>> i would like to start by saying unequivocally, i'm

categoric we, that i'd tonight each and every single allegation against me today. >> when i ran for president, i said would cut the deficit in half in four years. we cut it by 50%. >> president obama proposed a tax policy that would raise rates on higher earners called the bassett plan. next we'll hear from a number of patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength on a group whose members agree with the potential change. from today's "washington journal," this is 40 minute.

>> host: and now, a discussiono. about taxes on millionaires anda are just happens to be a millionaire and he happens to be one of the founders of picturem. millionaires. leo hindery is with patic could you tell us what this group is? guest: this group was formed out of the concern that this one small group of women and men, roughly to unde 37,00237,000 hos taking advantage of the tax code in such a way that their tax rates were disproportionately low to the progressive traditions of this country and our tax code. what concerns me about this issue is that we focused on it

to the exclusion of the tax reform that senator gregg spoke about. we have to fix this inequity and we will go into some detail about the magnitude of it. it should be the only way we go after tax reform. the space-bar president yes it left me distressed because we did not broaden the discussion to overall tax reform. host: what you mean by inequity? guest: these 237,000 household paid an average of 22%. the women and men that are listening to the show this morning are paying a rate closer to 30% to 35%. there is no progression in the tax rate, though that was the

intention. host: how do you define a millionaire? guest: i would be more demanding than the so-called warren buffett role. it says any household the next $1 million or more of income a year is the target in this instance. there's an irony to that in that the household that makes $999, 999 is not wealthy and the addition of that extra $1 makes them wealthy. we have a large number of two- income families in this country. the cost for goods and housing -- anything above render thousand dollars -- $300,000 is wealthy. look at the wealthy group.

their rate is lower than the average middle class taxpayer by 10%, 11%, to c12%. host: the unemployment rate is staying steady at 9 per wan.1%. job growth in september -- the unemployment rate is staying steady at 91.1%. we will put the numbers up. you can talk to a mr. hindery. the numbers are up and we've divided them by our usual political affiliation. we have a separate number for millionaires on whether or not

tax rates should be raised on millionaires. we're going to be joined this morning by a group of students in lawrence, kansas. our c-span bus is out there with the students and they will be asking questions of mr. hindery as well. what is the tax rate that you pay? how like do you think it should go -- how high do you think it should go? guest: 103,000 jobs created in the month of september. we need to create 150,000 just to stay even with population growth. this tax issue is so timely is that if we do not find revenue

some place that is fair to pay for the job creation initiatives that this country needs, this jobless recovery that we've lived with is going to continue. when we talk about the millionaires' tax, the warren buffett rule or these other initiatives, the purpose of doing so is to fold -- twofold. we do have a demand for taxation in this country. i will answer your question in a second. we need to find revenue to fix this economy. in your site with senator gregg you spoke about the super committee -- in your segment. no jobs resolution or no job creation is that we need.

back your specific question. i am most of these other women and men who were over $1 million a year, i at this point do not earn over $1 million a year, but i would be considered wealthy by every other term. my tax rate and there's is in the lower 20's. some have manipulated the system to be below 15%. a fair tax rate for a person of means would be at least 30%. i think that should apply to individuals who make more than three under thousand dollars a year -- $300,000. it should be accompanied by tax reform to the middle class. if we do not go after the

corporate tax reform, the tax avoidance schemes that senator gregg alluded to, i think we're just being derelict ethically as well as morally. host: leo hindery is our guest. patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength is the group. we're joined by students in lawrence, kansas. we'll get our first student on the bus. if you tell us your name and ask your question. caller: hi. good morning. i wanted to ask what you thought the greatest economic principles my generation should embrace for a more prosperous future? host: mr. hindery? guest: i think the principles are easily stated. fairness to the middle class has

to be the overriding principle in every aspect of our economy, how we regulate the economy, how the economy functions, and progressive taxation. those with greater means and greater incomes should pay a greater share of the burden of this country. that is a principle that we establish taxation. in earlier segment, we heard senator gregg and i hope you have the opportunity to hear him, he mentioned to the host that we should not have these particular reforms because people will go out and find ways around them. that is as it inconsistent into leslie as saying we shouldn't have laws against criminality because people will find ways around them. the principle of fairness is a fundamental economic tradition and the principle of progressive

taxation or once told to find the nation and i think should define your career and how you live in the economy. host: first call comes from washington, d.c. ralph on are millionaires line. caller: i have made $1 million in one year. i come from very humble backgrounds and i started out as an engineer. i was shocked when i crossed in my career a $90,000 threshold and found out is an employee, i didn't have to pay any more medicare or medicaid, or social security. i thought there was a mistake in my paycheck. they say the top 1% pace this much of the taxes. they fail to tell the people that is only the federal income

taxes. the top 1% can claim residency in any state that they want, especially florida, where they pay no income tax at all. i will give you a sound bite for the left. the top 1% earn a 3% of the income in this country. that is adjusted gross income -- the top 1% earned 30% of the income in this country. the whole system is skewed terribly against the lower class and the middle class and especially when you talk about state taxes. host: do you think you should be paying the social security tax on all your income? the think your effective tax rates are too low -- do you

think your effective tax rates are too low as a millionaire? caller what i caller: there was something wrong with that situation. i like to keep my income like everybody else does. i'm watching the middle class be destroyed. i did not want to make my money on the backs of the middle class and the lower class. guest: i could not agree more with the caller. that is the issue of today. separate the issue that ralph spoke about. we would solve every concern about the efficiency and the efficacy of social security if people of means we continue to pay into social security above the roughly $100,000 cap that exists today.

that single action would put such as occurred on a stable foundation for ever. when senator gregg says that it should stop at some arbitrary level that is a fraction of the wealthy income, that makes no sense. there is no intellectual foundation for that. what route was trying to point to was -- what ralph which tried to point out to us -- simply reflect on the fact that the top 1% of wage earners in this country earned 20% of the nation's income, which is more than the bottom 40% earned combined. the importance of the issue that i'm talking about, progressive taxation all the way through the income strata and fairness is the underlying principle, they

will appreciate what we're trying to do here. but what ralph was leading us to is that we need overall tax reform. this buffet rule is a head fake if this is all we get out of tax reform from the administration and congress. host: mr. hendry spent many years in the telecommunications industry. he was ceo of at&t broadband. we have another student ready to ask a question. caller: my name is katie. there was a bill for people earning over $1 million. are you in favor of this bill? if so, what are the chances of the success?

guest: i am in favor of this bill if it is part of overall tax reform. it is nonsensical to have the smallest amount of reform targeting $1 million and above. is $990,000 not a lot of income? what we have to have is a fundamental fairness all the way through the income strata. i worry that congress is going to say no. this is an election year were almost nobody in congress is willing to approve even the most reasonable proposition put forward. what you can do for us as the

thought leaders is to make it clear that you want tax fairness and you want progressive taxation to be the principal through all income strata. host: mr. hendrick also worked in politics. he was an adviser to the john edwards presidential campaign in a trade adviser on the 2008 president obama campaign. pittsburgh, frank, republican. caller: i was born in italy and became a citizen at the age of 10 years old. i went to the library and a figure out how to form a corporation at the age of 18 and formed my own corporation with $75. i figure out how to do corporate tax returns and how to -- i open my first business at the age of

