there is a chance that we could have something in the course of changing the delegate selection formula. >> i tend to agree with that. the early perris to sort out the candidates who don't do that all well in the early primaries and could find themselves without resources that even if they want to go on, there would not have the ability to do the kind of travel and outreach that campaign has to do. ..

did the campaign reimburse? how do you explain? >> i can tell you we have retained independent outside counsel to take a look at the story from the milwaukee journal sentinel to report back to us. >> do you know what happened? >> we retained outside independent counsel to look at the milwaukee journal sentinel story and report back to us. >> were you responsible for doing the bookkeeping? >> any -- why don't we talk about the campaign going forward. >> that is a good question.

>> your boss is going on -- >> what a concept. >> which isn't as fun for us. about to go do a slew of media appearances today. is he going to be giving these -- is the closing the door? we saw him talk a lot about giving more detail than you have about these charges on three different shows. what will we hear from him today? >> it is very difficult. all the panelists will tell you to even hear what your question is. >> sorry. the question is your boss is on tv a lot today. he has been much more open and explicit in discussing some of these issues than have you. is he going to continue to do

that today or are we going to see the mark block answers from candidate herman cain? >> you will have to watch it throughout the day. as you saw yesterday answered any questions put to him. one of the things that we have done with him is obviously tell the truth, get this story out there and that is what he is doing. >> i guess we will move on. keith nahigian -- we see you there. you had a video yesterday, mitt romney as a weather vane. this is a far cry from where you started off a few months ago. you promised to be the candidate of civility. what happened? >> oh. oh. i am policy director for the campaign so i am not a

strategist. people don't want to hear from a one key guy. i think the governor felt that it needed to be pointed out there has been shifting of positions relating to mitt romney and it is important for each of the candidates to maintain a level of consistency in their positions. that gives them the opportunity to make a good assessment on who they want to vote for instead of getting in a position of not being quite sure what each candidate's position on specific issues are. >> to follow up on that, this is toward policy. you present yourself as mainstream candidates to get democrats and independents and you said yes. i believe in evolution, but does this seem to be right time for that message? the voters seems to be looking for something else this cycle.

>> i am fascinated by that narrative. the campaign has their strategy but the narrative out of the media is fascinating for me on that because as i was getting to know jon huntsman i did a lot of work revealing his record and surprisingly he has got a conservative record as most people on the stage relating to his governing in utah. people seem to gravitate towards the science issue. that is a personal issue for him because the family's interest in cancer research and science is something they take very seriously and listen to scientists. we are focusing on new hampshire

and a lot of people -- we are as much looking at the conservative voter as the independents. you have to look at the broad spectrum of jon huntsman's policies. i tend to push back on the moderate narrative based on his past record. >> what is the governor's message? >> he has got a number of them. >> it one and tell us where we are. pick the cheap one as a filler for us. if you had to boil down. >> the country is in economic hardship right now. there needs to be some policies put in place that will insure a

vitality within the country for the 20 first century and that court principle transcends almost everything on the policy front whether it is economic policy or foreign policy. so his message is until we take care of things at home, it makes everything else we do has a global power difficult. that is his message. >> this is for the entire panel but also you, a pro harry superpack -- iowa and south carolina. when do you expect these other superpacks to way and if that

all and how long before the nice goes away and we start seeing some punches thrown? >> when do we expect it? two weeks ago. governor perry is drafting the whole subset and has a lot of money. we don't really know how much the superpac can raise money more rapidly. we are not looking forward to vicious negative assaults. some of us on the campaign are more expecting it and some less expecting it. my campaign strategists -- probably the smart thing is building himself up and that is what you would do if you were anticipating going on a negative attack because he got into the single digits and most state outside the deep south, that is not a position from which you can credibly attack. it would benefit newt gingrich or herman cain or someone else.

that is what i anticipate. we would rather not see that. we would rather see the eleventh commandment approach to the primary but that is what we're expecting. >> can you be a serious candidate in 2012 without a superpack? >> probably not. changes in campaign financing i don't like for different reasons. they are diminishing the rules of political parties and that has a whole bunch of negative consequences aside from the presidential race but it is what it is. i don't think you can do it seriously without superpack. >> by election time next year the story will be superpack. there will be a bigger influence on elections and a lot of states that the actual campaign. before this is over. >> what about the influence of the party? is the republican party dead?

does it have influence? it hasn't influenced the states to make their decisions about when they hold their primaries. you are doing debate when you want to do them. the party is not telling you what to do or what not to do. what influence does the republican party hold? >> we were happy to work with the chairman to encourage that improvement on february 4th. that happens in a civil manner protecting new hampshire's privacy and force all candidates to compete hard in nevada. he doesn't have a big stick of the time. i think he uses good personality it, leadership when he has and is doing a good job bringing people together. i am pleased right now. >> i won't raise chairman previous because he is from wisconsin but i will praise him

that when i worked with him in wisconsin he was one of the state chairman there really understood what the tea party movement or the citizens movement was all about and worked side-by-side with the group that i was in charge of, americans for prosperity, in harnessing the anger or fear of the people and i think the chairman has taken what he saw in wisconsin to a national level and i give him a lot of credit for working with all groups and many people that know me say we will play well in the sandbox to win in november of 2012. he understands that. >> i direct this question to those from the mitt romney campaign. the question looming over has been who is going to emerge for mitt romney? i would ask -- i would argue i

am not sure any of you have demonstrated that you can take on mitt romney either in a debate or fund-raising or an organization. you are saying there is more to come or do any of you persuade me differently? >> the question is who will rise to challenge herman cain? [talking over each other] >> you are making a presumptive front runner. this is where the problem comes in for me. you go back and forth on abortion were one day you are pro-life but then go on tv and talk about how prochoice he is. it is up to the family to choose and everyone said that is a pro-choice position and herman cain says i am pro-life end story. his exact words. then we run into the same thing

about his tax plan, 84% of the people would get a tax break. on the tax -- than the latest thing that happened, he says i never sexually harassed anybody. end of story. the point is everybody up here cares about one thing more than anything else and that is beating barack obama. whoever our nominee -- what i would encourage the herman cain people to do is if you are the front runner and plan to be the nominee, be forthcoming so you are feted and we don't get into a situation where you are a nominee and we find things after the fact. you said yesterday that herman kane entered every question that he was asked on this issue. the problem was the answer is changed during the day. if you want to be the front runner i encourage you to help all republicans make sure we beat barack obama by making sure your campaign and candidate is forthcoming. >> one of the problems you have is we have run a nonconventional

campaign. if we are running such a horrible campaign why do we continue to rise in the polls? what is the intensity factor continuing to either maintain or go on? we had one of our best online fund-raising dave yesterday. we obviously are doing something right. >> how much did you raise? >> a quarter million on line. >> how does that compare to what you have been seeing over the last -- >> one of our best fund-raising days ever. >> what does that say to you? >> that the american people are sick and tired of politics as usual. herman cain is the only non politician running and his message of 999, jobs jobs jobs is resonating across this country. look at the polls. you have probably done intensive polls. ask the question of the

intensity factor in these states. >> here is the point. the first vote isn't going to be cast until two months from now also for people to set up here and pontificate that this race is here or there is absurd. it is ridiculous. the campaign is a series of decisions and the first vote is cast for two months. everyone ought to take a deep breath and we will see you in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. >> it is clear that rummy has managed to maintain a position of having 25% or 30% of the votes and you have to believe that in this end, it will come down to mitt romney and someone else. that is going to be the real question. what is the message that gets framed out of that? do you want somebody who is going to be a real change agent

in terms of changing washington? or do you want someone to coming who has shown providence in managing washington or managing government and therefore be a good manager? there needs to be key issues that are going to arise at the point that those two questions come together and two candidates come together. and i think what we're in right now the sorting out period as to who is going to be that candidate who is going to go through a series of primaries against mitt romney. >> i think the story line on this that you presented today, with all due respect to my friends we have seen rick perry collapse to single digits and michele bachman collapse to single digits and herman cain may have trouble for not and rick santorum can't get out of single-digit and the story line is mitt romney can't get above

30%. that is weakness in this. these are prime candidates. somebody will emerge as a strong challenger but i think the story line about this race has understated met ronnie's frank over a longer period of time. >> where is that strength? what are we seeing in terms of the coalescing? this is a long campaign people looking around? or is it that they are looking because they are not happy with what they have? >> jerry stein in the wall street journal had a story i am sure you saw. the polling does not bear that out. the polling does not show that there is massive dissatisfaction with mitt romney or any of the other candidates. i do think the country is in a foul mood for a lot of good reasons and that creates real desperation on people's part to find the person who is best to get us out of the mess we're in and keep it moving around and

probably will, keep this moving around the next couple months. >> i do think the media has done a bad job describing the field. it has been a strong field and for some reason because everybody has not lined up behind one candidate or someone hasn't walked away from a 90 days ahead of time which never happened in the history of primaries somehow making it seem like the field is week. we have a very strong field of candidates with all sorts of backgrounds. whether it is governor's background or people fighting in congress or private sector background. that has been a discredit to the reporting tried to describe this as a weak field because somebody doesn't have 60% of the vote is of surge. >> that is fair. the other issue that covers the race is how quickly for the rick perry campaign and for you is not just that no one is

convalescing but how quickly and how volatile the polling has been. how do you go from being on top of the polls one week to being at the bottom week later? >> i don't think a lot of us on the air. how you answer two questions on one debate will not move a pole in a given week. you will have a lot of debate to move things around. i wouldn't look at the polls at all because i don't think polling a caucus state this early is kind of ridiculous. we haven't had a overexposure except in the debate scene. i don't think it has been connected to debates scheduled land campaign schedule haven't quite connected and we will see that this summer. >> i was in the rudy giuliani campaign last pole. early polls trumped me. they're not that important. >> also a fact that to some extent the story line on this

campaign has not gotten to where the american people really are in this campaign. if you go back to 2008 you're seeing the same thing they were saying in 2008. something has got to change. the country is not competitive in the world and things have to change. the obama people were able to use hope and change as a great fanatic. it turns out they didn't want to change washington. there wanted to use washington to change america. a lot of the country came to the conclusion that wanted to keep american change in washington. the first candidates that are able to articulate that in a real way to the country i think have a chance of emerging from this campaign for this primary campaign in a winning position. >> we are going to turn it over to chris and rachel with yahoo! so we can hear from the people falling on line in the audience today. >> we have had several questions

from the audience. first to mark block. based upon your answer to the question about the investigation you said with your general counsel, they asked if your independent counsel revealed your campaign accepted illegal funds from your charity or if it is later revealed that herman cain paid off his harassment accusers will herman cain remedy the situation? >> i will respond accordingly. >> can you elaborate? >> no. >> will herman cain ever consider a third-party candidacy in 2012? >> no. >> thank you. >> all right. this question. a very diverse field this cycle and here in the room audience members have commented the state is comprised of white men. i was wondering the purchase of some of your thoughts on that if anyone cares to respond?

