. if you're talking about campaign techniques, that is a different story. there certainly maybe differences, but unfortunately that is outside the scope of what i am an expert on and talk about. host: what do polls not tell us? guest: they have a harder time giving us a sense of the emotion that is behind public opinion. a lot of pollsters when they're trying to understand, especially a new topic area, how people really feel about something in an emotional sense, the kind of emotion that can compel people to act or conduct an issue to

their boats, it may be more useful to go out and speak with a number of people in debt. hold of focus group for you get a chance to talk to people and see their body language to see how they engage in the conversation. do they sit back and leaned forward into the conversation? you could make a lot of mistakes going on the basis of focus grou

senate majority leader reid laid out the legislation that he expects to bring up in the chamber next month. that includes f. aa, transportation and fema funding. afterwards mcconnell expressed criticism of the policies and the need to control spending. from the senate floor earlier today, this is just under 30 minutes. >> mr. president first of all i welcome the presiding officer and everyone back to the senate after theto senate august reces. my good friend, the republican o leader. i look forwarde to the number oe priority we hhave and that's jt creation. cation this isn't just a conversation e of those of us in the senate, the american people agree that s should have. i'm sorry to say that thecongss republicans have distracted congress from its most important

getting theity for economy back to work and back on track that is in jobs and we jo. have been distracted time and ti timeme again. again. the amendments of legislation should engender bipartisanthey' bills with obstructionism and thragg style tactics and dragged outnge votes in funding the government we did that on this er that went on for weeks and all we were trying to do is fund the government to october 1st and to the default crisis the of nmally nominally been routine on the republican and democraticthat we administrations and wasn't a factor in how this republican obstructionism. president ronald reagan asked congress to extend the debt ceiling 18 times. year, not but this year, not like the era,

of reagan the debt wasult increasing as the result of hisb agenda.s f our job agenda for months was held up, set aside and held thef work of congress and our abilitm do doethi something about the hl economy which was being held hostage. rather than work with democrats to create jobs, creating job-c legislation, republicans insist on the reckless cuts to hurt the economic recovery. mr. president, economists take for example mark was in the certainly a person that has his shown some by partisanship in as his working for john mccain as the economic adviser and now in the private sector we have to cut the spending and we all with acknowledge that. we agree but we also agree withn economist marc z. indy 500 saying we have to be very w careful how we cut now because s the difficult times we are going

through. when we cut significantly in job programs that create jobs but ws have to get the debt under control. my mr. president, as my friend said, his number one goal is to defeat president obama the with that as the number one goao and it's difficult to get thing. done around here.ust but the report released last week should be l a wake-up callo every member of congress,very democrats and republicans.ore te we cannot waste anymore time as has been wasted overted the last eight months. the private sector added less js than 20,000 jobs last month and that was offset by the further unemployment that came so the ws net job increase was basically e zero. although august marked the 18th straight month of growth the

stagnant and employment rate is simply not good enough. enough. congress must act quickly to jump-startust a the economy andy doing that will help the ratvery. we have to bering the unemployment rate down. it's time for us to get down ton work as we should have done all along and we look forward to working with republicans to work together some eight months. that's going to take cooperation which in the short supply seems in washington last eight months. i'm hopeful we can begin a new a work period in that constituents voices will be fresh in our minds i just returned from neva, nevado and we'll return from th, states and i had the time toiens antch my friends in nevada m o ople that i've known for manyt years and i was talking to my t, friend today and i said to him u it's really hard to look as you drive by the strip malls and see these signs all over in reno anv

las vegas. that not that isn't good. they are struggling.n in nevado leads the nation in s unemployment. that is not something that we ae are proud of. people are having trouble in finding steady work only inhe nevada but around the country. all segments of the economy they have a piece although all schools cut way back. bac as late understood the piece on the radio 16% of the law schoold graduates can't find work not as in the leg of the profession but any place.fi nevad it's all over the country people are having trouble, people withl education, people withoutons; pe education is, people having trouble making their mortgage payments and putting food on thg table. w of the constituents are goine to be watching closely csely thl