18. i quickly figured out that if i put myself on the apparel, i will play doubles social security. so i will -- so some % for me on apparel and -- so 7% for me. i gave myself a big rent check and pay capital gains and give myself a small paycheck. host: frank, thank you for that background. can you get your question? caller: it is simple to simplify the tax code. host: simple fly the tax code -- simplify the tax code. that goes along with a tweet. guest: let me react to frank

briefly. i was 9 years old and working in the field as a farm worker. the wealth that i have was greeted by hard work, as was most wealth. as i grow near the end of my career, i have a lesser tax rate than i did at the early stages of my career. that is fundamentally unfair. the flat tax is probably the most abuse of the middle class i could imagine. the solution to taxes is the application. the act as back to my point about the imperative for overall tax reform, peter. an alternative to the flat tax, and will listen to steve forbes year of your telling us that was somehow a solution to fairness. every thoughtful economists on both sides of the party line has found that to be foolishness.

what would be less foolish would be a value added tax. that would have an enormous direction towards of fairness on the corporate side as well as on the individual side. over 300 nations in the world have a value added tax. we do not. we are the only member of the g- 20 that doesn't have a value added tax on the corporate side. we find abuse on corporate taxation. much could be obviated if we edit value added tax -- eight value added tax. i am in favor of the buffet rule. it is not listening the sort of discussion there remains the imperative. host: we're joined by students

from the student council and from government classes at lawrence high school in lawrence, kansas. their adviser is jason and we appreciate his help in setting this up. the c-span bus is there in lawrence, kansas. we spoke to a senior any freshman. on screen is a junior -- on your screen is a junior. caller: my name is sarah. if flooded harpoon wins the presidency of russia once again, which negative and positive effect will this have on the u.s. economy? -- it vladimir putin wins the presidency. guest: i believe he is an ideal leader for russia.

i wish there was more openness and fairness around the press issues. he has the smallest and many of us are concerned about the corruption that exist on the edges of almost all commerce in russia. without a strong hand and a visionary of the sort of mr. putin, a country that is important for global success, i think it would be in distress today, sarah. i'm a fan of mr. putin's. i acknowledge his fillings 1 yes them -- i acknowledge his failings when he has them. there were unfair trade practices and the globalization of china, which is of grave concern to me. host: i was going to ask sarah's thoughts about your answer.

we have ken from tennessee. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i have roughly $1 million in the bank's and hired return and use% that to live on -- and i have about a 5% return that i used to live on. should i pay taxes on that? host: i'll hang up on you. caller: here is the thing. mr. leo has patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength as the name of his organization. he is talking about the $250,000 range. i have the means to take care of

myself. i have credit that means by working extremely hard for about 30 years and putting money in the bank like you're supposed to so now i don't have to depend on the government's. . he is talking about wealth redistribution. guest: i am not talking about wealth redistribution. i'm talking about fairness in taxation. i would have no interest in seeing that person's tax rate raised on his $50,000 of income. i think the tax rate for the middle class right now is too high. i would propose a come down by more fairness in the taxation of the extremely wealthy and corporate the multinational corporations who are not paying their fair share through avoidance schemes largely overseas to the detriment of american workers in

the process, those are the bills we need to go after. i have no interest going after middle-class income taxation. i would like to see it lowered as an inducement to sort of take this economy forward in a way that we need to. >> do you considered ken wealthy having a million dollars in the bank? guest: i admire his efforts over the years. i think the fact that a million dollars earned him only about $50,000 a year in income suggests we have an economy that needs some fixing. this gentleman has worked hard his whole life, he accumulated in the minds of many of our listeners today an enormous fortune, but it barely keeps him stable with the demands on his family. host: our next to been in kansas. ron brown, a junior.

caller: my question is -- if we were to give higher taxes for millionaires or the wealthy, would day received special benefits due to their higher contributions to society? guest: i don't think anybody's contribution to society is more or less than anyone else's potentially. people of means have a very nice life and they should get nothing for paying a fair amount of taxes. one point i would make to you and your fellow students that you are going to hear in objection to the policy that i am proposing is that making rich people wealthier, that there is a concept called trickle-down. it began under president reagan and said you should make wealthy people wealthier because they spend money in productive ways for society and somehow it is better than making the middle-

class more comfortable. wealthy people have everything in life that they can possibly want. they have every refrigerator, every car, every house, every piece of clothing that they can possibly one. when you make them wealthier, as we seem to want to do in this country so unfairly, the crime is to the middle class who could use tax relief much more than any wealthy person would ever benefit society from getting wealthier. host: thank you. the next caller is from barbara, a democrat in kansas city. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thank you for being there, to your guest that i have a question and comment. my comment is, i am retired and my retirement comes up to about $19,000 a year and they say people at low incomes don't pay

taxes but they took almost -- overtake -- 2000 out of my pay and they returned a thousand dollars so i did pay over $1,000. people that say that people with low income don't work hard -- i worked hard all of my life and that is why i have this modest retirement because it was returned to me. what i would like to know is, when they say $1 million, anybody making over $1 million will be taxed at this higher they mean anything over a million -- the first million dollars would be taxed the way it usually is or what ever but what you make over -- like, if you make 1.1 million you might pay an extra -- and i would like to know how much is enough.

iuest: that is my point and am glad you raised it for the viewers and listeners today. the gap between your $19,000 of income and $1 million of income is so enormous that there has to be more fundamental fairness within that gap. it annoys me greatly that the president is fixated only on the families making more than $1 million. 800,000, 700,000, 100,000, depending on where you live and how you conduct your family, can be seen as a tremendous amount of wealth. so, i think it is highly important that we focus first on the needs of the middle-class. the fact that you do pay taxes on $19,000, barbara, when the press and pundits would suggest you pay no taxes is obviously a

live. living as you knew -- due in kansas, you pay local taxes and state taxes and fees and surcharges that are every bit a tax. we have to have much more fundamental fairness to the middle-class in this nation and it starts way below $1 million of annual income. host: patriotic millionaires.org is the website if you're interested in seeing what mr. hindrey's group is all about. we have a millionaire's line if you would like to call lynn -- could you just pay more taxes if you wanted and not take some of the deductions may be taking your taxes, etc.? is that a solution? guest: it certainly is a solution potentially in my single case and what i do in

response is i give away large amounts of my income as the alternative to the unfair tax rate that i think i am encountering. i have set my estate up so that all of my wealth is going at the time of my death to philanthropy and other charities. but to suggest that volunteerism is the solution to this tax problem is not even -- naive. i remember having a debate with a gentleman from bbc. he insisted that the call me by my first name but i was supposed to call him sir. and his suggestion was the same as yours, that we would both do it voluntarily. and i had a sense by his demand that i call him certification that he was not likely to follow my lead. we have to have a laws because people avoid them if they can

and a particularly avoid them if they can be enriching themselves in a moment at the magnitude we are talking about this morning. host: a senior from lawrence, high school. mattie is a senior. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is in regards to herman cain's proposed economic plan, nine, nine, 99% tax on personal wealth, 9% corporate tax and 9% national sales tax and gets rid of the payroll and the state tax. in your opinion, does this plan has any potential to work for the u.s. economy, and if implemented, what would be the potential effect? guest: it is a failed plan. when you push the numbers through, it would actually shifted more tax burden to the

middle class and not alleviate the concerns i am trying to address. just take the example of the 9% sales tax. the women and men of lawrence, kansas, on average spend a very large amount of their income keeping their families -- families fed, housed, and educated. i did not do that. i did not spend a large amount of my income. so a sales tax on my spending is as a relative number would be much less than the sales tax perhaps on your family. what we have to have that very specifically is a rising tax rate that moves up for all taxpayers, does not have these stop points that peter talked about earlier. people should pay social security tax throughout the entire range of their income. it should not stop arbitrarily at around $95,000 or $100,000.