>> we got several. >> is there -- [laughter] >> most of the campaign there is actually more diversity. unfortunately it is represented up here today. it is fair to the campaign if you look at a lot of the people in upper level positions in all the campaigns that this is not necessarily representative or reflective of the entire campaign or the candidates has michele bachman and herman kane and others and that shows that the party in general if you look down the line encourages diversity and is succeeding. [inaudible] >> i hope no one is right about my nails. >> can you elaborate on your

nails? the only thing on a candidate. strange things. >> question on the rick santorum campaign. he has been hard on herman cain for his comments on abortion. he said he is 100% pro-life and another it is not up to the government to the term and where life begins. has herman cain done enough to clarify his position on abortion or will rick santorum have more to say about this in future ads or will he take him up in the next debate? >> i am assuming other people will take this up. even on cnn last night they put on there website all the different statements herman cain has made on abortion and they are in conflict with one another. i think as part of this process it is fair for people to ask campaigns to specify when they say one thing here and another thing here, why the difference? i think that is where republican

primary voters, the life issue is a very important one. is one that we certainly will not back away from and i think we are still waiting for clarification. we are as confused as ever. >> so rick santorum said several e-mails, we will share more of this from rick santorum. you are saying he has not done a good enough job clarifying his stance? >> anybody who has watched the debate you have seen the senator is not afraid to challenge any of the candidates for his differing views. he did with rick perry on immigration and with mitt romney on health-care and he will probably do the same thing when he has a different with herman cain whether it is t.a.r.p. or taxes or a pro-life issue. that should be important to republican primary voters because they want to make sure they have a candidate who is a nominee who won't be afraid to take on barack obama to be able to do it in an effective manner when we get the debate.

>> what does herman cain need to say to convict -- or convince the candidates that i am 100% pro-life? >> consistency would be wonderful. if you can't repeatedly say it is up to the house will decide. up to the family to decide. it is their choice and over here say i am pro-life, i would go as far to say on this particular issue i am not sure there will never be credibility. >> we have been talking about your boss. would you like to respond in any way? >> herman cain stated he is 100% pro-life from conception, period. >> end story. thank you. >> this next question comes from the audience to mr. walker. would you comment on the early staff of the gingrich campaign and the staffers to join rick

perry's campaign and how do you feel those staffers are doing now? >> i didn't catch that. >> i am sorry. [inaudible] >> rob and some of the other people who have been with gingrich early on had loyalty to rick perry when rick perry decided to become involved in another campaign. they felt that was where they could better serve. we have picked up -- we are staffing the campaign as we speak and all the early primary states and we move on from there. >> how do you feel staffers are doing in their new role? [inaudible] >> doing very well. clearly the campaign has been moving forward. we have a lot of momentum.

there is a very strong movement for this campaign and we think if anything we have more momentum than the present time than rick perry does. >> moving forward for the michele bachman campaign. there has been a lot of reporting about turmoil in the campaign. new hampshire staff quit and the former adviser very critical. can you help us understand what is going on behind the scenes and why the national campaign and the new hampshire team -- can you tell us what is going on there? >> we had a very focused campaign and a great team assembled and adding people every day. some of the staffs of has been taken out of context quite a bit. i haven't heard one voter asked about staff. it is a broader phenomenon. we don't really care. we're trying to connect with voters and run the best campaign we can. some of our strategy has been

altered and moving around based on early primary states and only so much time we're competing in south carolina and iowa. >> national campaign is not based on a grievances the new hampshire team put forward publicly last week. >> not at all. the person that put that out wasn't a member of our campaign. we don't know who she is. >> a spokesman for that team. >> no. she is not part of our campaign. >> next question for mr. johnson. the rick perry campaign. an audience member noted many reports that the jobs created in texas under the governor were either created by federal government dollars or for part-time low-wage jobs. is that correct assessment? >> no. it is not true. >> what is responsible for the report of this? is it misinformation or

something being lost? >> it is just not true. the governor has refuted this and made clear. defects are 40% of all jobs in the country were created in texas since 2009 as the current president of the white house has lost 2.5 million jobs. the environment rick perry created in texas created a million jobs. the focus of everyone on this panel is to beat barack obama and we have to have someone who can energize this economy and helped at america working again and that person is rick perry. >> we haven't forgotten about the ron paul campaign. i get your e-mails all the time saying we have but we are working on it. wondering if you could help us compare this election for ron paul to the last election cycle. have there been any mistakes made in 2008 that you remedy this year? >> just a couple minutes left in this program. we will leave it at this point and you can see it in its entire

the on c-span.org. look for the c-span video library. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. they will have general speeches for debating the transportation and infrastructure expenditures. it is the second piece of president obama's jobs plan. senate democrats will go to the white house a little later this afternoon meeting with the president and vice president joe biden. now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by raby lord jonathan sacks, chief rabbi of the united hebrew congregations

of the british commonwealth, london 3-rbg england. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign of the universe, who created all in love, teach us to love all that is good and beautiful in this world. teach us to honor the dignity of difference, recognizing that one who is not in our image is nonetheless in your image, never forgetting that the people not like us are still people -- like us. at this fateful moment in the human story, bless us that we may be a blessing to others. guide the nations of the world to honor you by honoring one another, so that by reaching out in love, we may turn enemies into friends, and become your family on earth as you are our parent in heaven. beloved god, bless the members of this united states congress and guide their deliberation, that they may govern this great nation

with wisdom and justice, grace and compassion, bringing honor to your name and your blessing to humankind. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 2, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent 25 the senator from connecticut,, a man who is an everyday example to all of us and whose observance to his religion is something we all admire, senator lieberman. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair, i thank our leader and i would say he and i have had many conversations about things political which will not surprise anyone hearing me speak but perhaps people will be surprised senator reid and i have probably had as many conversations about matters spiritual and personal and those conversations tie us together really forever. it is my honor to welcome to the senate jonathan sacks, the chief rabbi of the united kingdom, and to thank our extraordinary chaplain, barry black, for joining me in

hosting the chief rabbi. the truth is that i knew commander in chief rabbi sacks from his writings before i knew him personally. he's written 24 books, the most recent of which was published earlier this year called "the great partnership, god, science, and the search for meaning." his writing is extremely insightful, it's broadly accessible, and perhaps paraphrasing the old commercial which the occupant of the chair being from new york will remember about you don't have to love -- be jewish to love levi's jewish rye, he you don't have to be jewish. he is the sixth incouple bant having served in that position since 1991, the role is formalized in 1845, he was

knighted, madam president, by her majesty the queen in 2005, and then on the 27th of october, 2009 was made a life peer taking his seat in the house of lords where he sits on the cross brerches as -- benches as baron sacks of all of a aldgate in the city of london. we welcome rabbi sacks not only as the chief rabbi of the united kingdom but a member of a fellow legislative body. he has spoken with remarkable wisdom and insight, informed my faith in so many ways. as i heard him give the opening prayer today i couldn't help but think that he stands in a proud tradition that began with those remarkable christian reformists who left england to come more

than two or three centuries ago to our shores forming the united states of america more than two centuries ago, and in our founding documents responding to their faith, but also creating the foundation of the liberties that succeeding generations of americans have enjoyed and that we in this chamber work hard to protect and strengthen every day. i thank the chair, i thank the leader and i particularly thank rabbi sacks, chief rabbi sacks, for honoring with his presence and his words today. i yield the floor. mr. reid: foblg leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour. the majority will role croal the first half, the republicans the second half. following that morning business the senate will redispliewm consideration of the rebuild america jobs act.

a cloture motion to proceed to this last night, if no agreement is reached we'll vote on this tomorrow morning. i'm working with the republican leader to come up with an expeditious way of expressing the will of the senate in the next 24 hours or so. madam president, tomorrow the senate will vote on the rebuild america jobs act which is a plan to put hundreds of thousands of americans back to work constructing thousands of miles of roads, bridges, runways, and train tracks. the plan is paid with a small tax, less than a penny, on every dollar a person earns in excess of one dollar -- i'm sorry, in excess of one million dollars every year. it has millionaires and billionaires to contribute just a little bit more than they do today. a little bit more. knowing there's a price tag associated with getting our economy back on track. the republican lesion say they oppose this plan to hire hundreds of thousands of construction workers and rebuild our nation's collapsing infrastructure because they believe the wealthiest americans

can't afford to pay a few pennies more. even a majority of the people who would pay this a tax say this isn't true. they support our plan. this tiny fraction of american taxpayers who would pay a tiny fraction more each year are among the 1% of americans who have done better and better and better with each passing decade. between 1979 and 2007, the annual after-tax income of the top 1% itself american wage earners has increased by 275%. that same 1% now makes more than the other 99% of americans combined. and, madam president, these are the latest figures because it's difficult to compile these numbers. think what's happened in the last four years. they've even gotten richer and richer. i repeat, that 1% now makes more than 2 other -- the other