that message so we must set aside partisanship, and we must do it for the sake of american hebs.th t they aren't going to be satisfied with the same gridlock they know as i do that the do th nation's economy depends on then dedicated men and women, democrats, republicans,ublicansd independents working together to put bipartisan bills together with america back to work.te no i want to waste no time in the senate getting back we will hold a vote ontreamline legislation to turn down the sye patent system which will help the entrepreneurs start smallthe businesses. the american act passed at the beginning of this congress and e the patent system for the firsts time in some 60 years it passed the house with 300 votes.vote

growth of ourjob- country needst get the economic recovery back in motion and to promote job innovation, create a job growthe and create american jobs andand growth the economy without adding a penny to the deficit. i have to say, mr. president, the patent bill was not held upi byca republicans in the senate. republicans in tha the house who held that bill for months and months. it's here now.o i will do everything i can. to move the legislation along.0t today there are 700,000 applications, three years' worth at least. wha who knows what is in the patent. could it be another google, could be another software systel or to revolutionize different parts of our society? of course it could be.backlo

we needwe to get for that backlg 'ld unlocked the potential ofpae each patent and lower fees forse small-businessss applicants by p 75 a to 75% helping put people back to work. the patent system became the in, tool to spark innovation and nee that's important and we need to move forwardth on that.nd the american even to act is the kind of bipartisan effort that americans have demanded and it's deserve from congress. i acknowledge from the beginning with the aggressive jobs agenda and we must understand it is a e necessary. the cloture vote on the legislation tonight will allow y us to get on the bill, but i ho, hope as far as we don't have toe file cloture on the bill itself. i told my republican colleaguese if there are amendments thatfera need toso be offered let's getet them done.we have to much but we have too much to do to

waste weeks on this piece ofso i legislation. h c we have already done that.an i hope we find the passage in the next few days.tant this is important legislation. we have had plenty of time to te debate this and it's time to move on to other job creation measures. work the work per period i hope we don't have to extend. we have a holiday we intend to leave and i hope we don't work into that work period.oid we will do all we can to avoidee that.hori we must extend the authorization of the federal aviation i administration. this is an important. h as we know from what happened last month, month, 80,000 ameris were put out of work yet i thinf it had an impact on the safety of what was going on around the

country and we had the safetyo g inspectors paying their way in n the country buying their own tickets and meals. we can't afford another excuse shutdown.ir nd put air travellers at risk i and as indicated leznoff 80,000f workers thousands of the construction workers, 4,000 of them, and employees. this mr. president, this bill has one held up for one reason and one reason only, the company, that's all. excuses. we need to move forward with thise legislation and make this permanent basis. we have had 20 plus extensions e of this and we have to move on but we certainly have to do in extension until after the first of the year.

we can no longer be willing to protect one airlines of all ins america. neither can we afford a colctiof description to the gasoline del taxes or delay the mass-transit construction projects and 1.7 million people ofsenato than committee. before the end of the month we must authorize federal spending on the nation's highways. the person going around tellings berybody even he said advanciny the highway bill is not the tax increase and as understand clearly opposes crucial lagislation with the extensive s to february and their doubts. we must also make sure that ther

federal emergency management agency has the resources it fams needs to help american families rebuild their lives after some f of the most deadly disasters in the country, number one, was thp hurricane ike fai reimputed wil be in the top five or ten costlt disasters of history. we have to free this money up. b right now because of this, running out of money becauseast. these disasters just the past month we had an earthquake which was surprised everyone was insig the young officer state but impacted other places. lynn, if frozen the aid to jobs and misery. almost 300 people tell their is mr. president. bma is there to lend a helping hand and it has been drawn back

because they are running out of money. so we need the funds for fema ti help the victims of hurricane irene and make sure the other taking place so we can rece in these disasters we plan forse the best we can.oney we put money in our budgets forl what we anticipate would beside, disastrous. deterne no one can have a crystal ball e to determine what is going to take place. so we need to understand these are emergency money is and it'sn these people that have been hurt by the devastating storms and emergencies. mr. president on thursdaylo and look forward to hearing jointng tsession of congress hs quick to talk about job creations and it's crucial for the congress to work togetherumr with the president to jump-start the recovery. thi for congress this fall i want to talk about what we need to win o this war period.