at the same time, my tax rate as a person of means, a person of wealth, should be many factors higher than yours as you leave lawrence, kansas, to go off and start your own career. you should have almost a nonexistent tax rate in the early part of your career and if you are successful as i have been, it should have risen quite dramatically. and mr. cain possible so somehow tries to put you and me and the same box -- mr. kane bang's proposal.- mr. cain's host: richard from texas. republican line. please, go ahead. guest: i would like your opinion, please come on the alternative minimum tax which was opposed to only affect less than 3% of the population but it

is affecting the middle-class for decades. i also want his opinion -- i agree with a progressive tax, but it should start at 1% for people making 10,000 a year and go up to 40% for millionaires because we are all part -- are part of the same country. we all receive benefits from the government and everyone should contribute to that. host: thank you very much. guest: i could not agree more with the latter suggestion. i think a scale of 1 to 40 would be quite appropriate. as i tried to say to mattie a minute ago, as she leaves lawrence, kansas, to either go off and further education or begin her own career she should almost pay no taxes, which the caller just suggested would be at the 1% level and would rise to 40%. as for the at&t, i think the amt

has to be abolished for the middle class --. it is an example of tax policy run amok. it was targeted at less than 50,000 taxpayers. because it was poorly written, within a relatively short period of time it began to apply to the entire middle class and it is a tax on the middle class that should never have happened. it is just one more example of burden is shifting from the extremely wealthy to the middle class which is the principle that i hold most dear. so, again, the solution here is not this little fix called a buffet rule -- buffett rule, which i think would be great if it is all i could get. but the solution is tax reform that ends with a progressive tax scale on the order of the 1% to 40% the gentleman alluded to. host: another student in

lawrence, kansas. taylor is also a senior. >> thank you for taking my call. is it a possibility that some millionaire -- millionaires in the country could leave it there taxes are raised? guest: you know, if that is the possibility i would welcome it. if they don't have an of patriotism and sense of responsibility to this nation to pay their taxes i'd prefer they not live here. we do have a system called unitary taxation. if you leave the country simply to avoid paying taxes you have to give up your citizenship and frankly it is a citizenship i think they deserve to give up if they have that attitude. this is a great place to live. of the american dream should be something that we should be so proud of even though it has been tarnished in the last decade- plus. i hope they leave. that would be a happy day for me. if you do not want to pay your

fair share of taxes, leave. you are not going to cost me much anyway because you are avoiding taxes as it is. host: jim, independent line. you are on with leo hindrey. guest: great to talk to you. i was listening to charlie rose and i had an economist talking about tax rates in successful countries like in the netherlands and scandinavia where they pay higher rates and don't have -- they have a progressive system rather than the over simplistic flat tax. item wondering if you know anything about other nations and -- i am wondering if you know anything about other nations. guest: i know jeffrey sacks and charlie rose and i admire both of them greatly. the irony of your question is that i could move my family to europe and i would pay a higher rate of tax on my income than i pay here in the united states.

that is the tragedy. and what jeffrey was talking to charlie about was the fact that we stand out from among other nations today, in my opinion, for our tax on fairness and not for our tax fairness -- unfai rness. it is a tragedy because peter announced a few minutes ago that we continue to have a jobless recovery with 29 million women and men in real terms unemployed. where are we going to get the resources to address their needs if you don't get them from people like myself and others that are being unfairly taxed on the positive side of earning more income than i am entitled to. host: abbey is a sophomore from lawrence high school. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

understanding that large corporations are hoarding large amounts of cash instead of hiring new people and expanding businesses, what steps do you think the administration can take to create certainty for these jobs so they will start spending their cash and create new jobs? guest: the number -- the amount of money they are holding in their treasuries is about $2 trillion. and i have had the privilege of being a chief executive of many large companies. and the one thing that will incent you to spend capital is confidence and right now so many of these corporations and employees and workers and america have no confidence in where we are as an economy. we need a jobs bill but we need one that is more robust and will produce millions of new jobs and not a few hundred thousand. we need a true were partnership between government and the private sector at this particular point in time. neither is able to find the 20-

plus million jobs we need to find today simply to put the women and men to work who are unemployed in real terms. we need new trade policies particularly with china so we did not continue to lose jobs to china by the millions. and we need, as you said, this fundamental tax reform that i have been talking about at such great length this morning. finally we need to acknowledge as a nation that we have to have a manufacturing policy. much of the $2 trillion is sitting in corporate treasuries because we do not have, despite every other nation in the world having one, we do not have our own manufacturing policy that would give them the confidence, as i said, to spend those money on job reasons. host: almost out of time. trying to get another student. i hope natalie wilkins is ready. a senior at lawrence. go ahead with your question for leo hindrey.

guest: good morning de caller: good morning. how would you personally like to see the money gained through increasing the taxes for the 22,000 millionaires to stimulate the economy? guest: i think that is a wonderful question to end this conversation on. i would put it into java initiatives, mostly on the short-term around infrastructure -- job initiatives, that would put the most number of men and women back to work immediately. i would target the out of school unemployed youth in the country. there are about 5 million young women and men, half of them with a high-school diploma and half with a bachelor's degree of one sort or another, who are unemployed. that is the most immediate use of the resources that i would find from unfairly taxing the wealthy. down the road there are many things i would look to do to help people like yourself and

your fellow students to sort of revitalize this e economy and get us as close to full employment as we possibly can as soon as we can. host: what do you think about the act by wall street movement happening right now? guest: i am and admired. i am grateful that within the last 48 hours the movement has extended its concerns to the area of jobs and unemployment. i think it was highly appropriate that all of the women and men down there were calling out the misbehavior and the legal actions of the banks that put us into this predicament in large part. but the answer to our problems is going to be found in job creation, and it was gratifying, as i said two days ago, to see the movement shift and to my delight would be if the movement suddenly shoot -- shows up in flint, michigan and dayton,

ohio, and buffalo, new york, as a combined jobs and financial reform initiative. that would be a happy day for me. host: patriotic millionaires.org is the website. thank you for being on "washington journal." we also want to thank our students from lawrence, kansas. lawrence high school. there are a couple we did . be do

>> either my first or second conference i was paying very close attention to the discussion as i remembered and i feel to hear the knock on the door. and delete print and on my left and bill lindquist on my right both got up and answered the door and it made me feel like i was about two feet high. i learned from that case there was one of the most important jobs of the junior justice is to remember you are a doorman. >> some people say that to succeed in this world, we need

to be more like india or china or brazil. i say we need to be more like us. >> it's a story about topic of your choosing. every good story has a good he can income a solid and strong and dean. >> user or student camera competition. it

merely a congress word, donna edwards called on progressives to take back the american dream at a conference of the campaign for america's future in washington d.c. on monday. she called on billionaires to pay a higher tax rate and criticized the notion of shared sacrifice. this was part of an all-day conference promoting grass-roots organizing and progressive ideals. this portion is about 45 minutes. >> you've got the feeling? there's energy now. it's building across the country and it's here in this room. you are going to be over 1500 people strong today. [cheers and applause] and together, we are going to stand up and fight back and we are going to build this movement. it started in wisconsin. that lit the fire.