99% of americans combined. and all that 1% of wealthy americans would even qualify to pay this tax to fund billions of dollars in roads, construction and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. only those whose income is more than $1 million. some billionaires and millionaires would not qualify because their income in a given year is less than a million dollars. a lot of property wealth and other things of that nature. so tomorrow my republican colleagues will face a choice. the choice is not whether to invest in roads or bridges or whether the richest of the rich can spare a few pennies for the sake of our economy. the choice is about priorities. who will republicans put first, the millions of ordinary americans struggling to find work and put food on table, or the millionaires and billionaires whose biggest problem is that they may have to pay an additional $7,000 on the second million they make each year. not to be able to agree that

making even enough money to pay even a dollar more under our plan is a wonderful problem to have. but so far republicans have been pretty clear what their priorities are. they unanimously voted against the americans jobs action. -- act. that legislation would put more than two million people back to work and cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. then they unanimously voted against democrats' plan to put 400,000 teachers and tens of thousands of floors and firefighters back to work. republicans have cost this country millions of jobs in the last few weeks alone and they'll have another opportunity tomorrow to show america whose side they're on. billionaires, millionaires, or the middle class. 72% of americans including 54% of republicans want us to pass this plan. and 76% of them including 56% of republicans want us to pay for it by asking the nation's wealthiest citizens to

contribute their fair share. americans, democrats, republicans, and independents, know the only way out of the worst recession since the great depression is to invest in what this country needs. its workers to be employed. they believe it's fair to ask those who have profited most from this country's success to help shoulder that burden. republicans have obstructed and opposed every democratic effort to create jobs this year. how did they do that, madam president,? fear. because those job creation efforts were -- cost millionaires and billionaires even a dollar more, who do they fear? the truth is they are terrified to violate the infamous grover norquist tax pledge even though they know norquist is wrong, or if they don't know, they should know. they're in a thrall, my republican colleagues, they're in submission to a man whose

singular focus is keeping taxes low for the very, very, very wealthy no matter what the effect is on this nation. they fear his political retribution. but i hope my republican colleagues will heed this meaning sent yesterday by former republican senator alan simpson, a conservative, bona fide, regarding grover norquist and his pledge. he said the only power norquist yields is the power you give him. senator simpson went on to say he can't murder you, he can't burn your house, the only thing he can do is try to defeat you for re-election and if that means more to you than your country, you really shouldn't be in congress. that's what simpson said. i believe most senators and certainly most americans know that legislating isn't simple. it's not as simple as a mindless pledge. so those senators must have the courage to act on those

convictions i hope they have and i believe they have. as british historian thomas fuller once said, and i quote, "better break your word than do worse by keeping it." the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: there's no denying the fact that the policies of the past 2 1/2 years have made a bad situation worse. for two and a half years the democrats completely dominated this town. they got everything they wanted. and what happened? unemployment has hovered around 8% for 32 months, the so-called misery index is worse than it's been in more than 25 years, actually unemployment is hovered around 9%. consumer confidence is at levels last seen during the height of the financial crisis but if there is one number that really stands out, it's this: 1.5 million. that's the number of fewer jobs

we now have in this country since the day president obama signed his signatory jobs bill into law. these are just some of the numbers that all of us, republicans and democrats, read about every single day. but it's not the numbers that compel us to action. it's the stories that lie behind them, it's the millions of men and women who have seen their dreams shattered, their lives upended, and their potential unfulfilled. and what republicans have been saying is that if we truly want to help improve the situation we're in, if we really want to turn this ship around, then we feed to learn from our mistakes and take a totally different approach. what we -- we know what policies haven't worked. we've tried that. what sense does it make to try those same policies again and again? and that's why republicans in the house and the senate have been taking a different approach

democrats may control the white house, they may control the senate but for the past ten months republicans in the other half of congress have done their best to correct the mistakes and excesses of the previous two and a half years and set us on a different course. and they've done something else that democrats have not done over the past few years, week after week the republican majority in the house of representatives has been passing bills that actually have a chance, actually have a chance of gaining bipartisan support and becoming law. they're actually trying to do something. unlike the president and the democrats who run the senate, house republicans are designing legislation to pass rather than fail. they want to make a difference rather than make a point. and the only thing keeping these bills from becoming law is the democrats in the senate won't take them up. now we know the president's

strategy, his so-called jobs bill has one purpose and only one: to divide us. just this morning i read a story that quoted some democratic operative almost bragging about the fact that they don't expect any of the legislation the president has been out there talking about on the bus tour to pass. they openly admit these bills are designed to fail. it's not exactly a state secret that republicans and, yes, some democrats don't think we should be raising taxes right now on the very people we're counting ton create the jobs we need to get us out of the jobs crisis. and yet the one thing that every single proposal the democrats bring to the floor has in common, it does just that. so the democrats' plan is to keep putting up bills on the floor they know ahead of time we'll vote against instead of trying to solve the problem. and they don't even hide it. the president's top strategists actually issued a memo a few weeks ago saying the president would use this legislation not as a way to help people, but as

a way to pummel republicans. meanwhile, house republicans have passed bill after bill after bill that are actually designed to do something. on march 31, they passed h.r. 872, the reducing regulatory burdens act. it got 57 democratic votes. 57 democratic votes in the house. a bipartisan bill that could pass and become law. on april 7, they passed h.r. 910, the energy tax prevention act. it got 19 democratic votes. and on and on. there are 15 of these, madam president. 15 of them that have passed each with significant democratic support, one with 33, one with 28, one with 21, one with 23, one with 16, one with 10, one

with 47 votes. so there are 15 of these bills that have passed the house with bipartisan support, and here in the senate we don't take any of them up because we're busy taking up bills that everybody knows are not going to pass. this week over in the house they're going to pass four more bills making it easier to hire out-of-work americans. and just last week house republicans passed a bill that would repeal a law requiring the i.r.s. to withhold 3% of future tax payments from any customer that does business with the government, a bill the president himself said he'd be willing to sign into law. 170 democrats voted for it. why don't we pass it here in the senate? the president is waiting to sign it. this is just the latest example of a simple bipartisan bill that struggling businesses are begging us to pass, but the

senate democrats are holding it up right now because it doesn't fit the story line. now i'm not saying we have to vote on every one of the bills that the house passed just as they are. there is an amendment process for that. but why not take them up? every one would help create jobs and none -- none -- would raise taxes. that's what we call compromise. it's called finding common ground. and it's how the american people expect us to legislate. what we're witnessing in washington right now is two very different styles of governance. a republican majority in the house that believes we should actually do something about the problems we face and which has put together and actually passed bipartisan legislation that would help address those problems. and a democratic majority here in the senate that's teamed up with the white house on a strategy of doing nothing. nothing. all for the sake of trying to

score political points and spread the blame for an economy that their own policies have seen in place as they look ahead to an election that's still more than a year away. now the president's economic policies have failed to do what he said they would. and now he's designing legislation to fail. americans are actually tired of failure. so republicans are inviting democrats to join us in succeeding at something -- anything -- around here that would make a difference. i guess to sum it up, madam president, what we're saying is why don't we quit playing the political games? the problems we face are entirely too serious to ignore. let's take up bipartisan bills, house republicans have already passed and actually do something. there is no better time to tackle the problems we face than

now. let's not squander this moment because some political strategists over at the white house is enamored with their own reelection strategy. let's take advantage of this moment when the two parties share power in washington to act. as i often note, it's only when the two parties share power that they can share the credit and the blame. that's why some of the biggest legislative achievements have taken place at moments like this. and that's why i've been calling on democrats in washington privately and publicly for the past year to follow the example of those congresses and those presidents before us who were wise enough to seize an opportunity like this one for the good of the country. we face many serious crises as a nation. we know how to solve them. let's not let this moment pass

us by. madam president, on another issue, ... i want to express my thanks and appreciation to one of kentucky's hardest-working public servants at the end of a long career. charles frank rapier, the executive director of the appalachian high-intensity drug trafficking area -- kind of a mouth full. we have a way to shorten that. it's called aplie which a hida, will be retiring this november after 46 years in law enforcement. this guy is a bit of a legend. director rapier called frank by

friends has beening leading the appalachia hida program since 2003. prior to appointment he served as deputy director of the program. the appalachia hida program was createed to combat illegal drug trafficking and drug abuse. the problem with drug abuse frank colleged his career to fighting is particularly bad in my home state of kentucky. kentucky ranks in the top three of marijuana-producing states. more kentuckians died of drug overdoses in 2009 than in fatal car crashes. an astonishing 82 per month. the threat from illegal meth use poses a problem across the state as well. this rampant drug abuses increases crime and destroys families in kentucky. under frank's leadership, appalachia hida has attacked drug trafficking organizations

in the tristate area of kentucky, west virginia, and tennessee head on. let me say, madam president, that he's done an amazing job, a truly amazing job. specifically in 2009, appalachia hida disrupted or dismantled 82 separate drug trafficking organizations. that translates into hundreds of thousands of marijuana plants destroyed and hundreds of arrests. in 2006, they kept an estimated $1 billion worth of profits off of illegal drug activities out of the state of kentucky. frank played an integral role in arranging a visit to kentucky earlier this year by gill perlukowski, director of the white house national drug policy, better known as the nation's drug czar. the visit has been an important step in maintaining our focus in kentucky to stem drug abuse and

save our family members, friends and neighbors from the dangers of drug addiction and drug-related crimes during a time of shrinking federal resources. as a strong supporter of efforts to fight drug abuse in kentucky, i've gotten to know frank and see firsthand his efforts. he's a humble man but he's highly respected in the law enforcement community throughout the state. and even the nation, for that matter, for the wonderful job he has done. i know his dedication and leadership in this important fight against illegal drugs will be greatly missed. frank knows the area he's worked so hard to protect well. born and raised in corbin, kentucky, he received his bachelors degree from eastern kentucky university where he began his career as an e.k.u. campus police officer. he served as an instructor at

the federal law enforcement training academy in glennco, skwrafpl georgia, taught at numerous police academies and been a speaker at many conferences. before working with appalachia hida, frank was a special agent with the u.s. treasury department for 32 years. he was a member of the national undercover resource pool and the national response team. over the course of his long career, he has served many assignments with the u.s. secret service and state department, including working as a member of the southeast bomb task squad that investigated the olympic bombing case in atlanta in 1996. while at the treasury department, frank received four special achievement awards, a special act award, a peformance award and a directors award, messengail memorial award. after 46 years in law enforcement, i want to wish frank congratulations on a job well done and best wishes in his

retirement. countless kentuckians owe their thanks to frank as well. frank regularly describes the practice of asking his granddad what did you do in the war. he feels prepared to be asked the same question now himself now as he nears the end of his career. he knows someday there will be an accounting. he's worked all of his professional life so that his answer to that question can be "i fought back against a tide of illegal drugs and saved lives." he has certainly done that and more. so i know my colleagues in the u.s. senate join me in thanking director rapier for decades of service, the work he's done for so many years have created a safer, stronger kentucky. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between