there's never been moreiod. important than that the jobsjobd ahead in the of the party's political agenda.so i l so i look forward to aing colleagues on both sides of the all work together for the good t of our economy and for the good of this great nation. >> republican leader and? s >> mr. president, it's good to see my friend, the majority thie leader. i agree with him i think we cant make some significant progress during the next few weeks on some issues that both sides havd a largely agreed to. however, there are other things that remain clearly differentrs among us. as lawmakers return to washington of a sign sure is aware of the t fact that many are not only ouro frustrated with of the shade of our economy but also the state of their government. is

i don't think any of us is under any illusion that the americanag people were particularly eager to see us come back, and whor tf could blame them after two and t half years of being told who has the answer to everything from a high cost of care to high unemployment people have every reason to be skeptical.f more than two and a under thisio administration americans have been hearingve about the wonders the government enending are doing with the conu economy and the dangerouso consequences of failing to apply bold solutions and what has it got them?and as washington has grown bigger and bigger americans continue to lose jobs, the national debt has exploded out of sight and for the first time in history

americans credit rating has beet downgraded by a major ratings lh agency. the average length of unemployment recently surpassed 40 weeks for the first time ever singleew and not a single new job was this created in this country. not one. but here's the bottom line. h in the two and a half yearsis since president obama signed his signatory jobs bill, the so-called stimulus, they were 1.7 million fewer jobs in our us country. statistics like these help usimn understand the dimensions of the economic challenges so many americans continue to face. but mostly don't need to read the morning papers or wait for the monthly jobs report to know that they are struggling and no

amount of speeches however to carefully crafted to appeal tote the anxiety of the moment will e convince them some politicianst, here in washington from the president and on down has the oa or the truth is president obama did are for jobs last week by reversing himself on a single government imposed regulation ey and he has done in every speecht that he's given put together. at this point most people have concluded the economy isn't that washington is doing little, butm that washington is doing it toot much already and that is why in fe coming weeks and months many of us will continue to press foe an entirely new approach, one that puts individuals and of businesses at the center of the recovery instead of washington.d one which clears away the redrea tape in the regulatory overreacr and left a cloud of uncertaintyn

that hasty holding been holdingn creators back and enables the american people to move the economy in the direction that of roey want instead of having a f dictated to them from above by t the president. a it's time for an approach that le based on the simple principlp that if the american people are going to have control of theirey own destiny the need to have more control of their economy.re they've seen we're consolidatine every economic decision in washn washington has gotten us, they see that the folks in washington seem to be doing just fine. amev heericans may have lost their t homes over the last few years oe millions more may own more on te their homes than the homes are worth the home values here in washington have gone up. countless americans also washington may have seen their savings drop or be forced to decide between making of a car n

repair or tuition payment, but you never know that your. as countless economic tragediess unfolded in homes across the t the washington metropolitan area was working on a new distinction , the new distinctionthe , the highest median income in america. iome the highest median income in america right here inks aren' washington. i assure you these folks are noo getting rich off of farming. the while most of the rest of the country continues to struggle, shwashington is booming and thas not the kind of change people tr voted for three years ago.ils ao so before we get into the details what many of us believe reigniting the economy outside of washington, we need to be clear about what t happened to it i have no doubtay

what the president will proposet many things on thursday night a that when looked att individualo sound pretty good or that he will call them all bipartisan i, am equally certain that taken as will represent more of the same field approach thatr has only made things worse over the past few years and resultedn in fewer jobs than when we started. over f tewh oe fweekend the pret tes wted a few ofe' llthe linesi expect that we will hear on mese thursday. the central message of a bentley is anyone that doesn't is rubber-stamp his economic agenda is putting politics above but with all due respect is mr. president, there is a much r simpler reason for opposing your nog economic proposal that has nothing whatsoever to do with ad politics and it is this, they ty

don't work. failures to o the dtrace these t president's very first days in e office. one of the first thing seated upon assuming office was to direct the congress to send him stimulus the stimulus. he was one of the most single expensive pieces of legislation the congress has never approvedh the interest payments alone were proj projectedecte to cost an averagf $100 million a day. this was the president's way of jump starting an agenda that in his words began with jobs. the agenda he said began withe f jobs. i he knew some of us wereork. th skeptical it would work. after that's why shortly after it became the law she asked if he a could come to capitol hill and fse his first speech to thesessn joint session of congress to

explain exactly what it wouldnt achieve. here's the president told us. the stimulus he said would save 3.5 million jobs he said. matelyti that is how he its would measure its success,ether whether or not it created jobs. to spend this kind of moneyiste wisely he insisted that anyone who received it would be held strictly accountable. e said something some people may have forgotten. he said the stimulus was just aa first step.us, he the primary purpose of the hel stimulus hep said was to help te economy in the short term. but the only way to fullyre

restore america's economic the strengths he toldn, us then wast dget that would reach into all areas of theconot not. just like the stimulus the united fame of the president's budget was more government. td once again, he thought that in selling and he needed tohe heak to the skeptics first and here's what he said about that. the goal of the budget he said was sent to replace private pte enterprise but to capitalize ito not to stifle business but to create the conditions for but entrepreneurs and businesses to adapt and thrive. how well, how did that work out? as government continued to grow, the economy sputtered and it ise still sputtering yet the

president wants to know why people are resistant to his economic proposals. ty mus he said they must be motivated by politics. bill the stimulus bill and creatingal jobs was followed by the periodw that we lost 1.7 million jobs. the inspector general who was appointed to oversee the distribution of the stimulus fund reports that he receivednts more than 7,000 complaints of wrongdoing. more than 1500 of the complaints triggered investigations. one just last week one of the peonally company's the president's personally vouch for as axample shining example how the stimulus dollars would work announced itm was laying off more than a thousand workers and filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, and it te was not the first.

but still according to the president and the one that imposes thiss agenda is playing. partisan games. bla to blame our economic problems all he wants on his political lever serious or his predecessors or naturalend of t disasters, but at the end of the say, she is the one as he set i himself who is responsible for what happens on his watch, and c that includes the epic feel youf of a bill he himself touted as t the key to our recovery. >> by any measure, including hie own, the stimulus and the economic principles that was

built on have been a failure and le are that's the reason so many people were skeptical of the president's economic proposals. they don't work as advertised.en the president of course doesn'ti want to acknowledge it and i to understand that it's hard tobutn admit when you've been wrong but in other ways the administratiot has acknowledged the fundamental ntaw in its approach to theresie economy.t he kne he knew that it would lead to jb even more job loss. they'renly the only reason is they are temporary which on the purpose of which theapin uncertainty tht could so many businesses large

and small for making investmentw and new products and workers over the past few years one businesses don't what shocks in the arm or quick fixes. they want to know what the landscape will look like a few years down the road.il and until now that's noting to d something the president has been willing to do. they haven't been able to bring gemselves to let go of the government's grip which brings e me back to a different approache some of us have been proposing for someime time now of which ts white house continues to resista simply what we think washingtonk should take a break from the mae massive spending programs the president likes to refer to as bold solutions quite frankly we

are not very good at them andote anyone who thinks otherwiseon ts hasn't been paying muchew years attention to washington over the past few years now and no one pa believes government doesn't have a role to play. of course it does. universe, and it should stopnivs pretending to be the center ofae the universe.king w we need is a shift in thinking when it comes to how the government's role in the economy should work. we need to shift the center of gravity away from washington in the back to the innovators of an entrepreneur's, the engineers andna the shop floor managers wo will be at the heart of the recovery coming and we need to be serious about it. the president is eager to

embrace p big proposals whenever the government is at the helmdos but when it did comes to doing the kind of things the joblly creators really want peace suddenly quite timid. he will agree to a tax cut as long as it's temporary and agreed to reverse a job killingi regulation will but only if heds knows that he has gotten dozens of officers in the pipeline right behind behind him. lot we need to do a lot better than that.bold we knew the president to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling them.ift i mean, you don't lift a singlet regulation and suddenly claim to be margaret thatcher. the environmental protection agency alone has dozens of other new rules and progress. doz the labor department as dozens o

of rfules of its own were in progress.ity standards the administration's proposed utility increased cost for every family in the business in these america. standar one of these new standards for the emissions would endanger literally tens of thousands of jobs through with.ent new rules for the plants would strike a blow at the heart of or the manufacturing and building sectors. r new rules regulating kohl would endanger thousands of jobs. and then there is the obamacaree will, which has to be counted as one of the most far reaching ans comprehensive single sources of government regulation ever still devised. not though the bill is still not yet fully taken a facto, the myriad

rules it will impose on everyttn american and would be written as we speak and so far those r regulations already run to pages nearly 10,000 pages.ill spend so republicans will spend the next weeks and months arguing it favor of a robust legislation to aim at blocking or repealing some of the most pernicious rules and regulations so the business can breathe again and begin to hire and the american s worker, not washington, can hel. this economy get moving again. f putting the american people back in charge of the economy alsohed means reforming the tax code wes which and that's why over theono next week when the republicansnl continue to make the case t washington should get out of hee business of picking winners and losers we should try to become

more competitive by lowering the tax rate on american job creators that right now runs as the second highest in theand wes developed world and we shouldith level the playing field with american competitors overseas by combia, outhoving the three trade and s agreements with colombia, panama and south korea that have then k languishing on the president's desk for nearly three years.self the president himself acknowledges the trades would we help create tens of thousands oe jobs right here at home byet for vastly expanding the market for u.s. goods we should send them n to congress today so we can finally ratify them.ean another thing we can do is proce reform the budget process. there's no good reason that government spending is on year' autopilot. speg and last year's spending levels veould automatically carry overo into the next regardless of r whether they areeg reflective, whether they are effected ortino

affordable and we need to for continue to make the case for bn the balancedce budget amendment. budget reform is an essentialton part of getting washington too e live within its means. it needs to be a top priority. none of these ideas aregroundbr, groundbreaking and they contr certainly shouldn't be controversy will. just common sense.espect most important, they are rooted in the respect for the fdo independent, the wisdom and theh power as another u.s. presidentr once put it of a free people ane the efficiency of the free institutions.se the president who spoke those words did so during another program of the sluggish growth and high unemployment.sed not and the solution he proposed nof only for the sake of the economy domestic economy but also for pt the preservation of america's influence in the wide worldth focused not unlike the one i i felt like here on the media andd

the burdens the government had imposed on both individuals and businesses.aid. this is what he further said. the strengthening of demand said is to reduce the bisurden n the private income and the to deterrence to the private initiative which had beenhich imposed by the tax system. he such an approach he continued would lead to the new interest in taking a risk increasing thee productivity and the creation of long-term economic growth. and i've only had the same outl approach thatin president kenney outlined with these words inorth 1962 is worth trying again today.approach. we tried president obama's approach and it failed. the i new approach suggesting iy and aimed at losing any party oa constituency it is aimed atle te

nothing more than giving back to the american people othe tools they need to do the work that washington has not been able to do on its own. that, once once we do that, once we come o together and agree to turn the keys of this economy back over to the men and women that actively tried it, i have no that marked the dealings over the past several months would l even more im hportantly though d for will have done something different for the country and for the millions of americans looking for washington not so much to do more but for the first time in a long time to dof less so theyin can finally do wt it takes to get this g economya. moving again. mr. president, i yield the floor.