it spread through ohio, indiana and across the midwest. 1500 people went to house parties and helped forge a contract for the american dream this summer. then, in july and august, in town meetings across the country, legislators said they found out people were angry. they thought they elected them to create jobs. not because medicare. and i heard from it. i'll tell you even a tea party legislators came back a little more sober. [laughter] progressive caucus came back and the jobs tour came back and put out a big jobs program and the president got the spirit and put out the job that demanded action. we are making a difference already. but it is still building. occupy wall street as they said this morning sent us an example for all of us, discipline, not

violence, protests, and building a democratic space in the belly of the beast. and now in 57, 58, 60 cities across the country, pay us that the new bottom line taking this argument to banks in cities across the country and we are going to keep noting. here over the next three days, we are going to lay plans to the next 18 months. and starting here, we are going to keep building this movement. beginning on wednesday when all of us will join together and keep this message at capitol hill and demand jobs. [cheers and applause] people are in motion, in motion to see the american dream. what is that dream? it is the dream that franklin roosevelt spoke about when he put out his economic illiterates. it is the dream that martin luther king embraced in this march on washington. it's basically a simple process, and opportunity. work hard. you get a job to raise a family

with. on a home, have affordable health care, have retirement security and dignity in retirement and have your kids go to the best public education in the world so they can do even better than you do. [applause] roosevelt called these the essentials for a free society. the promise of of course is always greater than the performance. it took citizen movement to open the doors for african-americans, for women, immigrants. for three decades after world war ii, we built a society where millions could have determined within reach. widely shared prosperity, we all agree together in a broad model class was built really for the first time in the world. it was what made america exceptional. and now, every element of that dream is in peril. i don't have to go through the

statistics of you. 25 million people in need of full-time work talk about the job creators. we have fewer private payroll jobs now than we had in the year 2,030,000,000 more people. workers wages have been losing ground for years has good jobs get shipped abroad. the record number of people are in poverty, including one in four children. 50 million go about health care and millions more are simply an illness from bankruptcy. americans have lost their homes. one of four homes now with the mortgages underwater in madrid the $10 trillion in savings we thought we had in the value of our homes has disappeared. half of workers have no retirement program at work. companies have their pension plans and social security and medicare are targeted. across this country, there's a carnage in public school budgets. teachers are being laid off.

college debt is now higher than credit card debt can get more and more kids are getting priced out of the education they need. the american dream by state. crushed even before the great recession. they call it a dream george carlin quipped as he got to be asleep to believe that. [laughter] how did this happen? the establishment midflight to invoke technology, turn to a service economy, sort of like if the weather. it's not double. there's no alternatives. it wasn't a choice. well, this was the nature. it was man-made and it wasn't a failure. it was a defeat. the other day the president had the temerity to suggest that no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. [cheers and applause]

seems reasonable. well, the outcry was immediate. class warfare eric cantor, republican leader in the house is the president is going to divide us one from another on class warfare. these waging classes were fair, class warfare? his class is winning. [cheers and applause] this economy work splendidly for the few come even as the christ on the many. over the last decade the wealthiest few have captured virtually all of the rewards of growth. their income has soared even as most americans have lost count. we have reached levels of inequality we have not seen since the great depression. that's one person with a top hat in the corner takes as much income is 60% of americans, the ones in green.

that person has enough while as 90% of americans. they called it a called it the economy, and economy in which there is a rich and the rest and the rest don't matter much. you remember the old song. this land is our land. now, this isn't the stuff you talk about a play count me for three decades our politics have been primarily market fundamentalism and entrenched corporate interests. they declared open season on labor unions and crushed the right to the rights recognized. they froze the minimum wage and a ceos compensation packages they gave it literally multimillion dollar kids to cook the books, to merge and purge their corporations to ship jobs abroad so they can show quick

profits and minor prophets. whole swaths of the colleges has been given over to entrenched interests. we give multinationals to trade policy. the result is a bar over a billion dollars abroad and were shipping jobs abroad. to get this health care industry bake for about health care. we pay to times as much per capita and any other industrial country to get worse results. we gave a call and oil and can call a death grip on our energy policy with catastrophic results for the climate and relinquishing our lead in the green industrial revolution that surely will sweep the world. the military-industrial complex roosevelt warned us about has managed after the cold war to lift their budgets higher than any cold war height. and wall street, you know about

wall street. they talked about it this morning. it freed itself from regulation. it opened a casino. it went on a wild inventor of this economy off a cliff. now we fought back against this tide. this hasn't been put out struggle. we built a movement that challenged the war in iraq and the pressure he tried to privatize social security. we built the apollo alliance referral in miniature ossetians to demand green jobs and to make the case for capturing the lead in the green industrial revolution. we help take back the congress in 2006 if nancy pelosi the most progressive speaker in the history of the country. [applause] and we came together in a movement, open change to elect barack obama was 54% of the popular vote and the mandate of

washington. now listen, everyone in this crowd i am certain has had their disappointments and their frustrations with this white house. for rescuing the big banks without reforming them come of failing to stand strong on jobs, on the claimant, on many other issues, to extend the awards are now asserting national security prerogatives that they trample the constitution. but our challenge is much greater than the shortcomings of this president. remember when he came into office, obama put forth basic reforms in areas we have to address. energy, health care, financial reform, the recovery. now those reforms were too cautious to my mind. they were pre-compromised if you will. but despite the crisis, despite the popular mandate, despite democratic majorities in both houses of congress, he had his

head handed to him. and we know why. money politics. entrenched corporate interests that have been done in this place able to help republican obstruction to sufficient number of democrats to defend their privileges and their subsidies. and now the supreme court is trying to make that even worse. ♪ [cheers and applause] now historically in our country at times that this kind of inequality, this kind of corporate corruption, popular citizen movements arise to challenge the limits of the debate and to force a new agenda on the nation. a late 19th century, the populace took on the robber barons. he blogs every man a king, the

terms of movement and the left parties challenged roosevelt and pushed him to do the new deal that we remember to give the social security, the wagner act. i'm not .. >> the tea party is a cover for gay hating, women hating, science challenge, wing nut extremes of the republican right. [applause]

i'm not surprised they call us extreme said an activist. [laughter] they want to double down on the policies that have crushed the middle class. we're going into class warfare. they not only want to roll back health care reform. they want to dismantle medicare. they not only want to reduce workers labor, but end the right to organize. they want to reverse the great society, new deal, and many of the 20th century. they know it's not popular, and that's why there's limits to have the right to vote making it harder for the americans to get to the poll. [applause] now they applauded a new cause. the tax reform -- it was unfair, and the problem they said? too many people aren't paying income tax. [laughter] they have an answer for it.