the two leaders or their designees, the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. bingaman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: madam president, i rise today to speak in favor of the rebuild america jobs act. i want to first just clarify for folks, because it's a little confusing. we have -- we have had several proposals to create jobs that have come to the floor here in the last several weeks. they have similar names. the one before us today is the rebuild america jobs act. and it is a portion of the larger america jobs act that president obama proposed and sent out for the congress to consider in september. let me talk first about that larger bill which the president

proposed. this american jobs act that the president proposed would have a very significant and beneficial impact on my state of new mexico. under that legislation, there would be payroll tax cuts for about 40,000 businesses in my state. there would be an expansion of payroll tax cuts for workers that would provide a typical new mexico household with a median income of $44,000 with a tax cut of about $1,360 per year. there would be support for up to 2,600 construction jobs in upgrading public schools. there would be $20 million to revitalize vacant and foreclosed businesses and homes. there woulding over $49 million for new mexico community colleges. there would be unemployment

insurance reforms that could help put 32,000 unemployed new mexicans back to work, and there is funding in that legislation for up to 3,100 teachers and police officers and first responders to keep those people on the job so that they can continue to provide services to our schools, to our students, to our communities. but despite the fact that all those important investments would be fully paid for and that is made clear in the legislation, not a single dollar would be added to the national debt, this legislation, this comprehensive legislation was blocked by a filibuster by our republican colleagues a couple of weeks ago. i commend senator reid for continuing to fight to keep job creation on top of the legislative agenda, and for

bringing up parts of this broader legislation independently to see if we can get support for any of these individual parts because each of them have a great deal of merit. two weeks ago we voted on the teachers and first responders back to work act. this would have helped states and local governments keep over 400,000 teachers and police and firefighters on the job during these tough economic times, and it was disappointing to me that this effort failed to get enough votes so that that we could go ahead and consider the bill. the legislation we're discussing today would provide $50 billion in infrastructure investments in highways and transit, in rail projects across the country, and in doing so, in doing those investments, it would create thousands of jobs. among other things, it would put americans to work in

improving 50,000 miles of -- 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of train tracks, restoring 150 miles of airport runways, and in implementing the next-gen air traffic modernization efforts that this congress should be strongly supporting. those are efforts to improve air safety and to reduce delays in air traffic. so passage of this legislation would mean at least $284 million in my home state of new mexico in immediate infrastructure investments. and that investment of $284 million would support a minimum of 3,700 local jobs. these resources are greatly needed in my state. the federal highway administration estimates that about 22% of new mexico's major roads are in poor or mediocre

condition. 19% of our bridges are structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete according to the federal highway administration. in addition, the bill includes $10 billion to establish an independent national infrastructure bank in order to leverage private and public funds in advancing a broad range of infrastructure projects through loans and loan guarantees. under this proposal, it was modeled after bipartisan legislation introduced by senators kerry and hutchison, earlier this year, the bank would help finance large-scale transportation and water and energy projects that are of national and regional significance. i'm glad to see that the infrastructure bank included in this bill would begin to address some of the significant challenges we have of stimulating investment in new energy projects.

there's simply not enough capital available in the country to deploy these technologies at that time scale we need to deploy them to meet our national security objectives and remain competitive in growing international markets for clean energy technologies. so the availability of this type of financing through this national infrastructure bank could be helpful in developing the transmission capacity required to bring renewable energies developed in my state of new mexico to communities throughout the country. madam president, let me also briefly comment on the fact that there is revenue raised in order to pay for this set of investments that are being proposed here. that is, there is a so-called offset for the cost of this legislation and that's because i think all of us agree that the deficit is at unsustainable levels. we should not be committing to

increased spending without finding a way to pay for it and that's why this legislation contains a revenue raising provision. the legislation would impose a .7% surtax on income exceeding a million dollars. what does that mean? that means that if your income is -- your annual income is a million dollars, then this legislation does not in any way change the taxes you're required to pay. so any garden variety millionaire who only receives a million dollars per year in income is not required to pay any more under this legislation. but if you exceed that and your income is a million -- $1.1 million for example, you would have to pay an extra $700 towards the cost of this legislation.

the reality is that modernizing our nation's infrastructure and stimulating job growth and enhancing policies to assist with our economic recovery does cost money. we all wish it did not, but it does. frankly, if we are going to give more than just lip service to addressing our persistent deficits, i think it's reasonable to ask the wealthiest among to us pitch in to move america forward, to begin this -- to get this economy moving again. in new mexico, less than .1% of taxpayers would be impacted by this modest surtax. that means that 99.9% of new mexicans would not be impacted at all and the handful of filers who would be impacted would only pay the surtax on the portion of their annual income that exceeds a million dollars. madam president, i strongly believe this legislation, the

rebuild america jobs act, which we're going to try to proceed to tomorrow or whenever we can get consent from our republican colleagues to proceed to it, i believe it's important legislation, it's an important step in turning our economy around, i urge my colleagues to support it. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: ,madam president, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i rise today because this week once again the senate of the united states has the opportunity to create jobs. to find a way to work together to make a real difference in the long-term strength of this nation and to finally punch back against this recession which has taken so much from the working families of our states. i rise in support of the

rebuilding america jobs act, a bill that will invest $60 billion in our nation's crumbling infrastructure and put hundreds of thousands of americans back to work. investments in america's infrastructure are investments in america's future. and they could not come at a more critical time for our country, our communities, or our future. the rest of the world is pouring money into its infrastructure because they know that it will not only make it easier for them to recover from this recession, they know it will make them more competitive for their long-term future for their people, for their countries, for their economies. so at a time when our competitors are pouring money into fixing, expanding, building their infrastructure, we've turned off the spigot. we are starving, madam president, our roads and our bridges, our sewers and our water systems, our tunnels, our ports, our runways, our railroad tracks, we're starving

them of the repairs they need to function properly not just for today but to lay the groundwork for our competitiveness of the next generation of americans. china today, one of our greatest economic competitors, is spending 9% of g.d.p. on infrastructure. as anyone who has visited china in recent years knows, all across the nation of china they are gleam -- there are gleaming new highway systems, brand-new ports, brand-new airports and runways, brand-new transportation infrastructure that connects newly built cities, leaping from the ground as if by magic because they've invested enormous amounts in a modern infrastructure. europe broadly is investing 5% of g.d.p. in modernizing their infrastructure and in the united states, where modern infrastructure has for a generation made us the envy of the world we are today investing just 2%. just 2% of our g.d.p. this is foolish.

few people argue that infrastructure isn't important, madam president. in fact, it's one of the few things that seems to enjoy broad support here in this chamber, in this city and in this country. folks as disparate as the afl-cio and the u.s. chamber of commerce agree investing in modernizing our infrastructure is critical not just to putting americans back to work but to get america working for our country's future. they support both the idea of an infrastructure bank because they know investing in infrastructure isn't just about rebuilding our roads, it's about rebuilding our economy. when companies make decisions about where to locate, about where to build a new factory, to expand production, to lease a new office, infrastructure is always at or near the top of their list. proximity to a highway means everything if going to run or expand a factory. being close to party is critical if your products need to be

exported overseas, and access to railways is imperative to do business outside our country. high-speed internet can be every bit as sport as these century-old transportation technologies and can be every bit as important as clean water, modern ports or new rail roads. infrastructure is important in every state of our nation, madam president, and especially so in my coastal state of delaware. the port of wilmington brings four million tons of goods through delaware each year providing jobs to the longshoremen and the communities around our port that rely so much on its vital link to the global economy. railways allow amtrak to connect business women and men from new york to our legal and banking community in wilmington and it's one of the busiest railroad stations in america and i-95 that east coast corridor connects truckers and corridors

up andrea down the east coast to our little state. as folks have known far too long, one of the buoys choke points on i-95 was in our state. i used to get calls all the time, madam president, in my role as county executive because folks mistakenly thought it was somehow my role to modernize this highway. it was john f. kennedy who cut the ribbon on this modern interstate highway and we frankly have failed to invest in keeping up with the times, in keeping up with the growth in traffic, in keeping up with the tempo of global commerce since then. delaware has finally solved these problems, madam president, with the leadership of the obama administration and this chamber, the investments that were made in infrastructure over the last two years, we finally have solved that choke point on i-95 and today motorists move through at speed, pay their tolls to delaware, yeah, and are able to engage in commerce at the speed that the modern

economy demands. that's what we seek here to do nationwide. that's what the rebuilding america's jobs act can do. for the last 25 or 30 years we've been building off the infrastructure built by our parents' generation hoping a bandage here, a ointment here, a little wire, bubblegum would be enough to get us through another year but that's not a strategy for laying the groundwork for a great future for our children. it's not even a strategy for keeping up. the choke points on america's roads can't be allowed to choke america's economy for the next generation. one-third of our nation's roadways are in poor or even mode yoker condition and a quarter of our bridges have been rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. they've even faced the human suffering and reputational disaster of having bridges collapse across this country in recent years. we have failed to invest in our future.

and as a country, we can keep swerving to avoid these potholes but eventually we're going to hit them. the rebuilding america's jobs act would fill that pothole, would make smooth the rough places of this nation and accelerate our economic growth for the future. i'm a cosponsor of the rebuilding america jobs act, madam president, because this bill would fill the pothole we've been avoiding for decades. it would rebuild 150,000 miles of american roadways, maintain 4,000 miles of train tracks, upgrade 150 miles of airport runways. wyatt restore critical drinking water and wastewater systems for our communities and strengthen our energy infrastructure. in short, it would make us competitive, put people back to work, it would get us on the right road to a sustained recovery. it would put hundreds of thousands of americans back to work in that sector of the economy that took the first and hardest hit from the recession.

more than two million americans who worked in construction have lost their jobs since this tragic recession hit. including 8,000 in my home state of delaware alone. and we've got thousands of folks in the -- skilled building trades ready to go. they juice just need to us get over our differences, tined a way past these endless, mindless filibusters and get them to work. this week we have an opportunity to invest in those people and invest in our country. infrastructure is such a smart investment, and in this economy and in this competitive global environment where our allies and competitors are outstripping our investment because they see clearly the road to the future, we simply cannot afford to continue to refuse to act. madam president, it was one year ago today that the people of delaware elected me to represent them in washington, and every day since i have wondered when this chamber was finally going

to come together across the partisan divide and start moving on jobs. the persistent partisanship here that has plagued this body is in my view not worthy of the very real human needs of the people who sent us here. last month folks in this congress, mostly from the other party, prevented us from acting on jobs not once, not twice but several times. i don't understand the strategy here, but the endless filibusters must stop. i know there's debate over how we're going to pay for this particular proposal to put $60 billion into infrastructure. but as senator bingaman commented just before me, this is a modest increase in revenue for the very wealthiest americans that i believe is justified in this critical economic time. too many of my neighbors, too many of my constituents are out of work. and, madam president, i don't think we have a choice. we need to act. the president is right. we can't wait to act.

the rebuilding america jobs act not only invests in jobs today but in our economy for tomorrow. we can't wait any longer, madam president, to fill this pothole. this bill deserves bipartisan support, and i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for it this week. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: madam president, i rise to speak also on the rebuild america jobs act. our nation's infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. we see it in the potholes in our streets, in the congested highways and public transit that lack the capacity to safely and efficiently get americans where they need to go.

the american society of civil engineers gives our nation's infrastructure a "d" grade. one in four bridges in the united states is structurally deficient. our deteriorating infrastructure has negative impacts on commerce and our economy. we no longer have an infrastructure system that is the envy of the world. when you invest in public infrastructure, you have two results: you create immediate construction jobs and you lay the foundation, the groundwork to improve communities and facilitate commerce. that was certainly my experience when i was mayor of anchorage. i became mayor in 2003 at a time of an economic slowdown. not quite as bad as our national economy that we face today, but we inherited huge budget deficits, a dramatic slowdown in our economy. our answer was to turn anchorage around was to invest in our basic systems of roads and water and sewer and power, basic

infrastructure. one of the best examples of the public infrastructure investment was a small community in the northern part of anchorage called mountain view. we knew there was great potential for economic turnaround in this community. we knew because the community was interested, but the public infrastructure hadn't been invested in that community in decades. we did some simple things at first. upgraded the roads, basic systems that move people from one end of mountain view to the other. we invested in schools and then we invested in some public facilities. today mountain view is a home of one of our large credit unions, one of their branches which is now their top performer in new accounts. also new retail is established there. a restaurant, phone stores, housing developments where no housing was being developed in this neighborhood. as a matter of fact, this neighborhood used to be the place -- and i know it well because i grew up not far from here. it was a neighborhood where people lived and then they

figured out how to move out of the neighborhood. today it's a community of choice, a place where people want to go to. well over 140 housing units developed in this community in the last five years. also additional public offices, a library for the first time developed there in over 22 years. simple investments created private-sector investment along with it. another example: we built a new $100 million convention center in our downtown anchorage. the new center is an economic engine attracting bigger conventions and meetings, tens of thousands of visitors per year. in september alone the new convention center generated almost $12 million in revenue, supporting restaurants, shops and hotels. again, someone born and raised in anchorage, i remember when downtown, again, businesses were fleeing the downtown. they saw it as not an opportunity for economic development. by making these simple

investments can have a long-term impact. this may sound, $100 million, like a lot of money. let me give you another example. $40,000 we invested in just improved street lights in a small part of downtown along g street. property owners had legitimate concerns of safety after dark. and there's one thing, when winter hits in alaska, there is less light, a lot of less light. we invested about $40,000 to invest in installing some simple street lights, a dozen or so along the road there. the result, the character of the street has dramatically changed. we've seen ten new businesses spring up in a three-block section of g street because it's safer. people move freely at any time of the tkaeufplt there are year-round restaurant businesses, modern dwellers, alaska cake studio and octopus, inc. a variety of new businesses.

retailers investing their hard-earned capital, reaching out to expand an opportunity for anchorage. these businesses probably would not have made the investment without the small investment of the public infrastructure. madam president, in my view we need to follow this model on a national level. failure to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, airports, will cost us nearly a million american jobs without this investment. our economy is incredibly important to continue to move forward by moving legislation like rebuild america jobs act. it is an opportunity to reverse this trend while helping to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. this could put alaskans to work on important projects. bridge repairs outside the denali national park, a critical route between alaska's two population centers and a heavily traveled route for our tour operators and shippers.

intersection upgrades on two of the busiest roads in downtown fairbanks. highway safety improvements along the saourd highway -- sueard highway. safety improvements along the sterling highway on the kenai peninsula. another area of high visitor traffic in the summer. we know these improvements will support local economic growth all around alaska, which is still a very young state compared to many states. it has a tremendous transportation need. two years ago this congress approved the recovery act, which funded sorely needed pro skwrubgts across my -- projects across my state. projects like the alaska railroad line improvements, glenn highway repairs and airport upgrades. these created immediate construction jobs and improved access points so private companies can increase revenues and create long-term jobs. the rebuild america jobs act not

only provides desperately needed repair funds, it also provides the seed money for the national infrastructure bank that will attract private-sector capital to help fund a broad range of national significant projects. the concept for the infrastructure bank has broad bipartisan support and is currently being championed by the u.s. chamber of commerce. moody's estimates for every $1 spent on roads and water and sewer, the basic infrastructure of this country, g.d.p. is raised by $1.59. the rebuild america jobs act would make some key investments. $27 billion to rebuild roads and bridges. $19 billion to invest -- $9 billion in invest in public transit. $3 billion to invest in airports and modernization of our air traffic control system which will make aviation more

efficient and safer. for alaskans, this investment would fund $220 million in much-needed transportation improvements and modernization which of course means good jobs, an estimated 2,900 jobs in alaska from this bill. infrastructure development and investment has historically been a bipartisan effort. the american people want congress to work together. this is a good bill to deal with our nation's roads and bridges and rails and ports and runways. madam president, let me close by just saying, you know, i've been now here almost three years, and we had some good bills that pass, and we argue over some that we wish would pass. we've had some success over the past couple of weeks here, when you think about the china currency bill, the three trade bills. now we have a bill -- we put two jobs -- three jobs bill up.

two have not been able to pass. the chamber of commerce is actively promoting this because they see the melding of public and private sector moving together to invest in the future of this economy. they also know that when you lay those roads down or that better infrastructure on rail or transit, the net result is private-sector investment will occur right after it or simultaneously. so i would hope that folks on the other side would make the decision that it is wise to invest today and move this bill forward so we can have a long-term economic impact for our country. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, as we debate here in the united states senate how to get our economy going again, deal with what is a stagnant economic set of circumstances, something that we've been grappling with now for a few years, i think it's instructive to look at what's happening in europe. it was interesting to me, as you look at even the morning papers this morning, the front page of the "wall street journal," fears

of political chaos tank global markets as europe's bailout plan teeters." much of the paper today, at least in the news reporting, is all about what's happening in europe and the greek crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that's being experienced in that country. the business page of the business daily, european debt crisis tightens its choke hold on global markets, a whole stories -- host of stories. in "the washington post" above the fold, "europe bailout in doubt, greece seeks referendum." my point is as we've observed what's happening in europe, it should be a lesson and warning sign about the things we need to be doing to get our economy back on track in this country. what is sad lipping europe right now -- saddling europe right now is the fact that the european governments have gotten too big for for for their economies to

support so they are drowning in all this debt. they have debt to g.d.p. ratios that exceed the levels, way exceed the levels normally that are required for admission into the european union, and yet they continue to -- to struggle with these huge amounts of debt, much of which was created over a long period of time, didn't happen overnight, it's something many of their governments made promises they couldn't keep. now they're dealing with that and trying to figure out how they're going to work their way out of it and it's becoming increasingly concerning i think to people all across the globe and certainly here to us in the united states. and if you look at the debt to g.d.p. ratios in some of these countries around the world, they're pretty staggering. greece is somewhere in the 180% debt to g.d.p. area, you've got portugal, spain, countries like that, that in some cases in excess of 200% debt to g.d.p.

where are we in this country. we're already about 100%, our g.d.p. is at a level we haven't seen sips the end of world war ii. spending as a percentage of our economy, debt as a percentage of our economy, deficits as a percent evening of our economy -- percentage of our economy, at historic highs going back to world war ii. i think hopefully the lesson and the takeaway from all this is we have got to get our fiscal house in order. we are in a deep hole, we cannot continue to dig that hole deeper. and that's why when i hear the discussion about how to revive our economy and i hear sort of revolve around we need to have more government intervention, more government spending, that to me is a clearly a warning sign that we're on the wrong path because that is exactly what has happened in europe. governments have gotten too big, their economies can no longer support them and they're faced with untenable

circumstances, serious, dramatic austerity measures, accompanied by contracting economies all of which is leading to a complete mess in europe, hopefully one that will not spill over into this country and around the globe. but that concern clearly exists today which is why you see many of these headlines in our american papers focusing on that particular issue. so my point, madam president, is simply this: i think as we look at how we deal with our economy here in the united states, it starts with balancing our budget, getting our fiscal house in order, trying to get that debt and spending as a percentage of our economy down to more normal historic levels levels. the past 40 years in american history our spending as a percentage of our g.d.p. has been in the 20% to 21% range on average, a 40-year historical average. since dentally the five times we have balanced the budget since 1969, and there have only been

five times regrettably where we've balanced the budget, the spending-to-g.d.p. ratio was 18.7% average. so clearly in those times when we balanced the budget going back to 1969, those five years, we had an economy obviously that was expanding and growing but also we had government spending at a reasonable level. today we're in the 24% to 25% range spending as a percentage of our economy and again debt-to-g.d.p. now literally 100%, something we haven't seen, really historic in terms of our country's economy and our fiscal situation in this country. i think what it suggests is this: that we cannot spend our way out of this, we cannot borrow our way out of this. all we do, we compound a situation, make it worse rather than better. we've already seen that in the first couple years of this presidency. president obama when he came into office had a very aggressive agenda. he wanted to expand the role of government and so we had a

stimulus program funded with borrowed money that was focused on government spending, government stimulating the economy, we had a massive new health care bill, $2.5 trillion cost when it's fully implemented that was a big expansion, the biggest expansion of government that we've seen literally in the last 40 years. we've seen excessive regulation to the point that there are now 61,000 pages of new regulations that have been issued or pushed through since this president took office. all of which, again, compounds i think and makes worse the problem that we have of growing spending as a percentage of g.d.p., growing debt as a percentage of g.d.p., and a shrinking brieft economy or at least an economy that's not growing at the rate that we would like to see and continuing to run unemployment rates that are north of 9%. so these are serious economic circumstances, and worsened i believe by the policies that