the presidential candidates, romney, perry, bachmann have all embraced it -- tax the poor. tax the poor. we know who they are. the popularrism is building, and we are forming to form a movement to rebuild the dream. [applause] that doesn't mean just taking on the tea party. in many ways, the tea party is not the future or past, just a distractions. it requires taking on the conservative ideas and the entrenched corporate interests that dominated politics, rigged the rules, and crepted both parties. that's why we've got to take back the american dream. this is a struggle about what kind of an america we will be. will we build a new foundation for this economy empowering

workers and shackling wall street, or will we let crony capitalism have its way? with mass unemployment, will we put people to work, or will we accept unemployment as the new normal and something we just have to live with? [audience reacts] after wall street blew up the economy, do they get the bill? or do they send to to people, the most vulnerable by cutting back medicare, social security, and slashing spending on education? when resources are scare, do we continue to go across the world, police the world in search of monsters to destroy or build america strong from the inside out and bottom up? will big money succeed in controlling the vote, or will we build a democratic movement strong enough and big enough to throw out those people who are standing in the way to expose the money politics and to make

this economy work for working people again? the nightmare or the dream. we're headed into that fight, and we are on the move. it's time to turn up the heat. [cheers and applause] from this summer's mobilization, we're going to ease escalate the jobs. in october, there's a national day of action, november 17th, putting every legislate foron notice, particularly the gang of 12 and the super committee, we want jobs, not cuts in medicare and social security. [applause] don't you dare send the bill for the mess to those of us who were not even invited to the party. [applause] that's not enough. we have to build a new found dation for growth in the economy, capture a green revolution, and for that, we've got to do education. we've got to go back to teachings, doing the kind of public and creative education that they did on occupy wall

street, to do the traditional teachings so people across the country in union halls, church basements, living rooms, and campuses can read the contract for the american dream and start to fight for a new agenda. we'll take that agenda and a 2k3wr5sz roots campaign across the country. in ohio, in november, the referendum reverses the efforts that crush the right to organize in ohio. [cheers and applause] we'll defend the right to vote in states across the country, and we'll drive that energy in the election. we'll take back the correct me if i'm wrong from the people who scorn the government they serve. [applause] that's not enough. we've got to have our own candidates. american dream candidates. champions that we will run. 2,000 champions in 2012, up and down the ticket, to run and to champion our cause and take on those in both parties who stand

in the way. when you think about american dreams, candidates, think about elizabeth warren running for senate in massachusetts. [cheers and applause] tammy baldwin running for senate in minnesota. elia sureman running for congress in illinois. there's dream candidates out there that we have to identify and recruit and run. this will not get done in a year or presidential term. we're going to have to keep building and build from the bottom up. we need a politics that's disrupted that exposes the order that challenges it. the kids in occupy wall street gave us an example of that. we need to take on the task of saving the dream. you know, dr. king taught us the ark of history is long and it bends towards justice, but he didn't think that was inevitable. he thought that we had to fight

to make sure that it beepedded the right -- bended the right way. he inspired the civil rights movement and poor people's campaign to expand the dream. we're not going to let it be crushed without a fight. when we raise that fight, when we join together, we can win. we are going to face big money and big interests, but together, we can win. we'll have great obstacles. it will take a long time and heavy lifting, but together, we can turn the country around. we are a majority. the vast majority of americans stand with us. this economy is not working for most americans, and if we lead, if we move, if ordinary people do extraordinary things, we can win. we're on the move. it's time to keep building. let's get to it. [applause]

[applause] so we've heard from wall street, and now it's my pleasure to introduce a remarkable leader from the struggles in wisconsin. [cheers and applause] christine norman ortiz1 the director of the largest la -- latino membership organization in wisconsin. she's earned attention on immigrant issues, you've read her stuff in the "huffington post." since 2006, she's mobilized hundreds of thousands in mass marchs in wisconsin and winning many reforms including passing of in-state tuition for undocumented students. rick perry, you're not alone. [cheers and applause]

she understood immediately what was at stake when governor walker decided to revoke the right to organize in wisconsin. she rallied her community to defend those workers and to oppose the cruel cuts in education and public services that was part of the governor's agenda. last month, the center for community change awarded her their community change champion award for community organizing. few better suited to tell of the importance of building together. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. it's a real honor to be here with you today. i want to share my experience on events in wisconsin. as part of an organization that represents low wage and imgrant workers and their families. it's a workers center both known

for capacity to sustain mass participation of the latino and immigrant community on may day. every year since the national rolling wave of protests and strikes in 2006 against congressman dray cone owe hr3747 bill. until this year, we consistently organized the largest marchs of workers in our state's history since it was founded in 1848 ranging as high as 80,000, so we were exhilarated and proud to see events unfold in wisconsin in which another group of workers, rankin file union members mobilized at a similar scale of what we only witnessed in the latino community in the fight for fair immigration reform. the wisconsin struggle was contagious and broadened and reinvigorated the labor struggle beyond contract negotiations in

the workplace, engaged larger numbers of non-latino workers, and provided opportunities to join forces with immigrant workers who are already in motion, but the fight to defend public employee's right to collectively bargain resulted in the occupation of the state capitol and was critical in holding the line as legislated officials ally to labor held 24-hour hearings on the bill and state senators left the state to gain time to pass the so-called budget repair bill. it was a powerful experience to march in the bitter winter with protesters at the state capitol swelling from 10,000 to 100,000 and daily mass protests that lasted weeks and escalated of teachers walking out, arrest workers, and other public sector employees. during the initial protest and occupation of the state capitol,

we mobilized members for two weeks in a row and mobilized in larger scales sending hundreds of members to support rights at the mass mobilizations. in each of the mass protests, labor provided a platform to share a message of solidarity and elevate the plight of undocumented workers and students in the larger fight for the rights and reach members we otherwise would not engage. at the capitol, we represented a significant section of working people of color at the mass mobilization, and the youth was also heavily represented. it's been a dirty war against labor, middle class, the poor, and immigrant communities. walker, underminding his own argument that the repeal of union rights had nothing to do with the budget, passed it as a separate bill so quickly that not all democratic representatives had the opportunity to cast their vote. this questionable elector

victory rubber stamped that process by which union rights were repealed in the state. a table was organized called we are wisconsin to coordination actions and protests against the state budget. one of the actions this year was the may day march in which wisconsin, the state afl-cio, and labor counsel organized the largest march in the nation with president trumka coming to speak about worker rights. this represented a major shift from 2006 when at the milwaukee labor counsel's september labor day march, there was 30,000 latinos and imgrants to march with unions and some unions disaffiliated themselves to the commitment. to work together over the years, in 2011, this joint march was possible, swelling up to 100,000

as a diverse cross section of unions, distributed bilingual fliers in the workplaces, and worked in a scale to march in a pro-immigrant may day march. they turned out in mass to deliver a message that we did not want an arizona copy cat bill in wisconsin, now pending, and solidarity with other workers in the state. leading up to the recall elections, the fight against the budget reflected differences of opinion on tactics. some believed the tactics of 1*eu68 disobedience should stall the budget like the anti-union bill was stalled. some believed it should be on the recall elections. individual members of students and file union members, community, and religious leaders committed civil disa obedience to delay the budget from being passed. 77 people were carried out of the room, hundreds more were there to protest and sing and

praise. other actions on the board including blocking off the streets by farmers, firefighters, and others. by that time, the level of activity on the ground waned, and the universities and schools were not in session. the budget vote was delayed, but ultimately passed. eliminating, unfortunately, in-state tuition rights, paid sick days that passed by 5 vote of 69% in the fourth poorest city in the nation, elimination of police officers and firefighters right to bargain over health care benefits, and cuttings in health care and public education for low income families. the budget cuts result in a continuous stream of layoffs, public sector employees, teachers, counselors, bus drivers, among other, and we are only now feeling the full impact of the severe cuts on basic needs. none of these cuts were necessary given that wisconsin did not have a significant debt