have been put in place since this president took office. so i believe we need to take a different approach. we need to move in a different direction. we can't continue to double down on things we know don't work. and clearly government spending, government stimulus of the economy, if the last stimulus bill is any indication of that certainly hasn't worked. so much of what i hear being talked about now from my colleagues on the other side and from this administration is very similar to that. we're talking about a lot of the same prescriptions for our economy. we need to spend more mere which of course entails more borrowing or higher taxes on the people who create jobs in this country and the fact the most recent iterations have entailed a tax increase on people create jobs, a permanent tax increase, i might add to pay for temporary spending programs, temporary spending ideas that have already proven not to work. and so it seems really iron nick a way that we're having that

discussion. it strikes me there are a lot of other things we ought to be thinking about if we're serious about getting the economy, the american economy back on track and growing and expanding again. we all talked about the issue of taxes. taxes are clearly an issue when it comes to our competitive place in the world. we continue to see companies move jobs to other places because our tax structure in this country is not competitive. we have the second highest tax on business in the entire world right now, which i think makes us anticompetitive and makes it more difficult for us to attract jobs and investment in this country. we had as i said, a regulatory structure that is spinning out of control in terms of new regulations, new mandates, new requirements on american businesses. quite simply, we are making it more costly and more difficult for american businesses to create jobs when we ought to be looking at how we can make it less difficult and less costly, less expensive, cheaper, if

you will, to create jobs in this country. and so that's where we ought to be looking and i think that a couple of things that strike me that really fit into that debate, one is tax reform. i think getting tax rates down on businesses and individuals, broadening the tax base is something that we really ought to be having a debate about and tax reform that would put policies in place that will be there a while, there is permanence to. we continue to change tax law every year or two and that kind of economic uncertainty makes it difficult for american businesses to invest. who in their right mind is going to make investments based upon a set of policies that will be in place for at best two years, at worst maybe a year? and that's how we've been setting tax policy of late. creating economic certainty through more permit tax changes but tax changes i would argue, madam president, that promote long-term economic growth, not

decision making that is designed perhaps for people to in the near term do something that might give us a little bit of economic pop in the next six to 12 months but something that actually puts in place conditions where businesses will make long-term investments, create long-term good-paying jobs right here in america. and so i think that that's the kind of -- that's the kind of economic debate that we need to be having, and frankly instead of talking about redistribution of wealth or redistribution of income which is so often what we hear coming out of the white house, we ought to be talking about what can we do to promote economic dwroat, how can -- growth, how can we get the economic economy expand and growing. tax reform is one, and tax reform that is focused on getting rates down, making us more competitive with the rest of the world. then we ought to have a debate about what we're going to do with these regulations. these regulations are really out of control. and there are a series of things that have been passed by the

other body, by the house of representatives, which they call the forgotten 15, and they're a whole series of things dealing with be domestic energy development, doing away with costly regulations, all these things are things, these are pieces of legislation, bills that have passed in the house of representatives already this year. since we came in in january and this new session of congress, there are 15 bills that have passed in the house of representatives that haven't been acted on here in the senate. many of us have tried and will continue to try to get votes on some of these things as amendments perhaps to bills that might be moving through the senate, but if we're serious about supporting policies that will create the right conditions for economic growth, it seems to me at least we could start by taking what have things -- things that have passed the house with broad bipartisan support. these are policies that have already been -- come through

one body of the congress that we could put on the floor and the agenda here in the united states senate that really would impact the economy and the job creators in this country. all things that we've heard people say that they want and they need. now, if you look at the number of regulations coming out of washington, d.c. and what it would take in terms of our job creators to comply with all that, it's anistonnishing 82 million hours, 82 million hours to comply at a cost of $80 billion. that's what these new regulations that are coming out of washington just in this last year or since this administration has taken office, that's the cost to our economy of all these new requirements that are being imposed upon our businesses. the regulations, excessive red tape, we know kills jobs, increases our dependence on foreign oil and imposes costs on our businesses we frankly can't afford. if you look at what federal regulations cost job creators

annually it's somewhere along the order of $1.75 trillion. that's the whole composite of all the regulations that exist on the books today, not just those enacted since this administration came to power but they've taken it to a whole new level. it's interesting because the chairman of the business roundtable and the president and c.e.o. of boeing company, gyms mcnerny printed this monday noted the following, and i quote, a tsunami of new rules and regulations from be an alpht top of agencies is paralyzing investment and increasing by tens of millions of dollars the cost of compliance. what we face is job rice is and regulators protected with protecting the interests of the people is hurting them now. an increasingly skeptical business community needs proof washington can put america on a sustainable fiscal footing and promote economic growth. so fiscal -- the recognition that we've got to get our fiscal

house in order, the recognition that these alphabet soup of federal agencies are paralyzing investment or large and small businesses is what this particular c.e.o. who leads a large organization in this country has put his finger on in terms of the things we need to get the economy in this country growing again. so by hope that as the -- we continue to have this discussion in the senate rather than focusing again on raising taxes, on people who create jobs, and that's what these proposals that have been put in front of us would do. we voted on one the last time we were in, a week before last, we're probably going to have a vote sometime this week, essentially saying we're going to raise taxes on job creators, permanently raise taxes on job creators to pay for spending programs, temporary spending programs that have already proven not to work. that doesn't sound like a jobs plan to me.

that seems to me like, you know, another failed attempt, futile attempt to have washington become relevant to this debate knowing full well it really is the job creators out there in this country, our private economy where the jobs are really going to be created. by also argue, madam president, that this is a -- the american people follow this debate, this is a very, very real issue for them because it affects their jobs. it's something they care deeply and profoundly about. bread and butter issues, kitchen table issues are the things that the american people focus on and i think they care deeply about this debate and they should because what we do here impacts them and their children and grandchildren for generations to come. if you think about the fact that today we have a $15 trillion federal debt and what that translates into per family in this country, it's about $126,000 per family. every family owes their share of

the federal debt, $126,000. now, compound that by when you add up the total unfunded liabilities of our federal government which now total over $60 trillion, and those are the obligations that we have to pay social security and medicare benefits for future generations, that share, that share of that unfunded liability per family in this country exceeds $500 -- $500,000 per family and that exceeds the amount they pay for their mortgage and all the other things combined in their daily lives. you take their mortgage payments, car payments, payments on their student loans, all those sorts of things, all are exceeded about the amount, the mortgage in effect that they have because of the unfunded hraoeublgts that their -- liabilities their government racked up. you look at where we are. you look at what we're doing to the american people with the spending and the borrowing here in washington, d.c. and you look at what's happening

in europe, and you can see some real parallels there, madam president. and it's a path that i hope we will not go down. but it's clear to me, at least, that we continue to try and make promises to people in this country that we can't keep. if we get to the point -- and i think we're there -- where the size of government, the growth of our government in this country cannot be support bid our economy, we've got to make some decisions. those decisions are not going to be easy. we need to get government back into a more normal historical size relative to our economy. and i think that will unleash, help unleash the job creation that we need in this country. by the way, as i mentioned, the amount of debt that many of these european countries have racked up as a percentage of their g.d.p., we're not far behind. we're one to one, about 100%. greece today is 180%. if you look at the studies that have been done and how sovereign debt impacts the economy and

jobs, there's a clear correlation and clear connection. a good body of research done by a couple of economists, carman carmen reinhart and row tkpwo*l tkpwof said if you get a percentage of g.d.p., sustain that, in this country when you lose economic growth, it costs about a million jobs. these high sustained chronic levels of debt to g.d.p., the ratios that we're at and continue to be at today continue to make it more difficult, i think, for our economy to create jobs. that coupled, as i said, with all the new requirements we're imposing on businesses. i just want to mention a couple of things in wrapping up here when i talk about those requirements because in most cases the forgotten 15 that's been passed by the house of representatives do focus on some areas that are costing a lot of money in our economy for our job creators.

again, these are 15 bills passed by the house of representatives, all with bipartisan support. none of which have been taken up and acted on here in the united states senate. it seems to me at least we ought to at least have votes on these things. these are things american businesses are telling us they need to get the economy growing again. the other thing that we know making it more difficult, more costly for american businesses to create jobs is the new health care bill. and the des moines register reports that last year iowa-based insurer american enterprise group announced it will exit the individual major medical insurance market, making it the 13th company to pull out of some portion of iowa's health insurance business since june of 2010, mere months after obamacare passed. as a result, the 35 thousand individuals receiving coverage from american enterprise's individual insurance policies will now lose their current coverage. for these individuals, the promise that you will not have to change plans, nothing will

change under the obama plan except that you will pay less has once again proven to be hollow. another example of an insurance company that is moving out of the business. and if you look at the mother recent -- the more recent reports about companies that are dropping or talking about dropping coverage, we know know there is a mckensian company report out there, 30% of employers and 28% of large employers will definitely -- will definitely or probably stop offering coverage after 2014. and so, all those people who derive their health insurance coverage from their employer or individual marketplace are seeing not lower costs, but higher costs. and probably fewer options. that's the trend that we're seeing. that's the experience so far after the passage of obamacare, the impact that it's having on american business and american

businesses' ability to create jobs in our economy. and so the health care that the heavyweight, the anchor that that's putting on american businesses coupled with all the other regulations that are coming out of the washington, d.c., coupled with a tax code that is riddled with uncertainty and questions about what's going to happen next in terms of raising taxes on the job creators in this country, focused more on income and wealth redistribution than economic growth, which is where we ought to be focused, suggests that we are headed in the wrong direction. wrong direction fiscally, wrong direction economically, wrong direction with regard to tax and economic policies in this country. we still have time to change that direction, madam president. and i would hope it would start by taking these 15 bills that have passed the house of representatives and putting them on the floor of the united states senate for a vote instead of having yet another political vote, which is what we're going to have this week that would raise taxes on the people who create jobs in this country to

pay for -- permanently, permanently raise taxes -- to pay for temporary programs that have proven not to work, as is evidenced by the failed stimulus bill from two years ago. we can do better. we can do better by the american people. and we need to. but it's got to start here. and it can start by picking up things that we know have bipartisan support. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. thune: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorumhe

senator from michigan. morning business is closed. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 7691 which the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing america. . the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, the

rebuild america jobs act addresses two of our most fundamental responsibilities. first, the need to respond to the urgent jobs crisis, secondly, the duty to create the physical framework for economic growth now and into the future. there should be no debate about our duty to fulfill those two responsibilities and yet once again we're in a situation where the refusal of our republican colleagues to compromise even on consideration of measures that they've supported in the past prevents us from acting on behalf of the american people. i am encouraged by reports that perhaps finally the need to act has convinced some of our colleagues across the aisle to at least consider allowing the senate to debate this legislation. i hope for the sake of millions of people in michigan and in every other state who are waiting for us to act that at least some of our republican

colleagues will relent and allow to us at least debate this measure. now, what would this bill accomplish? simply put, it seeks to create jobs now and into the future. it does so by funding a wide array of infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, rail transport, mass transit, airport facilities and updated air traffic control systems. these projects would put construction workers on the job immediately. they would, according to estimates by moody's, boost economic growth by more than a dollar and a half for every dollar that we spend, and the benefits would continue into the future. as american companies and american workers benefit from the increased competitiveness that modernized infrastructure provides. in my home state of michigan this legislation would result in more than $900 million going to infrastructure projects, it would create about 12,000 jobs.

residents of my state are keenly aware of the need to act and to act now on the jobs crisis. and they are keenly aware of the terrible costs that we pay if we allow our economic competitors to establish advantages over our workers. in my state, nearly a third of our bridges are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. more than a third of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. about 49% -- excuse me, about 40% of our major urban roadways are congested. the people of michigan want to us act on jobs, they want to us act now to maintain america's competitive edge. these are not controversial ideas. at least they have not been in the past. support for infrastructure is traditionally bipartisan. it was a republican president,

dwight eisenhower, who launched the interest rate -- interstate highway system. this bill includes a infrastructure bank based on a bipartisan idea once supported by the u.s. -- one supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce. every member of this body, democrat and republican, fights for adequate infrastructure spending for their state. why, then, faced with the dual challenges of a jobs crisis and increasingly outdated infrastructure would we hamper our ability to grow now and in the future by not allowing a debate on this bill and adopting this bill? now, perhaps some of my republican colleagues object to the way this bill is paid for. as has been the case with previous jobs bills, this legislation would not add a dollar to the deficit, it would pay for these much-needed infrastructure efforts by asking those with incomes of more than a million dollars a year to pay

a fraction of a percentage point of their income above a million dollars a year in additional taxes. again, outside the halls of congress this is not a controversial notion. a strong majority of americans, including a majority of rank -- rank and file republicans supports the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute to solving our job crisis. and i might say, madam president, that in terms of investing in infrastructure, a recent cnn poll shows that 72% of americans support investing in infrastructure to create jobs. we know from this poll the huge majority of americans want to us invest in infrastructure, they want to us invest in infrastructure now to create jobs, and that is mirrored by

other polls which show that a vast majority of americans believe that the fair way to pay for this investment is for the wealthiest among us to pay a small fraction of income that they make above a level such as a million dollars, which is what is provided for in this bill. now, make no mistake: if republicans reject this legislation because of the funding mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the american people and against the concepts of basic fairness that should guide our actions. and finally, relative to this pay-for, there is only one group of americans that have done well financially in the last few decades, and that is the wealthiest 1%. the rest of americans, middle-income americans have either lost ground or gotten

nowhere. but the wealthiest 1% of americans have done exceedingly well and their proportion of the national income has grown dramatically. and so to say that income above a million dollars should pay a small fraction of a percent in a surcharge to help pay for things that this country desperately needs and would create jobs, flies right against the feelings and beliefs of the vast majority of the american people. now, finally the vote that we're going to take in the next couple days is not even a vote on the bill. this is a vote on ending a republican filibuster of a motion to proceed to the bill. it's a motion which would allow us to begin to debate a bill. now, i've been continually

surprised, madam president, at the lock step opposition of republicans to even beginning to debate on these matters. and i would make a simple request, and a number of us have done the same. let's debate this legislation. allow us to debate the legislation, and if the legislation can be improved, offer ideas to improve it. if there's a better idea, offer the better idea. i believe republicans would have a very receptive audience if they'd propose ideas for which there is strong evidence of benefits and economic growth and job creation. but until we can get a job creation measure to the floor of this senate, we can't even discuss those issues in a legislative setting. we can only here debate about whether we ought to be allowed to debate those issues. a bipartisan vote to begin to debate on jobs legislation would

send an important signal to the people we all represent, a signal that we are ready to put aside partisanship and address the problems that our people face. i hope that republicans will end the filibuster so that we can adopt the motion to proceed to this jobs bill. and, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: oregon.

mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. i rise today to address our nation's job crisis and to share some thoughts about why it's important that we proceed to debate on the rebuild america jobs act. it may come as a surprise to some across the nation that at this point this chamber is not debating the rebuild america jobs act but that we're debating whether to debate it.

only in the senate could we be engaged in that type of question when across america millions of folks want to see us act, want to see us create jobs. it was only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate, and that debate was over the america jobs act, a broad portfolio of measures to put our economy back on track and create jobs for americans. and to get the closure on whether to debate, we had to get a supermajority under the rules of the senate. and my colleagues across the aisle opposed that, and we could not get to the debate of the bill on how to create jobs. now we have before us a smaller segment of that bill, one that focuses on the construction industry. and again, we find ourselves here debating whether to debate rather than getting down to work

and creating jobs. so i hope this time the outcome will be quite different. the jobs crisis has hit hard across this nation, especially hard in my home state in oregon, where the job rate has been lower. that is unemployment has been higher than in most states across this nation. and one of the main reasons that oregon is hurting is because our construction industry, our residential and commercial construction industry is flat on its back. more than 40,000 construction jobs have been lost in oregon since 2007, and thousands more have been lost in related industries like forest products and nursery stock and grass seed, all of which only thrive when we're building homes in america. and right now we are not building homes in america. so we need a boost to get the

construction industry moving again. and if you don't believe me, just listen to the people in the state of oregon. a few weeks ago i asked my constituents to write in and share their stories, and today i'm going to share some of those stories with all of you. caroline from marion county writes in and says, "i am a construction cost accountant with 47 years of experience and two masters degrees. i have been widowed since 1996. i am 69 years old. i fully support my 67-year-old sister, who has die men which a and is in -- who has dim men which a and is in remission from colon cancer. wall street has wiped out a lifetime of savings. my retirement nest egg. i have to work or we will be homeless in about three months. i drive a 16-year-old vehicle that is on its last legs.

i have aging parents who are struggling to keep their farm. those are the facts. in late 2008, for the first time in my career, i was laid off from my construction accounting job. since that time i have been unable to find another job in my field despite my good references. currently i work part time for a start up dot-com. my prognosis for continued employment is shaky. banks won't loan money to a start-up. this summer i went without a paycheck of any kind. last week i applied for a job at wal-mart for oregon minimum wage. i'll probably get hired, but i'm not kidding myself about job security. that doesn't exist anymore for most of us. senator, the worst thing about all of this is our do-nothing congress. washington, d.c. has lost touch

with america." her words ring powerfully in this chamber. she, like millions of other americans, are saying that this economy is tough. family circumstances are rough. and why doesn't congress get down to work and debate and pass job-creating legislation? she's frustrated with this do-nothing congress, and here we are debating whether to debate a jobs bill. i encourage my colleagues to listen to carol ann from marion county. let's get past this point and get down to debating the jobs bill. hank from marion county writes, "three years ago i was at the top of my more than 35-year career in construction management, working as a senior project manager on a large

project. as the economy tanks, today i am unemployable. i am left able, willing and highly experienced, yet undesired. our farm was foreclosed and my wife and i had to file bankruptcy. currently our mortgage lender refuses to complete a home loan modification, although they qualified twaous years ago for the -- qualified us two years ago for the program and since then we have been making the required payments each month even without a final agreement. we have met with community groups, written letters, made calls, yet nothing seems to happen. in another year when the bankruptcy period ends, we fear the bank will simply foreclose again and we will lose our farm." again another voice from a family deeply affected by the collapse of the construction industry and a call to us to help put it back on its feet.

brian from yemm hill county writes, i have worked in the lumber industry for 35 years. in 2009, i was laid off for 11 months. did i go back to work in june, only be cut again after only five days of work. i went back to work in december for the same company. in september 2010 there was a cut - back. more than 70 people lost their jobs. i was lucky. i made the cut, but my pay was reduced by nearly $5 an hour. i went from driving a forklift to a cleanup position. six months went by, and then another cut. this time another 60 people lost their jobs. i was lucky again, and i worked in a new position for nearly a year until september 2011, and then came another cut. this time i was one of 42 people

to be laid off with no chance of call-back. now there are rumors of the entire plant closing. i've been out of work for one month now, and in my job search i have been running into the same thing everywhere i go: no work available. every industrial area i go into, i see many buildings where companies have gone out of business. windows and doors boarded up. i want congress to do the job they are being paid to do so i can go back to work." and that's the line he closes on. that we here in this chamber should do the job we are assigned, that is to take on, amend and pass job-creating legislation, so he can find a job, so he can go back to work. and i think his sentiment is echoed by millions of american

families. there is no substitute for a job, no program can come anywhere close to the important role a job pays and the personal satisfaction and the structure it gives news our life and the knowledge that you're putting a roof over your family's head and you're putting food on the table. no program can suffice. a job is at the heart of the success of our families. and yet, here we are fiddling while rome burns. or in this case, filibustering while millions of americans go without jobs. it's not right. so i say to my colleagues, i particularly want to encourage my colleagues across the aisle who filibustered the last effort to put the jobs bill on the floor. stop, talk to the folks in your home state that are unemployed,

who expect to you do what every american worker expects us to do, which is to debate and pass job-creating legislation. the bill on which we are debating whether to debate, the rebuild america jobs act, is a commonsense strategy to put people back to work in an industry that needs it. making investments that our country will have to make sooner or later anyway. one in four bridges in america is rated deficient. we get a d grade on our infrastructure from the american society of civil engineers. this is not the america we know. it's not the america we want. let's build the america that will have the infrastructure to drive our economy positively in the future. these infrastructures are not an