and that the debt could have been solved by increasing the tax contribution of large wealths. other bills passed including a voter id bill intended to disenfranchise. a state redistricting map passed in one week aiming to hold power for the next ten years. the state senate recall elections involved an incredible number of volunteers and fund fund raising narrowing the gap of the two parties to one vote. there's no doubt in my mind that the events we have seen, the scale of resistance whether in the form of mass protests or volunteers on the ground for the recall efforts are not a passing fancy. as the budget and other measures are implemented and felt by

people, it's only going to increase. in retrospect, on the ground fight and particularly the use of civil disobedience was seeded too soon. i do not agree with those who say the recall elections were a waste because they narrowed the margin with participation in a small scale in one race. there is a conservative tendency that elections have on movement building. for example, right before the elections, some democratic senators who left the state to defend union rights co-sponsored an antiimgrant bill, not because they expected to pass it, but just for political posturing before the elections. key union partners demanded accountability with those elected officials for underminding the sol solidarity we were building on the ground between union and imgrant workers and we affirmed the need to hold the right people accountable for the economic problems. this type of leadership and accountability with our elected

officials is essential in moves forward and rebuilding a broader labor movement. community and labor partnerships that were forged between groups and unions were critical before events broke out in galvanizing progressive forces on the ground and critical in continuing to raise consciousness of solidarity between workers newly radicalized by events. throughout, there was a high level of communication, coordination, and even where there was disagreement. for the future, that same level of creativity must be part of the arsenal we deploy against layoffs, cuts, and attacks on civil rights while sustaining a strategy flying into 2012. [applause] there is a culture of struggle spreading across the nation and pointing the finger towards wall street and corporate greed. the protests at wall street are an expression of that. nationally, we're in a movement building period providing opportunities to link our

struggles and reach the average person. as an organization that represents imgrant workers who risk lives to come to the u.s. seeking the american dream just as so many generations of immigrants before us and generations that have fought to realize that dream for all, frontera is proud to join with you in the fight to take back the american dream from those who would deny it. thank you. [cheers and applause] [applause] [applause] >> that was an extraordinary presentation. that gives you a sense of how tough this will be on how we have to walk on two legs, come together, work through differences, but we can build, and we can win.

now, earlier, i talked about recruiting and running our own american dream candidates. let me give you a real live example of an american dream candidate and present her to you. when i think about an american dream candidate, i think about representative donna edwards. [cheers and applause] she represents the fourth congressional district. she was a lifetime progressive activist working on money in politics, on a range of civil liberties and civil rights issues, and when the incumbent democrat, the incumbent democrat in her district kept voting for his critters rather than than for his constituents, donna decided to take him on. she challenged him, and with the help of a strong grass roots

campaign backed by many progressive groups, she won and took him out. [applause] the result was we got a progressive champion in congress, not just a representative, but a leader who stands up and says no cuts in medicare and social security someone ending wars, and organizing the push for jogs. she's a member of the black caucus, member of the progressive caucus and was chosen to co-chair the committees red to blue task force to take back the congress. [applause] a graduate of wake forest and she's the proud member of a college graduate. ladies and gentlemen, donna

edwards. [applause] >> i agree! it's time to take back america. [cheers and applause] time to take back the american dream. you know, i was just recently thinking about this american dream, and when i look up there on the walls and see our screen, and i think about the american dream that my parents thought about, my parents who were both born in the depression, one who lived # in the segregated south, the other lived in the really, you know, the worst part of west philadelphia, but even in that time, neither of my parents believed that their children would grow up worse off than they had. that's where we are today. recently, i had a chance to join

my mother, we were going to the martin luter king jr. memorial, and, you know, it's a wonderful memorial, a testament to both who we were, where we've come, and where we need to go, and some people take the conventional route to the king memorial and go by way of the lincoln memorial. i went by way of the fdr memorial. [applause] when i pass by the memorial, i saw statues of people standing in line waiting for jobs. i saw fdr's remarks where he noted that the wealthiest in this country have a responsibility because they have gained wealth on the hard work of average american citizens of average work #ers, and they have -- worker, and they have a responsibility. [applause] so as i walk by with my mother

who was born at the tail end of the depression, who'd grown up in the segregated south, to the mlk memorial, passing by the words and statues that reminded us of fdr, i thought that we must have in this country once again an fdr moment. [applause] i thought about that american dream, and it made me think about the 48 million people last year who didn't work one single week. i thought about the american dream, and i thought about 16.4 million children in the country who live in poverty, and i thought about the american dream, and i thought about the 46.2 million americans who live

in poverty, i highest that it's been in my entire lifetime. i'm 53 years old, the highest that it's been in 52 years. i thought about that american dream, and i thought, could i think the things for my son and for all of this children in this generation that my parents fought for me even as they lived in segregation? even as they lived through jim crow? even as they lived through the voting rights act? even as they lived through the riots of the 1960s? even as they lived through the depression, and i'm not sure what the answer to the question is, but i know that here when we're gathered, not just to talk about, but to organize how we take back that american dream -- >> you can watch the rest of her comments online at our c-span

provide library at c-span.org. you can find other speakers and panels from the america's future event. and here's a look at the c-span networks tonight at 8 p.m..

>> yesterday, the senate held a procedural vote to block a republican amendment to the china currency manipulation bill. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter for detailed followed by thursday evening's 40 minute senate debate. >> explain the significance of the vote last night in the senate. >> caller: yeah, it's a little complicated. the biggest picture is that with the simple majority, harry reid and the democrats, have long standing press didn't, allowing people to get votes on the motion to suspend the rules after you got votes to go ahead and date on a bill. this is a rarely used tactic that the republicans tried to use last night, and basically it's a tactic that has not been successful since 1941, but the

republicans were pretty close to actually using this tactic to actually amend this china currency bill last night. you need 67 votes to suspend the rules for amendment after cloture, and there was one amendment on a farm dust regulation that was potentially going to get 67 votes. harry reid did not want to allow that vote. it did not allow that vote, and basically when republicans insisted on having that vote, reid and the democrats basically nuked the ability to use this gambit again by saying if you try to have the motions to suspend the rules after you get cloture, it is going to be considered dilatory mean i by you do it just to delay things and clog things up, but, you

know, it's a real pour play on the part of the democrats, it's the kind of thing that democrats have avoided doing. they have not messed with the filibuster, for example. there there was a big push this year to reform senate rules that you only tingerred with them on the edges -- tinkered with them on the edges, but republicans were warning last night that this is starting to turn the senate into the house where you have the majority controlling the entire amendment process, republicans have no clear opportunities to offer, to get a guaranteed offer on a vote. >> with that vote, that does mean republicans won't be able to bring up an amendment vote on the president's jobs bill? the original plan of the president's? >> caller: yeah. the plan had been, and harry

reid agreed to have a vote on one of these motions to suspend the rules to bring up the jobs bill and have a procedural vote, that the republicans could then say, hey, this is 5 vote on the -- a vote on the jobs bill, and the democrats had agreed to that, and the republicans could have gotten that vote last night if they had given up on the farm dust amendment. that's sort of the way things stood last night. they could have gotten the jobs bill vote when they pushed for the farm dust, reid took out what people say are not any vote, and that meant there was no vote on the jobs bill or a procedural vote on the jobs bill yesterday, and that means that the democrats control how that bill comes up next week. they are going to alter it, make it more platble to their members, and it will be easier for democrats to message it because they didn't want to be in a position of having several

of their members vote gebs the president's own package before it comes up in a way that they actually want, and they want to be as unified as possible because they don't want to give the republicans the opportunity to say, hey, that's a bipartisan majority opposing this package. >> steven dennis reporting on roll call. he covered the date last night. you can read his article. we have a link to that at c-span.com, and also one of the many reporters we follow on twitter, twitter.com/c-span. we thank you for the update. >> caller: thank you. >> i understand the rule that each senator is entitled to speak up for an hour post-cloture if they choose to. senators corkers and vitter wish to speak post-cloture. it's better for everyone here, if you want to speak for an

hour, that's fine. i have no place to go, but if we could all have an idea as ho how long senator corker, senator whiker, and senator vitter wish to speak, have better management here, direct it to the senator from tennessee. >> senator from tennessee. >> thank you for recognizing me. i really don't want to speak. here's what i want to happen. i think members on both sides of the aisle feel like this institution has degraded into a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at all, and i like for you and the minority leader to explain 20 us so that we have one story here in public as to what has happenedded this week to lead us -- happened this week to lead us to where we are. that's all i want to know. explain how the greatest deliberative body on a bill that

many would say 1 a messaging bill in the first place, ended up having no amendments, and we're in this place that we are right now. i just would like to understand that. >> mr. president, i yield the chair from tennessee and others who wish to listen. we move to this legislation with a china currency vote. we have 79 senators wishes to proceed to that. once we're on the bill, i have partially filled the traird, and why -- trade, and why did i do that? i found over the last, congressman, nine months, that when i try to have an open amendment process, it is a road to nowhere. it just hasn't worked. we have not been able to effect a bill being passed that way. regardless if that's right or

wrong, that's what i did. senator mcconnell wanted to offer an amendment on the president's jobs bill. to do that, and that, in effect, tied us down because he was unwilling to let us move to any other amendment. i was willing to move to other amendments, specifically imp vofd in the process thought that senator hatch was entitlinged to -- entitled to amendment because his was clearly germane and relevant, but without going too he said, he said, no amendments were offered even though i was happy to have some amendmented offered. now, what has happened over the last nine months is that and even this went on last year when we learned about this, and cloture was up voked -- invoked. senators -- it was led by

senator demint and senator colburn picked up on it quickly. suspending rules for filed. as i said today if that was done in this instance, and i know my republican friends say the reason we did that because we could not offer amendments on the underlying bill. i disagree with that. i think people could have offered amendments, but we were at the point where we were. we had nine or ten amendments relating -- nine or ten motions to suspend the rules. i worked all day, much of the time later this afternoon with senator mcconnell trying to come up with a list of those amendments that had suspended. i had -- i 4 to get approval of my caucus to move all of those amendments. i couldn't do it. i couldn't. in effect, i made a number of my

senators very unhappy by moving to amendments that are extremely difficult. they are not the only amendment i'm aware of that germane to what we work on with senator hatch's amendment. the rest of them are not germane, and they may be good amendments, great message amendments causing pain here, but i agreed to do seven of the nine, and senator mcconnell said he needed at least one more. i couldn't get one more, so what procedurally took place here is this -- i believe that as i indicated in the opening statement, that rule 22 dealing with cloture says that when cloture's invoked, it is a finite. it's finite. it ends debate on that issue unless there's files to be dealt with in 30 hours. there were not any in this instance, so i have been here quite a while, and one of the most unpleasant things i've

dealt with over the years is the voting over the budget thing. we've had 60-80 amendments filed. under this procedure that has recently been adopted by minority in this instance there's no limit to how many amendments can be filed. today, trfs -- there was nine on ten. this has to come to an end. this is not a way to legislate, and that's why the motion to overrule the ruling of the chair, that's why i made that. i think this is something that was discussed in great detail at the beginning of the congress. i had a number of senators on my side who believe strongly as my friend from tennessee described, that the senate is a price that's very -- place that's very difficult to debate anything, and so senators merkley and senator udall and othersmented to change the rules, and -- others wanted to change the

rules, and at that time we believed that all the while we were familiar with said a simple majority can change the rules dramatically relating to filibuster and other things. i felt that certain changes were important, and maybe we should ease into this. that's why we are not reading the amendments now as we used to do, forced to do on occasion, and we had a gentlemen's agreement that there would be motions to proceed would be not opposed to generally. i would not fill the tree all the time, and as a result of that, senators merkley and udall, much to their consternation because i didn't join with the majority of caucus, opposed what they did because i want hopeful we could get back to legislating that we had done in the past.

now, i feel very comfortable that what we're doing and what we did today is the right thing to do. my staff, this morning when i talked about doing this, the first thing they said to me, well, what if you're in the minority. let me tell everyone within the sound of my voice. if i were with in the minority, i would not do this. i think it's dilatory and wrong. just as i said when we were in the famous debate, that's not famous, dealing with the judge's issues we had with the nuclear option. i said, if i were in a position to exeffort what i felt was -- exert was the nuclear option on judges, i wouldn't do it, and i wouldn't. we have to do a better job legislating here under the rules, and so even though perhaps senator merkley and udall were disappointed in my advocacy to not change the rules, i went along hopes things will work out better. what just took place here is an

effort to try to expedite what goes on around here, and am i 100% sure that i'm right? no, but i feel pretty comfortable with what we've done. there has to be some end to the dilatory tactics to stop things. cloture means end. it's over with. >> i'm not sure -- >> mr. president, who has the floor? >> [inaudible] >> i'd like to give my version, if i may, to the senator of tennessee. >> i yield to my friend, the republican leader to respond to any question that is the senator from tennessee may have. >> yeah, let me -- >> without objection. >> the benefit of our colleagues explain what in fact happened. it's not complicated. it's clear whether you liked this bill or didn't that it was going to pass. you could tell that by cloture on the motion to proceed with a very large majority, so i don't think that means the good

friend, majority leader, had to worry about whether or not his bill was ultimately going to pass. the question was whether there's any amendments at any point to the bill, and my conference made a decision, actually against my best advice, to go on and vote cloture on the bill after we had no amendments, and the reason we had no amendments was because the majority leader used a device that we've all become all too familiar with called filling up the tree, there by allowing no amendments that he doesn't approve, and he said, you know, we're open for amendments, and what he means is any amendment that i approve, so he filled up the tree and prior to cloture on the bill, controlled whether any amendments would be allowed and chose not to allow any as a practical matter, so against my best advice, my conference

decided to invoke cloture on the bill, moved towards approving a bill with no expression whatsoever, and so we have in the post-cloture environment, the motion to suspend which is not abused by this minority, not been abused by this minority. the majority leader, in effect, has overruled the chair with a simple majority vote and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. if you look back at the bill, there's no amendments before cloture or motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all. i don't know why anybody should

be affected by non-germane amendments. this is the u.s. senate. we don't have rules of germaneness. no, we don't. any subject on any bill can be offered as an amendment. we all know that. now, the fundmental problem here is the majority never likes that take votes. that's the core problem, and i can remember when i was the whip in the majority saying to my members over and over and over again when they were wiping about cast -- whining about casting votes they didn't want to vote, that the price of being in the majority is you have to take bad votes because in the united states senate, the minority is entitled to be heard, not entitled to win, but entitled to be heard, and so that's the core problem here, and i say to my friend, the majority leader, and this is nothing personal, and i like him

and we deal with each other every day, but we are fundamental turning the senate into the house. no motions to suspend after the cloture, no amendments, the minority's out of business, and it's bad on a bill that has the support of over 60 members as this one did. if you're not among the 60, you're out of luck. now, look, this is a bad mistake. the way you get business done in the senate is be prepared to take bad votes, and at some point if 60 members of the senate want a bill to pass, it will pass, and if 60 members of the senate don't want a bill to pass, it won't pass, and it is more time consuming, and ai soup that's why people ran for the -- i assume that's why people ran for the senate rather than the house because they wanted to express themselves. this is a free-wheeling body, and everybody is better off when we operate that way, everybody is whether you're in the majority or the minority because

today's minority may be tomorrow's majority, and the country is better off to have at least one place where there's extended debate and whether you -- where you have to reach a supermajority to do things. i i understand the frustration, but you are going to win on this bill. you didn't need a jam us. you shouldn't jam us on any bill, but on this bill, you were going to win. now, some of us think we were wasting our time because as the senator from tennessee said, this was not going to come to law anyway, and we sit here when we should be passing trade bills. the president's asked us to vote on jobs bill. i wanted to give him the opportunity to have his vote the other day. you guys didn't want to vote on what the president was asking us to vote on without any changes, but you can prevent that, and you did. look, let's not change this place. america doesn't need less debate.

it needs more debate, and when 60 members of the united states senate decide to pass something, it'll pass. i think we made a big mistake tonight, and as soon as we all kind of cool off and think about it over the weekend, i hope we'll undo what we did tonight because it's not in the best interest of this institution or the american people. >> mr. president? >> majority leader. >> the senate should function like the senate, and i acknowledge that, but we have major pieces of legislation that have been brought down as a result of not being able to have finality of the legislation, unending amendments that are not germane or relevant, small business innovation bill that passed in the past years easily. we had economic development administration bill pass easily in the past. job creating bills that we had open amendment process, they

were brought and they were simply stopped. now, there are rules of germaneness in the senate. there are rules of germaneness in the senate, and let's think about these amendments that i agreed to. there's others i did not agree to, but there are amendments i agreed to have a vote on. not that i agreed, but i have nothing to do with the underlying bill, nothing, and there are rules for germaneness where that should be the case. >> before cloture? >> the right to work, fighter planes to taiwan, we agreed to have another vote on that, hatch amendment. that was relevant and germane. paul federal funding item, foreign aid, jobs act. mr. president, participant of cloture is -- part of cloture is enforcing germaneness. that's what it's all about. we're happy to germane amendments, but the fact is the republican leader himself

decided not to have amendments on this bill. i agreed to amendments on the bill. prior to cloture. everybody who doesn't know that, they should because that's the way it is. mr. president, we have to make the senate a better place, and i think a better place is to do what was done tonight, get rid of the dilatory amendments. i mean, this is -- we would be happy if poor senator bingaman could get bills with the energy committee. we could do something on cement. we could do something -- if we could get bills out of the foreign relations committee, we could look at foreign aid. these things are dilatory and only unnecessary in an effort to divert from what we're really trying to do here which is legislate. the issue is this, mr. president. i believe that what we did at the beginning of this congress

was the right thing to do, but as the weeks and months have rolled on, wasting months of our time on a cr that was done on a series of cr's, one week, two weeks, three weeks, funding government until october, a few days ago, what a waste of time. we had spent months, months on raising the debt ceiling, months, and making it nearly impossible, if not impossible, to legislate on other matters, and when we get a chance to legislate, we shouldn't be held up by dilatory matters. i'm willing to legislate. i've taken hard votes in my career, and i would have been happy to vote on these, but there has to be an end to this. i think that -- and i'd be happy if my friend -- >> let me make sure we understand. there are not rules of germaneness precloture in the senate. there are not any. any amendment can be offered on any.

we know that. the friend in order to prevent the votes, unpleasant amendments, filled up the tree and decided himself that he's going to confine the amendments to those that are either germane, relevant, or put another way, of his choosing, of his choosing. >> what was that? >> of your choosing, whatever you want to allow. >> oh. >> my friend keeps talking about wasting time, well wasting time to him may not be wasting time to us. we might know think that offering an amendment on something we think is important to the country is a waste of senate's time. who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? none of us. none of us have that authority to decide who is wasting time, but the way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point and you move a matter to conclusion, and the best way to do that is to have an open

amendment process, that's the way this place used to operate. i've been here awhile. i know this is not the way it's always happened. this is not the way we always operate, and we did get things accomplished, not by trying to strangle everybody and shutting everybody up, but by allowing the process to work, and when the senate gets tired of the process, 60 people shut it down, and you move to conclusion. that's how you move something ahead, not by preventing voices. we sat here two days in quorum calls. you all notice that? we could have been voting on amendments. sitting around in qowr up calls -- quorum calls. >> mr. president, i'm going to respond to this. i don't know the exact number now, but almost 30 judges are waiting to be approved, people

who are waiting to change their lives further. their patriotic duty to public service. we can't -- i can't file cloture on all votes. there's 29 of them. we, mr. president, have been styling here in this congress in getting things done, holding nominations for judges, holding up nominations, people have been on the executive counter for a long, long time. it's unfair. that's what's going on. we can do all the make believe my friend, the republican leader, is talking about about great things should happen around here. well, i'll tell you a few thanks that should happen. we should be able to move matters through here that have been happening since the beginning of this country, nominations, for example. we can't do that because my friend, the republican leader, candid as we was, said the number one goal is to defeat president obama, and that's what's been going on for nine

months here, and this issue relating to dilatory tactics on these motions to suspend the rules is part 69 game that's been played. let's get back, i agree, get back to legislating as we did before the montra around here was defeat obama. >> mr. president, would the majority leader yield for a question? >> i'd be happy to yield. >> senator from vermont. >> mr. president, i posed this question, and i look around this floor, and the exception of inohe, nobody served in the body longer than i have, of current membership, nobody. i keep hearing talk about 60 votes. most votes you win by 51 # votes, and this montra of 60 votes, 60 votes, this is some new invention. i tell my friends. based on my industry, so my question to the

majority leader whether we were here with a democratic majority or a republican majority, does he remember a time when judges who were confirmed unanimously, every single republican, every single democrat voting for them the committee would then set optical dare for three, four, five, sometimes six months because there was not an agreement to vote on them without a 60-vote super majority. i mean, i can't remember any time in 37 years. i don't know if the majority leader recalls such a time. >> the senator from vermont has been here longer than i have, but he's absolutely right. i also, mr. president, add this. the republican leader said, and i think this says it all, today,

news remarks from his position here, and i quote, "if 60 senators in favor of bringing a matter to conclusion, we brought it to conclusion. that happened a few minutes ago. that's what cloture's all about. i believe in cloture. as i indicated several times earlier, i wasn't in favor of changing the rules realitying to cloture, some of my colleagues did, but this is a step forward to make the process work better. i want to yield to the senator from mississippi. >> senator from mississippi. >> i yield for a question. >> the distinguished majority leader for yielding, and i will not take long. i've been in the senate four years now, and i think my colleagues know that i don't come down to the floor and spat a lot of hot air, but i have to be heard tonight, and i will agree with my friend, the

majority leader on one thing -- this is no way to legislate. he said those words a few moments ago, and i agree. we have become accustomed to a procedure, and i have disagreed with that procedure, but it's been the regular order during the time i've been here, and that is the usual practice is a bill is brought to the floor, and the majority leader and the movements that can be offered in a parliamentary way thus filling the amendment tree and prevents other senators from offering amendments. then cloture is filed. and we don't have an opportunity to have a full hearing. now, i'm told this has not always. the practice,