option, they are a necessity. we can build them now when interest rates are low and jobs are desperately needed, or we can spend more later when they detaxpayer -- deteriorate further and it's more expensive to do so. earlier, creating jobs, lowering interest rates, more cheaply, more cost-effective, more bang for the buck, or later, more expensive, more difficult, higher interest price tag. it doesn't seem like a difficult choice. it certainly doesn't seem like a difficult choice as to whether we should at least be on the bill debating it. madam president, i know that many folks are coming to the floor, the chamber, to address the question of how we get a jobs bill actually before this chamber. i hope that all of my colleagues will get on the line with folks back home, go to that town meeting, and say do you want us

to debate a bill or do you want me to keep stalling and preventing a debate on how to create jobs? i'm pretty confident that nine out of ten people in the room, maybe ten out of ten, are going to stand up and say quit stalling. let's get to work here so america can get back to work. thank you, madam president. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be extended for the balance of the day to my intern india wade. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. all right. well, madam president, today i would like to discuss the jobs bill we're currently debating and how important it is that we pass this right away. i'd also like to respond to the minority leader's remarks this morning in which he tried to deny the bipartisan nature of this proposal and instead sought to divert this chamber towards a

hodgepodge of bills taken up by the house. mr. president, madam president, all across the country and in our state of new york from poughkeepsie to buffalo, there are roads, bridges and sewer systems in need of serious repair. and in each of these places, there are thousands of middle-class families desperately looking for work. in the construction trades, the backbone of the middle class in many of our communities, in new york and around the country, there is 25%, 30%, 40% unemployment, and that's true for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we all know that in previous recessions, 60% of the new jobs were in construction. that's because they would lower interest rates and build more housing. now there is no more lower interest rates because when the recession began, they were already very low, and of course there is a surplus of housing right now in america.

but this week, by voting to pass the rebuild america jobs act, the senate can get thousands of those americans off the unemployment line and back into the work force, and because they get paid good salaries, the money they get flows into the economy and creates a multiplier effect and creates other jobs. these are good, solid, high-skilled american jobs, jobs that we need. and investing in our roads, bridges and sewer systems couldn't be more urgent. more than one in four of our nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or obsolete. i put out a list of those in new york state and it was astounding in every part of our state, and we all know as we get closer to winter, our deteriorating roads will place a heavy burden on commuters and on local taxpayers. our local towns and villages and counties and cities, they can't

afford the infrastructure work that's needed right now because of tight budgets and budget cutbacks at the federal, state and local levels. and as this past weekend's storm made clear, investing in our crumbling sewer systems has never been more essential as up and down the northeast old sewer systems give way to serious flooding. now, we can make a down payment on these priorities by passing this bill, and we should do so in a bipartisan manner. when i travel across new york state, two of the first things people bring up to me are jobs and fixing our infrastructure. this bill does both. it doesn't matter whether the people are democrat, republican, independent -- upstate, downstate, men, women, liberal, servive. they all say the same thing and we see this reflected in public

opinion. a recent cnn poll showed that nearly three-quarters of americans support additional federal investments in our infrastructure. yes, they're worried about the deficit and our long-term fiscal health. but they know we can't cut our seed corn. infrastructure projects that create jobs and help america grow economically. here's the best part of this bill: it invests in projects that create jobs, but it's fully paid for by asking the wealthiest among us -- those who have incomes -- incomes -- of over $1 million -- to pay a praks on more of their taxes and they pay that not on their entire income but just on the part that's before $1 million. so if a millionaire, someone worth a lot of money, if somebody has an income of $1.1 million, they only pay this small .7% increase on the

$100,000 that's over a million. their first million doesn't change. the tax policy doesn't change. now, over the last drkd the middle class has taken a punch in the gut. the cost of sending kids to college has gone way up, the job market is tougher and tougher. middle-class incomes are declining while middle-class costs are rising. it is so hard as a family -- the middle-class family sittings around the dinner table friday night to figure out thousand pay all those bills and provide a great live for the future and for the children. the very wealthy, the very, very wealthy have done very well over the last decade. a lot of those wealthy people live in our state of new york. we say, god bless them. they've started successful businesses, done well over the last decade, and so, to pay for this bill, we're just asking them to pay a sliver more -- .7% more of each dollar they earn over $1 million, and this one

they can't say, well, we're afraid the money will be wasted because it goes to infrastructure, directly to infrastructure. and there is no -- the way this is set up, there's no politics in the process. it's the most needed projects that work. let me give you a fact, folks. right now -- i know many of my colleagues joined with me and senator brown, senator stabenow, senator casey in saying china has got to play fair. we're all worried that china will get ahead of us economically. well, right now china is spending four times as much on infrastructure as the united states -- four times as much. that's not four times per capita as much. that's four times as much. and here's the real kicker: according to a recent survey of 1,400 business leaders in 142 countries, the u.s. ranks number 24 in overall infrastructure quality.

is that a shame? we're behind countries like barbados and oman. we also rank number 20 in roads, behind the united arab emirates and libya. 29th in ports, behind malaysia, bahrain and panama. and 31st in air transportation infrastructure, behind chile, and malta. how can it be? these great united states which we dearly love, which always was at the top in creating roads and bridges and tunnels and great water systems. the third water tunnel in new york is being built right now. it is an engineering wonder. it started in the 1950's, the planning for it i believe. and now we're number 31 in transportation, 22 in ports, 20 in roads, in those categories behind countries like the united

arab emirates, portugal, malaysia, thailand, chile? if that isn't a wake-up call, i don't know what is. we can't afford to let our global competitors get the edge. so this bill rebuilds our infrastructure, will send a shot into the arm of an economy that desperately needs it, and pays for it only by taxing those with an income over $1 million of those who are very, very wealthy and have done very well in our society. how can we vote against something like this? well, one would think maybe the only haven't because some people don't want the economy to grow and prosper. i hate to think that, but infrastructure has always been a bipartisan issue in this body, and it should continue to be. now let me respond directly to the minority leader's comments

this morning. he derided the proposal on the floor as something that had already been tried, something that had no chance of passing, and something that was not bipartisan. well, first, already been tried? oh, yeah. is the minority leader saying because we built the eerie canal or the highway system in the 1950's we shouldn't do anymore infrastructure? it makes no sense. makes no sense. and every study shows that the infrastructure part of the stimulus bill created lots of jobs and then left us with better infrastructure. now, then he said -- as i mentioned -- not just was it i t tried already, but it was not bipartisan. well, we know that the need for infrastructure is a bipartisan economy. because the minority leader may

be imposing a top-down strategy that bars anyone on his side from voting for any proposal offered by the president to improve the economy doesn't mean these proposals aren't bipartisan. just yesterday the former republican senator from ohio, a fiscal conservative if there ever was one, senator voinovich, was quoted saying he believed the need to repair our roads and bridges was so great that he thought president obama should be raising the gas tax to fund those investments. i don't know if i agree with him on that specific solution, but, mr. president, isn't that remarkable? a republican senator calling for revenue increases to pay for infrastructure investment. that's what we do in this bill, madam president. and let me just say once again, he's not in the senate right now, so he's free to pretty much do what he wants. i would hope other senators who are here in the senate would join in that call because i

believe they know in their heart it is the right thing to do. the only difference between what we proposed and senator voinovich proposed is that instead of asking middle-class americans to pay more at the pump, we ask those whose income is above $1 million to pay their fair share to help put construction workers back on the job. that seems like the right set of priorities to me. so the minority leader is clearly wrong when he says this concept isn't bipartisan. another former senator, chuck hagel from nebraska, has been a leader in calling for an infrastructure bank, which is in this bill. senator hagel sponsored one of the first pieces of legislation creating an infrastructure bank and has continued to call for it since leaving the senate. so there are lots of republicans out in the country who support this measure. the polling shows a large, large number of republicans support the kind of proposal we have on the floor.

building infrastructure and having those who make over $1 million pay for it so we don't increase the deficit. that is a bipartisan proposal. so, mr. president, let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else -- madam president, let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else that the proposal on the floor isn't bipartisan. just this morning the top republican on the environment and public works committee is quoted discussing the progress that he and the chairwoman of that committee are making on a two-year surface transportation bill. this is great news. i'm glad to hear they're close to advancing that bill. but if you believe infrastructure is enough of a priority that you can support a long-term highway bill, why would you object to speeding up 107some of that investment now o we can put more in americans to work quickly? madam president -- you're

clearly madam president -- this bill is bipartisan for sure. the minority leader just has a political strategy to block all of our president's initiatives to improve the economy. now, what has the minority leader called for instead? he's called for the senate to take up a hodgepodge of bills sent over by house republicans that even when taken together don't do enough to tackle the jobs problem. who would believe that this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than the traditional way we get out of recessions: infrastructure building. most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to do with jobs at all. many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyists' wish list rather than any serious jobs agenda. it's a stretch to call many of these bipartisan.

many of these bills are items that republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a boom and had full employment. many are just ideological priorities dressed up as job solutions. it's laughable for the house leadership to act like these proposals would address the jobs crisis when they are signature on real solutions like the china currency bill. i would say to the speaker and majority leader over in the house who want to do something about jobs and are worried about the two houses not working together, we had a large bipartisan majority -- 65 votes -- saying we're going to force china to play fair on currency. their failure to do so causes millions of jobs, good manufacturing jobs primarily, not exclusively, to leave this country. there is nothing congress can do more that would uplift our manufacturing sector than confront china's unfair trade

practices. but speaker boehner, majority leader canter sit on that bill and now tell us to take up this little hodgepodge of items? autograpour bill passed, the cha currency bill with a bipartisan supermajority in the senate. the house leadership continues to sit on the sidelines while china takes advantage of us, and the china exrenc currency bill s languishing in the house for no good reason. speaker boehner, heed the will of your chamber and put that bill on the floor. and the minority leader in the senate would be well-served to stop pretending that these pieces of the president's jobs bill are not bipartisan just because he is withholding his support in service to perhaps a strategy that outlines his number-one goal: the defeat of the president. it's time to stop the games and

accomplish something that can make a real dent in the jobs crisis. i say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, pass this bill, rebuild our ailing and aging infrastructure, create jobs, and make sure that what we do here does not reduce the deficit by having those whose income exceeds $1 million pay a small, little increase to pay for it. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: