i've been on the floor and talking about the beginnings of youtube. because it is such a powerful example of why we need to protect net neutrality. when youtube started out, it was headquartered in a tiny space over a pizzeria and a japanese restaurant in san francisco, california. at the time, google had a competing product, google video, that was widely seen as inferior. now, if google had been able to pay at&t or verizon or time warner large amounts of money to block youtube or to make google video's website faster than youtube's site, guess what would have happened.

youtube would have failed. but instead, thanks to net neutrality, youtube became the gold standard for video on the internet. and youtube was able to sell its business to google for $1.6 billion just two years after its start. i love that story. because it is a testament to the power of the internet to turn people with great ideas into overnight successes and it happened because we had net neutrality. the story of the internet is a story about the triumph of the little guy over the big, slow-moving corporation. the past 20 years are littered with tales of entrepreneurs starting with next to nothing and revolution newsing the world as we know it from youtube's humble beginnings over a

pizzeria to facebook's infamous start in a dorm room in cambridge, the web-based products we use every day are a result of the great idea and the drive to make that idea a reality. but here is what you won't hear from our opponents: facebook and youtube and countless other web-based products might not have existed today if it were not for net neutrality. without net neutrality, my space or fenster -- remember them? they could have partnered with comcast to block facebook altogether. blockbuster could have paid at&t to slow down or completely block streaming of netflix's videos. barnes & noble could have paid to block access to amazon.com. imagine a world where the

corporation with the biggest checkbook can control what you see and how fast you access content on the internet. fortunately, that is not the world we live in today, and thanks to the f.c.c., that is not the world we are headed for. the f.c.c.'s rules will ensure that no matter how much money or power you have, a young kid working in her parents' basement in duluth can outinnovate the biggest corporation simply because she has the best idea. this is exactly why top silicon valley venture capital and angel investment companies support these rules. these companies are the ones funding the next mark zuckerberg, larry page or

sergai brinn so he can get his product off the ground, they're the ones funneling millions and millions of dollars to entrepreneurs which is why i think we should listen to them. the c.e.o.'s of i bay, facebook and youtube have also joined in a letter supporting the f.c.c.'s rules. they say, and i quote, "commonsense base line rules are critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness" unquote. i think we should listen to them. and we should listen to companies like microsoft, yahoo, google, i.b.m. and qualcomm. these companies also support the f.c.c.'s rules because they recognize that they couldn't have grown to be the

tremendously successful companies they are today without a free and open internet, and that's what we're asking for. that's all we're asking for. when our opponents get up here and tell you that these rules will stifle innovation and halt growth, i want you to think about what they are thinking. and i want you to ask yourself why would so many of the leading technology companies of the last two decades support what the f.c.c. is doing if they think it will hurt innovation? it doesn't make any sense because it isn't true. net neutrality and the f.c.c. rules will protect the innovators and entrepreneurs that have made the internet what it is today, and what it will be tomorrow. but don't take my word for it. listen to experts from bank of america, goldman sachs, citibank, wells fargo, raymond

lynch and raymond jones. these companies have all stated that they do not believe the f.c.c.'s current rules will hurt investment. citibank said the f.c.c.'s rules were -- quote -- "balanced" and goldman sacks said they were -- quote -- "a light touch" and created a framework with a lot of wiggle room. and what is even more telling is that investment in networks that support wired and wireless internet has jumped since the announcement of the f.c.c.'s rules. in fact, investment is more than 10% higher in the first half of 2011 than in the same period last year. and venture capital firms poured $2.3 billion into internet-specific companies in the second quarter of 2011. i think these numbers speak for themselves. and they tell a story of surging

investor confidence following the f.c.c.'s vote on these rules. not the doomsday portrayal you'll hear from our opponents. protecting innovation in this country is particularly important given the state of the telecom industry today. i don't need to tell you that telecom corporations have grown larger and fewer. you know this in part because you have seen your cable, internet, and telephone bills rising and rising and rising. and what else have you seen? customer service has gone straight out the -- out the window. when you are angry you wasted another day waiter for a comcast repearman to come and install a line in your house or you're irritated you've been put on hold by verizon for the fifth time in a single call and you

finally, finally decide to switch companies, you may realize you don't have another choice. 70% of households in this country have only one or two choices for basic broadband internet service and the majority, 60% of households, only have one choice for high-speed broadband. this is appalling for many reasons. it affects prices and quality of service and choices -- choice for customers. but it is ultimately why we need net neutrality because we need to make sure the companies play by the rules. as control over the internet has shifted into the hands of a smaller and smaller number of corporations, we need to make sure that those companies aren't able to dictate the speed of traffic based on how much a content provider can pay. or prioritize their own content over other companies' content.

of course, as i've said before there's nothing wrong with maximizing shareholder profit. that is what corporations are obligated to do. minnesota is home to many great corporations including 3m, general mills and medtronic. they produce fantastic products but no corporation should be allowed to prevent others from competing. and competition is what net neutrality is all about. it's about ensuring that the next breakthrough product has the opportunity to reach consumers through a free and open and equal internet. but in addition to protecting innovation and small businesses in this country, net neutrality is also about speech. the internet isn't just where you go to shop for local products and services. the internet is where you go to

find political campaign information and read local news stories. the internet is what helped fuel the arab spring, in large part because it has become the soap box of the 21st century. organizers and advocates are no longer stapling posters to bulletin boards to get their message out there. they're now posting their messages on twitter and facebook. but the internet isn't just responsible for an upheaval in how campaigns and advocacy occur, it's also responsible for an upheaval in the print media world because the internet is also the printing press and the library of the 21st century. this is why it is so important that we make sure that the corporations providing internet service play by the rules and aren't able to profit by speeding up or slowing down your access to certain news websites or other places where you -- you go to access information.

we wouldn't have wanted the libyan government to shut down access to facebook in the middle of protests in that country for the same reasons we do not want a corporation controlling what information and websites you are able to access in order to benefit their bottom line. now, you know that i've been a proponent of net neutrality for a long time, you've heard me say, madam president, over and over again how net neutrality is about keeping the internet the way it is. but the truth of the matter is that the f.c.c. rules while a step in the right direction are very conservative. i wish the f.c.c. had done more but the f.c.c. wanted to reach a consensus. and they made a concerted effort to address many concerns of telecommunications companies, large and small. when they drafted these rules. for our opponents to now claim that the f.c.c. ignored public opinion or failed to consider

the impact that these rules would have on businesses, it's just -- it's just not true. first, i think we can all stand a bit of history on the bipartisan nature of this rule. net neutrality was something two republican chairmen of the f.c.c., michael powell and kevin martin, championed in 2004 and 2005. chairman powell first articulated a set of net neutrality principles and chairman martin a year later achieved unanimous commission endorsement of the f.c.c.'s open internet policy statement. in 2006, 11 house republicans voted in favor of net neutrality on the floor. and the gun owners of america, the christian coalition, and the catholic bishops joined with the aclu, moveon.org and the leading civil rights group to advocate for the same principles of openness and freedom on the internet. this debate started seven years

ago, and only after reviewing more than 100,000 public comments and holding six public workshops did the commission finally issue a rule. to claim that this was premature or rushed or not carefully considered is just -- just plain wrong. i also think it is completely inaccurate for my opponents to claim that the commission never annualized the costs and benefits of this rule. in fact, there is an entire section of the rule entitled -- quote -- "the benefits of protecting the internet's openness exceed the costs" unquote. it contains over 25 detailed analytic footnotes. it is clear that the commission considered the costs and benefits of acting and con cliewted that -- quote -- "there is no evidence that prior

internet open obligations have discouraged investment" -- unquote. and quote open net rules will increase incentives to invest in broadband infrastructure "-- unquote. i recognize that a couple of companies are challenging the f.c.c.'s rules in court and they have a right to do so. but this resolution of disapproval amounts to little more than political gamesmanship from a small number of fringe organizations. i think it is important to note that not a single large telecom company supports this resolution of disapproval. they aren't wasting their time with an arcane process and we should not be, either. that is not to say that congress can't and shouldn't have a discussion about the merits of net neutrality. we can and we should. but i frankly have been disappointed by the quantity of misinformation that has been such a large portion of this debate in the past.

the rhetoric i heard during the house debate last april was disappointing and it's not the type of debate americans deserve. i encourage a frank and in-depth discussion on net neutrality and hope that one day soon we will consider making a statutory change to the f.c.c.'s authority that will clarify that we want the f.c.c. to make sure that the internet stays open and free. that will put the issue to rest for good and it's frankly the process we should be relying on. by forcing an up-or-down vote through the congressional review act, we are short circuiting the normal legislative process and ignoring the f.c.c.'s tremendous work on this issue. this resolution of disapproval is a procedural stunt that wastes our limited time which should be used to address the real problems that americans face every day. and at the end of the day, the

problems of americans are why we're here. i love hearing from minnesotans and i got a really great e-mail the other day. the letter was from a group of five self-proclaimed highly credentialed computer geeks, including a professor, a start-up founder, an ex-googler and a non-i.bmer -- a non-ex-i.b.m.er. in their e-mail, they wrote -- quote -- "the free market will drive regulation in the internet but careful regulation is needed to preserve the freedom of the market from coalitions of companies that will seek to reduce competition." they noted -- and i quote -- "history promises that the leading companies will work together to create a monopoly that they can control and that they -- so they can make more money and disrupt innovation." i'm glad that they and thousands

of minnesotans have taken the time to write and call tell me how much preserving net neutrality means to them. these highly credentialed computer geeks are right. the free market will drive internet innovation as long as that market is truly free and open. free from corporate control and open to all content providers equally. these constituents and millions of americans don't want congress engaged in political sparring marches designed to appease a few vocal critics. americans, entrepreneurs and small businesses want a world where the future twitters, ebays and amazons of the world can grow and thrive. without interference from big, megaconglomerates. if passed, this resolution will

hurt consumers, stifle innovation, and create uncertainty in one of america's most innovative and productive sectors. we are at a pivotal moment and i hope my colleagues will recognize this and join me in voting down this resolution of disapproval. i want to thank the senator from texas for allowing me to speak at this time. i want to thank the president for holding the chair while i spoke. and now, madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i yield up to 15 minutes to the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president.

a lot of discussion, of course, about jobs in this country, where they are, what we can do to -- to help incent them. i had the opportunity while i was up in the state last week to host three different town halls that focused on the state of our nation's economy and what was happening with jobs and job creation. and as i asked alaskans for their input, what i heard consistently from community to community was, we can allow for job creation that is meaningful, we can allow for opportunities here in our state and across the country, but the first thing that you can do is to get the government out of the way. that was probably my biggest takeaway out of the town halls from alaska -- get the government out of our way so that we can move forward as -- as small business owners and operators, as those who are

looking to advance jobs in resource development, move the government back and we can make some things happen. i do think that one of the key ways that we can create real jobs is by moving the federal government out of the way of the private sector, and yet this administration is doing exactly the opposite. our economy struggles to grow. many americans, of course, out of work. but what we're seeing out of the white house is this -- this effort that essentially buries job creators under a mountain of paperwork and regulations. businesses waste hours and productivity on checking the right boxes, making sure that they've filled out the right form in the right way rather than creating new opportunities for employees. far too often our small businesses are being judged by how well they keep their safety records rather than the actual

safety records themselves. did you check the right box? did you fill out the right form? if you didn't, we're going to fine you, we're going to penalize you. but is the focus really on making sure that they have a strong, sound safety record? many of the regulations and unfortunately far too many coming from the e.p.a. unnecessarily raise the cost of energy and other vital goods and services. i, as the ranking member on the energy committee, spend a lot of time, focus, on what we're doing in this country to help reduce our energy costs. and, unfortunately, far too often we are seeing increased costs to our families, to our businesses because of the regulations that come at them. while we all support -- we all support responsible environmental regulation, i want e.p.a. to do its job, we also want to protect other vital national interests, such as

affordable and reliable energy and a strong economy. and remember, too, that unreliable or unduly expensive energy has -- has broad negative impacts on -- on all aspects, public health, all aspects of our day. when i hear from alaska's business owners, they say two things, and i told you what the first one was. they said, get government out of the way and let us get to work. business owners across the country agree there was a gallup poll just last month, small business owners indicated that complying with government regulations is the most important problem that they face today. the number-one issue on the minds of small business owners is the fact that complying with government regulations is jus just -- it's burying them. what we hear from businesses is that they need the regulatory

agencies to follow the rule of law and strike a proper balance between the many important national interests that our laws protect. and when it comes to regulation, in my opinion, this administration has -- has gone further. they have pushed past that -- that rule of law in striking that proper balance. what we're seeing is a level of overreach that i think is -- is unprecedented by the agencies reaching -- reaching out, expanding their jurisdiction, if you will, and working to advance or setting policy as opposed to just implementing the laws that have been passed. the -- the resolutions of disapproval that we will have before us for a vote tomorrow -- senator paul's resolution on the cross-state air pollution and senator hutchison's resolution

of disapproval as it relates to the internet -- both incredibly important for the issues that they raise but -- but even more so speaking to what we are seeing right now with agency overreach. as the chair may recall, last year i led an effort on this floor to push back against the e.p.a. in an area where the e.p.a. was, for all intents and purposes, setting policy when it came to emissions, greenhouse gas emissions in this country. i strongly believe, i firmly believe that the role of the agencies is to implement the laws that we have passed, not to go ahead and set policy. so i share the concerns that -- that senator hutchison and senator paul have raised with the two rules that are at issue today.

they are operating, utilizing a tool urn the congressional review act which allows us as a congress to step in when those federal agencies go overboard with trying to make businesses comply with costly regulations and, in effect, that overreach. let's first discuss very briefly senator paul's resolution to disapprove the environmental protection agency's cross-state air pollution rule. i've seen it referred to the acronym as either caspr or zapr but because neither one of those sound like anything that we could relate to, i'll just refer to it as the cross-state pollution rule. this rule should not go forward at this time for a number of reasons, not the least of is its potential to impact on electric reliability. independent grid operators and the independent professionals who count -- who we count on to assess electric reliability have expressed concerns about subjecting generators of

electricity to the rule, especially on the current timetable that they're dealing w. the e.p.a. -- dealing w. the e.p.a. simply needs to take another look at those impacts and what this rule will do to electricity costs. there have been a number of independent studies that have pointed to the impact of e.p.a.'s rules generally, including the cross-state pollution, and what it would have -- what that impact would be on existing electric generation capacity. the predictions differ on magnitude but project the retirement of as much as 8% of the nation's installed electric generating capacity. now, again, i'll grant you, there's a range of -- of differences here, but potentially as much as 8% of our country's installed generating capacity could be brought off line. that's significant, mr. president. i've asked the ferc for a reliability analysis on this.

we've gone kind of back and forth in terms of getting tha that -- getting that assessment. the -- there will be a technical conference at the eno en-- at te end of the month that hopefully will lead to a better understanding, but the long and the short of it is right now, we know that we don't know exactly how much could be impacted by this rule and others. more specifically, the rules generally and the cross-state pollution rule alone could lead to more intense regional impacts. texas, for example, wasn't even included in the proposed rule but as a consequence of the final rule could see some very significant power plant retirements and, hence, potentially significant adverse impacts on reliability. the midwest, according to the grid operator there, could also see retirements of electric capacity with attendant challenges for keeping the lights on. in addition to the reliability impacts, there's also going to be cost impacts. the cross-state pollution rule

is the first of a number of pending rules to go final and the e.p.a. has made some major changes between that proposed rule and the final rule. the agency has even proposed say technical adjustments as recently as last month, even though the rule is slated to go final by the -- by the end of -- well, at the beginning of this next year. but putting aside the merits of the corrections -- and i understand that they don't go far enough -- the e.p.a. should be sent back to the drawing board to learn more, understand more about the potential reliability impacts and then should amend the substantive requirements of the cross-state pollution rule so that those required to comply can comply. if e.p.a. had looked carefully at the reliability issue in the first place, there probably wouldn't be reason for the del delay, but they acted in haste and haste makes waste. now, mr. president, i want to speak quickly to senator hutchison's resolution of disapproval regarding the f.c.c.

net neutrality rule. the rule put into place by the f.c.c. in 2010 circumvents congress, it assumes authority that this body never consented to. we cannot allow the executive branch to go down this road. we just should not allow it. no provision of any statute explicitly gives the f.c.c. the authority to impose these sweeping rules on the internet. in fact, section 230 of the communications act makes it the policy of the united states t to -- quote -- "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by federal or state regulation, closed quote. the internet, we would all agree -- i heard your comments, mr. president -- the internet has been a huge boom for small businesses and jobs throughout this country. we recognize that. we want to ensure it continues in that way. to quote the f.c.c. commissioner

mcdowell from a "wall street journal" op-ed, he says, "net neutrality sounds nice but the web is working fine now. the new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation, and create a billable hours bonanza for hours." so unless the administration is trying to create jobs for lawyers, i don't find any justification to expand the government's reach to regulate the internet as the f.c.c. proposes. once again, what we're seeing is an agency stepping in to regulate in an area where the laws simply did not contemplate. mr. president, for all of these reasons and because the federal government needs to stop overburdening our country with costly regulations at a time that we can least afford it, i support both the resolution of disapproval from senator hutchison as well as the resolution of disapproval from senator paul. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, soon the senate will vote on the hutchison resolution that, as you have said very eloquently, mr. president, would overturn the decision of the federal communications commission on what has come to be known as net neutrality. the bottom line for me is straightforward. a vote for the hutchison resolution will enable a handful of special interests to occupy the internet. now, these elites will then have the power to crowd out the voices for change and the ideas of the future. the net would become a glide path for a relatively small number of people to gain enormously rather than an opportunity for all americans to prosper, and some of the ideas that have been offered up with

respect to the hutchison resolution just, i think, defy the facts. for example, mr. president, we have had some discussion about section 230 of the communications act, and i wrote that section. it was a key development, in my view, in the growth of the net because it gave us a chance to deal with smut and some of this junk that families have been so upset without squelching the potential for the net and enabled content sharers to grow ever since we struck that thoughtful approach rather than just go to a censorship regime. i have heard that somehow net neutrality would undo that particular provision. nothing could be further from the truth. net neutrality is exactly about what ir-- what i thought to do

in section 230 of the communications decency act which was to make sure that all voices could flourish, not just the voices of a few but all voices could flourish. if anybody wants to talk a bit more about section 230 of the communications decency act, i'm happy to have that discussion, but as the author of that provision, it's something that i and a lot of other people who have worked in this field have felt was essential to the growth of the net, and we share that view just as we believe, as the president of the senate has, that net neutrality is critical to the growth of the senate -- the growth of the internet in the years ahead because the fundamental principles that underlie both section 230 and net neutrality are the same. now, mr. president, the debate about the federal communications commission's decisions go right to the heart of what the internet is all about.

it has always been a platform where all the actors are equal, where everybody has that opportunity, as you suggested, at the american dream. it's a place where, whether it is one dissenting voice screaming out for democratic change or one brilliant idea that forever changes the way people and society organize, everyone has that opportunity. now, i chair the senate finance subcommittee on international trade, and as just one example, i think what we have seen is the internet is going to be the shipping lane of the 21st century. this is the way societies are going to organize. this is the way people are going to come together. this is the way business is going to be conducted, and basically net neutrality protects everybody's access to that shipping lane.

it's not just going to be place for the old world business models. you bet the old world business models are threatened by net neutrality. i understand that. i understand that they are threatened by it. they have always been able to count on big, powerful and well-connected interests and organizations to help them to dominate industry. and the net overturns that kind of thinking because it's the equalizer, it's the democratizer. and it just seems to me that when we open our morning newspaper day after day and see that the hope of the country is in innovation, in start-ups, in new ideas -- and it's not just in silicon valley. it's all over the country and all over the world. the last thing we want to do here in our country is adopt rules that would retard that development. and my view is that the power of the net, the network is best

utilized when content can move freely through it, and that's whether it's free from taxes, from liability and certainly from the kind of discrimination that would be allowed if the net neutrality rules were overturned. and again, i touched on section 230 of the communications decency act and why that was so important to the growth of the net and why i think net neutrality is consistent with that. same with respect to some of the other legislation i have been heavily involved in. i had the privilege of being one of the co-authors of the internet tax freedom bill, and what that was all about was trying to protect the net from discrimination. not all taxes altogether, but discrimination. that, too, is a fundamental principle of the net neutrality rules. it's trying to make sure that the net is not going to be

singled out by a handful of special interests who could in effect device what amounts to their own lanes on the internet and force everybody else to pay for it. so despite what may even be the interests of some of these powerful interest groups, and i know they are all saying now that they have no intent to discriminate against content over their networks, history shows that they cave every time when shareholders come and say look, you have got to take this step to generate a profit. and i just think the internet is too important to leave those kinds of decisions vulnerable to what is inevitably going to be the cry from shareholders and others to maximize profit. one last point, if i might,

mr. president. i see other colleagues waiting to speak. i think the internet and the economy in this country that is driven by the net represents perhaps our greatest comparative advantage. i touched on the internet being the shipping lane of the 21st century. what i want us to do is enhance the american way, enhance american values and use the net to promote those values, facilitate speech and expand the marketplace. the reality is, mr. president, the american brand is something very special, very special all over the world, and the fact is we have got small businesses, we have heard from them in hearings. i know the distinguished chairman of the commerce committee is here, senator rockefeller and you and others. hardly a day goes by when i

don't wish i was back being a member of the senate commerce committee because it was such an important committee, does such important work. and we saw in some of those first hearings on the internet and we started looking at taxes and regulation and liability and the communications decency act. we saw how small businesses who really could operate only in a relatively small area for years and years suddenly, because after they paid their internet access charges, they could go where they want, when they want, how they wanted, and they were treated equal to the most powerful groups and voices in the country, and that's their opportunity. that's their chance to get their brand all over the world. and we ought to make sure that we take no action that's going to make it harder for small entrepreneurs to exchange their goods and services far beyond their community. we ought to be making judgments

that allow them to get into every nook and cranny of the world with the american brand. so i hope my colleagues will reject this resolution. i believe that the net has thrived precisely because of the principles of net neutrality. it's contributed to the american economy and to job creation because consumers get ultimately to see and get what they want as quickly as they want it. so, mr. president, it's going to be an important vote. i heard you say that this was something of an issue for gekas, and from time to time people have said i'm one of those, but i will tell you i think ultimately the net is not about gekas, it's about democracy. this is the great democratizer.

this is the trampoline that provides opportunity to people without power and clout, and i want to say to colleagues, particularly those who have mentioned section 230 of the communications decency act, as the author of that particular provision -- and senator rockefeller remembers this, the huge outcry about smut. we were all concerned about smut at that time, and we said there's a choice. we can either do with respect to this debate what makes sense for the future, and that's empower families and parents to get these filters so the internet can grow, we can fight smut in a practical way, or we can do a lot of damage to the net and come up with some sort of censorship regime. and as colleagues remember, essentially both approaches were included in the bill, and the approach that mandated censorship was struck down. freedom won. the principles of net neutrality won in that first big battle

fighting smut 15 years ago. and if we were to undo the decisions of the federal communications commission and move back to the days when you could talk about discriminating against the net, i think it would be a step against all the progress that we have made in the last 15 years with respect to oversight and regulation and taxes. this is an important vote, colleagues, and when you read the morning newspaper and you see that it's the entrepreneurs and the start-ups and the innovators who are providing the path forward in a very difficult economy, i think you will see that the policies we have laid out for the last 15 years, whether it's the communications decency act, whether it's the internet. chairman rockefeller remembers when we wrote the digital signatures law in the commerce committee. these votes, these laws have all

become law because they essentially were built op the very same principles of ned neutrality, and that's he freedom for all and a democratic net that provide opportunity for all americans and not just the elites, not just a handful of special interests. i commend chairman rockefeller and senator franken for their good work. i hope my colleagues when we have this vote on the extraordinarily important resolution involving net neutrality, i hope my colleagues will vote against the hutchison resolution. i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: 79 minutes and 14 seconds. mrs. hutchison: thank you. i yield up to 10 minutes to senator barrasso. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to support senator hutchison and to talk about this role that's being played now by

the federal communications commission in terms of regulating the internet for the very first time. i oppose having these bureaucrats regulating the internet. i support the resolution of disapproval that is now on the senate floor. in the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate obama made it very clear that he was for empowering washington's bureaucracy through more red tape. the president was not looking to make washington more efficient, in my mind, or more effective, but to make washington bigger, to centralize power in washington. one of his campaign promises was new regulation called net neutrality. it appears to me the president then appointed one of his school friends and basketball buddies to be chairman of the f.c.c., possibly with this in mind. so here we are 2011, and it

seems to me that congress now is being asked to make a decision, and i want congress -- asking congress and my colleagues to reverse the course of the bureaucracy. the administration did not seen deem this rule to be what they call significant. well, a significant rule is one that has the impact on the economy of at least $100 million. and i believe this is a significant rule. i support senator hutchison in her resolution because it will keep the internet free and open. republicans and democrats agree, earlier this year the house of representatives passed a similar resolution and it had bipartisan support. net neutrality is very real. the time to act is now. we'll be voting in the next day or so and the reason we need to

act now is the rules, the rules of having more bureaucratic government control go into effect in just a few weeks. november 20, 2011. it does seem that congress is being disregarded. congress has never delegated authority to the f.c.c. to regulate in the past. the communications act of 1996 had a goal and the goal was -- quote -- "to promote competition and reduce regulations." well, 1996, bill clinton was president of the united states. this is what he said again, the communications act of 1996, the goal, to promote competition and reduce regulations. instead, we have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are ignoring congress and voting for regulation of the internet. well, let's take a look at the overall economy. right now we have 14 million americans who are out of work. the numbers again this month,

9% unemployment in this country. and the administration is now making it a priority, a priority, to regulate another sector of our economy over jobs. the f.c.c. has opened the door for washington bureaucrats to take over a sixth of our economy. they ought to be focusing on creating jobs in this country, making it easier and cheaper for the private sector to crete jobs but between health care, banking, and now technology, this administration is taking over our economy sector by sector and making it more expensive and harder for the private sector to create jobs. the f.c.c.'s actions threaten innovation and threaten investment in america. regulations are the biggest burden being faced by small businesses in this country today. if you don't believe me, just ask them. the polling of small business

owners have said it is regulations coming out of washington that are their biggest burden today. technology pioneer and apple cofounder steven jobs president obama about washington red tape. there's a new biography out about mr. jobs by walter isakson and this is what he said -- quote -- "jobs described to obama how easy it was to build a factory in china. and he said that it was almost impossible to do that these days in america, largely because of regulations and unnecessary quotes -- and unnecessary costs "end of quote. this rule we're looking at today transfers the future of the internet out of the hands of the american people. it makes government the gatekeeper of internet services. former f.c.c. commissioner meredith baker has said -- quote

-- "the rules will give government for the first time a substantive role in how the internet will be operated and managed." this means the future of internet technology whether on a smart phone, an ipad or a computer, will be in the hands of washington bureaucrats. engineers and entrepreneurs will not be able to give us the internet that we want at a price that we want. former f.c.c. commissioner baker also said -- quote -- "by replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an internet future not quite as bright as we need with less investment, less innovation, and more congestion." no american wants that, but that's what this government is giving to the american people. to me this means the recent

service.ovations like 3-g and 4-g networks become riskier investments. less investment means every american's ability to access the internet he or she wants may be affected. less investments means fewer jobs. four months ago president obama realized that he had a regulation problem with independent agencies like the f.c.c. he issued an order, an executive order asking independent agencies to review burdensome red tape. instead of reviewing red tape, they have rolled out even more of it. the presidential review has fallen woefully short. the president asked independent agencies to produce a plan to reduce regulations within 120 days. 120 days yesterday. so the 120 days has come and gone, and what we received once

again from this president is more rhetoric and little by way of results. if there was ever an example of an independent agency rule that needs to be put against the president's rhetoric, it is this net neutrality rule. net neutrality picks winners and losers. it threatens smaller and rural providers. brett glass of lariat, a wireless internet service provider in wyoming warned the f.c.c. about the effects on smaller providers. he said that the red tape will hurt his ability to deploy new service to currently underserved or unserved areas. he warned that many broadband providers, they're small businesses and they're serving rural communities. he wrote -- quote -- "the imposition of regulationses that would drive up costs or hamper innovation would further deter

future outside investment in our company" he said, or others like it. americans have made it very clear that they oppose washington worsening the web. over 60% of voters oppose washington putting its hands on the internet. this regulation that we're debating today is a classic example of washington trying to fix something that is not broken. 93% of americans are satisfied with their broadband service. 91% of americans are satisfied with their broadband speed. the internet is working remarkably well. there is a fundamental disconnect with those in washington who seek a more powerful bureaucracy and those at home in the 50 states of our union who are seeking a stronger economy.

the warnings are real in wyoming, in my state, and all across this country. congress must step in where the bureaucrats in washington have overstepped. senator hutchison's resolution of disapproval should be supported on both sides of the aisle. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i rise in support of this resolution to disapprove the f.c.c.'s open internet order. as we all know the f.c.c. wants to regulate the internet and why, there must be some sort of market failure, right, that needs correcting or issue that needs fixing or so out-of-control providers that need regulating. after all, why would you need the regulations? that's telescope case at all. -- that's not the case at all. it's one of the that has flourished with limited government regulation and

created jobs in the midst of a deep recession and economic downturn. since the internet internet was privatized in the 1990's, its impact on our economy and the development of life changing technology is simply staggering. 20 years ago the internet as we know it did not even exist and now over two billion people use it. ten years ago facebook, twitter, youtube and skype did not exist and now hundreds of millions of people around the world are users. five years ago, mobile applications did not exist and at the end of last year there were over half a million applications over are or apps and over 10 billion will be downloaded this year hopefully downloading mine because we came up with an office app yesterday for our office. two years ago the ipad did not exist and now over 25 million of them have been sold. all these advancement have expanded broadband access and encouraged private investment. in 2003 only 15% of americans had access to broadband and now

over 95% do. this growth will only continue. in its annual report on the internet cisco projects the internet will quadruple in size over the next four years and the one-year growth from 2014 to 2015 will be equal to all the internet traffic in the world last year. clearly, the internet industry is growing and innovating at lightning speed and why has this industry been able to do this? because the environment or innovation and job creation has been ripe with government regulation not getting in their way. imagine that, the government has stayed out. it's taken the light touch approach and the industry has prospered as a result. the broadband expansion we've seep, the innovation we've seen with computers and tablets, and the increase in job creation all occurred, all of this has happened without the f.c.c.'s -- f.c.c.'s open internet order. so why does the government want to start regulating now? is it because the internet

endangers public health or the environment? clearly not. yet the proponents of internet regulation claim the freedom and growth of the internet are in jeopardy. quite frankly, it's my respectful opinion that's ridiculous. to suggest that some type of regulation is needed flies in the face of the growth of the internet economy. this is one of the problems facing our economy and playing our -- plaguing our country. we are regulating where regulation is not needed. regulating based on speculation and regulating in search of a problem. this is not how we encourage innovation. this is not how we create certainty in the marketplace and definitely not how to encourage job creation. over the past few weeks, all we have talked about is jobs and rightfully so. because throughout america the number-one issue facing americans is jobs or the lack thereof. yet here we are debating whether to overturn a regulation on one of the few growth areas of our economy, one of the few sectors that has and is creating good,

high-paying jobs. this should be common sense and just no wonder that people watching at home think that this place, that washington, d.c., that the federal political process is out of touch and dysfunctional. now, as the f.c.c. has drafted the open internet order, the commission heard from broadband providers including small businesses about the problems, the order would create and the negative impact it would have on consumers. one small internet provider stated that the imposition of network management rules will hinder its ability to obtain investment capital and deploy new services in unserved areas. the regulations would also increase costs and hamper innovation which would only further discourage outside investment in the company. in other words, the internet regulation we're talking about today would lead to lower quality of services and would raise operating costs. which would result in higher prices on consumers. so we can clearly see the impacts of internet regulation. less investment, less

innovation, higher prices for consumers, lower quality services, ?eefd business costs and ultimately fewer jobs. companies will spend more money on compliance, basically complying with the regulationses instead of investing in innovation. more money will be spent on lawyers and not on engineers. the internet will still exist if washington bureaucrats get their way on this. the internet will still exist but the order's impact will be profound and disrupt what has been one of america's proudest entrepreneurial and industrial achievements in our history. i've heard proponents say this will preserve the open internet as it exists today but it is my humble opinion respectfully that this is short side sighted. -- shortsighted. i don't want to continue ewing the internet of today. i want the internet of tomorrow. i want the devices and the applications today to soon be obsolete and out of date because the industry has continued to churn out something new or better or faster. i want technologies that

continue to develop and industries to continue to he'll merchant marine. we are using fewer devices for more telecommunications services and it's not hard to imagine a day when we will use one device or all of them. now, the industries, that's the direction that the industries are headed. but when you throw the government in the middle of it, the pace will slow. sirnt will enter the marketplace. and future innovations, they may go unrealized. one of the beautiful things about the internet industry is that we don't know what's around the coroner terms of new technologies and innovations. if a few years ago you would have told someone you googled them, they probably would have been offended. today we know that means okay okay -- that means something. so going forward we have no idea what the innovations are going to be, the new ideas, new technologies. but we know that technologies that we cannot even imagine today will very soon be part of our everyday lives.

and the question is whether we're going to encourage that and particularly whether we're going to encourage that to happen here or whether we're going to discourage that from happening. and regulating the internet and this specific measure that we're trying today to knock down, if it passes, this specific measure will discourage that development. the f.c.c. and the federal government cannot keep pace with the internet. and the technology industries. and the government should not attempt to catch up their regulation through legislation. that's an important point. we're asking this government, we're asking this bureaucratic structure which struggles to keep pace with issues we've been facing for the last 0 years to somehow -- 20 years to somehow keep pace with the innovations and technologies that arrive in the internet world. i don't think that's not only asking too much, i think it's impossible. therefore, the government should not be looking at ways to preserve the status quo. what our government should be

involved in is looking at ways to promote the future of these industries. and this internet regulation does not promote future. mr. president, i have previously spoken on this floor about the new american century, about whether our country will continue to be a leader in this new century. and i believe i do -- with all the noise you hear and all the bad news you hear when you turn on the television -- i believe with all my heart that there is no reason why this 21st century should not be every bit as much the american century as the last century was. and one of the reasons i believe that is because of the advances that our entrepreneurs, our innovators are making in this field of the internet. if there is one sector of our economy that will ensure that the next century is an american one, it is the internet and the technology sector. it's an industry where we are the leader and it is the one where we must continue to lead. and to do that we must encourage innovation, incentivize investment, provide certainty in the marketplace, and promote a competitive environment that

this dynamic industry needs. and that will require a passage of this resolution of disapproval. and so i urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on the resolution. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: 60 minutes. mrs. hutchison: 60? the presiding officer: 60 minutes, yes. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. i've been looking for a time when the floor was open to refute some of the comments and concerns that have been raced earlier on the floor -- that have been raised earlier on the floor. i want to start by taking on a comment that was made by the senator from minnesota. senator franken said that

youtube started above a piece pa in 2005 and sold for $1.6 billion two years later to google and that wouldn't have been possible without net neutrality. well, mr. president, we must point out that we didn't have net neutrality in 2005. we haven't had federal regulation of the internet in this country such as we have seen last year put forward by this administration. in fact, youtube, google were both created in a marketplace without net neutrality regulations. other on-line successes -- facebook, hulu, twi twitter -- s new devices like the apple iphone and amazon kindle, all of which happened without net

neutrality regulations. these are innovations that have changed community -- communication patterns in our world as well as in our country. so we have had these innovations without the heavy hand of government. you know, it's very interesting to hear the debate on the floor because we -- we seem to hear that net neutrality is something that will keep the internet op open. the opposite is true. it is beginning to put the clamps on the success that we have had by having an open internet. and all these companies that they're talking about needing net neutrality to come forward and blossom and grow are the companies that have done exactly that without net neutrality regulations. what we want to do is assure that we don't put a blanket over

the internet and start saying to everybody who has a new idea, a new product, a new service provider, you better go to the f.c.c. before you go forward with that or you could be in jeopardy. you could be penalized. you could be thought to have an unreasonable product on the internet because we don't know yet what reasonable is. we just know you have to be reasonable because we now have a new regulation that says you must be reasonable but no definition of what this f.c.c., which had no authority to go into this area, is going to determine is a reasonable product that won't interfere with anything else.

mr. president, we haven't had net neutrality before. all the successes that i hear talked about in this debate have happened without the heavy or light hand of government stopping the originality and innovation that has marked the success of our country. mr. president, senator kerry, the senator from massachusetts, earlier also said that internet made the 1996 telecommunications act obsolete six months after it was enacted. but if the 1996 act did not sufficiently address the internet, thus making it obsolete, how can that same law be the genesis and basis of the f.c.c.'s assertion that it has

the power to regulate the internet? you have to have one or the other, and it is our assertion that the f.c.c. did not get specific authority to regulate the internet that is required for congress to give it in order to make rules in this area. so senator kerry can't have it both ways. he can't say that the telecommunications act is obsolete but it is also the basis for these new restrictive regulations. senator kerry sent a "dear colleague" letter to everyone asking them -- in the senate -- to vote against this resolution. and what i think senator kerry was saying is that net neutrality is not a regulation

of the internet because internet service providers are -- that it's just a regulation of the on-ramp, that we're not here trying to support the f.c.c. regulating the whole internet. they're just doing the gateway, they're just doing the on-ramp. well, that was the position that the f.c.c. took when they made this regulation. but you can't argue that net neutrality is not regulation of the internet because the internet service providers are the only on-ramps to the internet. it's a misleading statement to say that just regulating the on-ramp isn't regulating the internet. the internet is the entire global network of millions of computer networks. it uses the internet protocol standard to interconnect with each other.

internet backbone providers and last mile internet service providers service the foundation of the internet, so they are the foundation. it is web sites and services like e-mail and voiceover i.p. that allow the users to communicate on top of the foundation. the internet is the whole on-line ecosystem put together. you can't have the edge without the core and vice versa. the on-ramps are as much a part of the information superhighways as the cars traveling on it are. now, f.c.c. commissioner robert mcdowell put it well in his dissent from the open internet order that we are discussing today. he said, "to say that today's rules don't regulate the internet is like saying that regulating highway on-ramps, off-ramps and pavement don't equate to regulating the highways themselves."

well, you know, mr. president, if we're going to say you can regulate the on-ramp, you're saying that is the first heavy hand of government that is going to start controlling and making decisions about what is reasonable and what isn't. and that means you're going to have to go and say, "mother, may i?" to the f.c.c. if you have an innovative product, which is going to cost more to the consumer because you've had to go now and hire lawyers to go to the f.c.c. to get prior approval, or it is going to delay the product getting out to the consumers and possibly let someone in a country like europe that isn't having these kinds of barriers put up to its service providers get ahead of us. mr. president, internet technology is the basis of hundreds of thousands of jobs

and products in our country. we are in a crisis right now. we all know we have 9% unemployment, our economy is even to dead in the water, and we've got to do something to jump-start the economy, not put another blanket on it to make it harder for it to come back. i don't think anybody with common sense in this country is going to say we have a thriving economy right now. so it does defy common sense to say that we are going to allow regulations that congress has not approved, that congress has not authorized the regulator to make that will have the effect of either freezing or delaying the innovation that has been the hallmark of the success of the internet and technology in our country.

mr. president, there are several organizations that have banded together to ask that people vote for the resolution today and i want to submit for the record the letter from, among others, the americans for tax reform, the taxpayers' protection alliance, the hispanic leadership fund, and americans for prosperity. they've written a letter, which i will ask be submitted for the record and for the "congressional record," that says the f.c.c. enacted these net neutrality rules despite a complete lack of congressional authorization and after being told by a court that they lack jurisdiction. that remember that this court said in the comcast case to the f.c.c., you and basically all the other regulatory agencies that are independent must have

specific authority from congress to regulate in an area. and they found in the comcast case that they did not have such a jurisdiction. the f.c.c.'s order also runs contrary, the letter says, to the broad and bipartisan conversation in washington about how best to grow the me and spur job creation. -- grow the economy and spur job creation. president obama and members in congress on both sides of the aisle have called to rein in overbearing regulations that harm economic growth. and yet here we have yet another regulation on top of the e.p.a. and the nlrb and the n.m.b. coming forward to put a damper on our economy. so, mr. president, i submit the letter that is signed by grover norquist, phil kirpen, david

williams, thomas shotz and mario lopez for the record in support of resolution 6. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: and, mr. president, i want to read from a -- a letter that was written by phil kirpen, actually it was an opinion piece written by phil kirpen, who is with the americans for prosperity. and i thought that this was relevant to the debate. "network neutrality sounds nice. originally it was the idea that all of the traffic that travel over the inner network as that comprise the internet should be treated exactly the same way. but engineers cried foul because the routers that make the internet work are highly sophisticated with millions of lines of code that necessarily prioritize different types of traffic. for instance, stream videing vio

can't tolerate delays whereas an e-mail could. so network neutrality morphed into something even more dangerous, empowering the f.c.c. bureaucrats to play traffic co cops, micromanaging networks and deciding which traffic can or can't be prioritized. the result would be a precipitous decline in private investment because the companies that spend billions of dollars building networks could no longer be certain how the f.c.c. bureaucrats would allow those networks to be used." i'm reading from this letter a -- and i will continue. the letter says, "a recent study from new york university found that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. the tech sector, the brightest spot in our economy, would be burdened by federal regulations the way the rest of the economy has been." so, mr. president, these are

exexcerpts from -- excerpts from mr. carpin's opinion piece that says this is the crunch time to stop the f.c.c.'s internet takeover. i think these outside groups that are weighing in are showing that just regular consumers -- i heard the list of groups that are supporting this regulation, this rule that has come out, but just the citizens that are for free markets and for tax reform and for letting our businesses grow and thrive through the american innovation, i like some of the things that they have said that i think are very important in this debate. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to look at whether we are exercising our responsibility as members of congress when we would vote against stopping a federal

agency that has not had a delegation of authority from congress to regulate in this area the house of representatives has already voted in favor of this resolution. we need to send it to the president and say to the president congress did not delegate our authority, it is overstepping its bounds, and furthermore it is going to put a damper on the most thriving part ofur economy today, and that is the tech sector. it is where we are hands down ahead in the world because we have kept the free markets. why would we give that up to unelected federal agencies who have not been asked by congress to regulate in this area? and if we did, we should be required, because it is our constitutional responsibility to do so, to say exactly what we

would ask a policy to be in a new regulation. we have not done it, mr. president, and we should not allow the federal agencies who are appointed but not elected to take over this area that is so important for our economy. if we have any guts at all in this senate, we should stand up for our one-third of the balance of power in the federal government and assert ourselves to keep control overrunaway federal agencies that do not answer to anyone. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor and reserve the balance of our time. mr. rockefeller: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i would like to respond on some things, but i understand that we only have 42 minutes remaining. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. rockefeller: and we have both senator cantwell and senator udall, mark udall, who wants to speak on this. or is it the presiding officer? the presiding officer: i believe it's the senator from colorado. mr. rockefeller: the senator from colorado. and i don't want to take up their time. so at this point, i would just note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: 44 minutes. mrs. hutchison: thank you. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. rockefeller: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i have five 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 and that with respect to time in quorum calls that they be equally divided as between the two sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

mr. rockefeller: and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: boozman: mr. presi.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. boozman: i ask that the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i rise in support of s.j. res. 6 which seeks to put an end to the f.c.c.'s misguided net neutrality rules.

the f.c.c.'s rules regulating the internet are yet another in a series of unnecessary and economically harmful regulations from president obama's administration. these rules will stifle innovation, investment, and ultimately jobs. and they are a continuation of this administration's obsession with picking winners and losers in almost every marketplace. we live in a world where we no longer have to wait for the morning edition of the paper to read the latest news. we don't have to wait for delivery from the exposman to get a -- postman to get a message from a loved one. we don't have to get in the car and head to the store to watch a movie or to watch -- or shop for clothes, books, groceries. we have the ability to do these from the comfort of our homes thanks to the internet.

it is clear the internet has changed the way that we live. this, too, helps promote and encourage economic growth, facilitates innovation and reshapes the way that we do business, all while creating millions of jobs. this was able to happen because of the government's hands-off policy. the federal communications commission admits that the internet has thrived because of its freedom and openness. then why is this agency, why is it taking steps to limit the openness and freedom of the internet? last december, the f.c.c. voted to impose net neutrality rules to regulate the internet. this is nothing more than the government interfering and threatening small providers and forcing networks to operate its services in ways determined by

unelected bureaucrats. what's worse is the f.c.c. is working to fix a problem it acknowledges doesn't exist. the agency is relying on speculation of future harm. this attack on the internet is irresponsible and is irresponsible governing. while our economy struggles, the internet remains a beacon of light that continues to grow, but this rule risks stifling innovation, investment and jobs. a study by a telecom economist with the brattle group found that the net neutrality rules could lead to a job loss of 340,000 in the broadband industry within the next ten years. this is not the type of policies we need to adopt, especially as our country stares at 9% unemployment. that's why i am supporting s.j. res. 6 which will put a stop to

the f.c.c.'s misguided net neutrality rules. with that, i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise today in opposition to the joint resolution of disapproval that will reject the open internet or the net neutrality rule that was put forward earlier this year by the federal communications commission. i'm a strong supporter of the principle of network neutrality that the open internet rule seeks to protect, and i believe that we should oppose this effort to reverse the f.c.c. order. the rule that this resolution seeks to eliminate, the open internet rule, was adopted by the f.c.c. in december of 2010, and it will go into effect on november 20 of this year. simply put, mr. president, this rule creates commonsense obligations and requirements for broadband internet service providers like telephone and

cable networks in order to keep the internet free and open, and i believe -- in fact, i know that the open internet rule will provide the certainty needed to foster job-creating investments and innovations while protecting broadband internet consumers. mr. president, why is this important? well, net neutrality is a way of saying that the internet ought to be free and open, that it's a fundamental concept. it's underpinned this marvelous new technology we call the internet. and this open internet rule will make sure that we hue to that concept that the internet ought to be free and open. we watched and we're still watching as democratic uprisings topple totalitarian regimes all over the middle east. social networks like twitter and technologies like text messaging are largely thought to have fast i will -- facilitated the

so-called arab spring, but none of that would have been possible without an open and free internet. and i have to say, mr. president, what kind of message will we be sending to the remaining dictators, probably even more importantly those people who quest and thirst for freedom if the citizens of the united states through their united states senate vote to limit america's free access to the internet? we have got to set an example for the rest of the world, mr. president. the internet must remain free and open. now, the open internet rule will achieve this by ensuring that four key internet policies are maintained. let me list them for you. one, it will prevent broadband internet providers from blocking lawful internet content or services. two, it will require transparency about broadband network management policies. three, there will be a level playing field for consumers on

the internet. and four -- and this is important in these tough economic times we face -- it will provide predictability for both broadband providers and internet innovators. but as i have said, most importantly about the -- what's so important about this debate is that in these economic times, mr. president, net neutrality is also about jobs and economic development. as i travel my state of colorado, i know the presiding officer travels his of new mexico, what i hear most frequently, the refrain i hear from businesses and business leaders is that they need predictability in order to invest in their companies and create good-paying american jobs. thousands of entrepreneurs that have built small internet businesses can only be successful if they can reach their customers. however, if we don't preserve this net neutrality rule and content blocking is prevented,

there won't be any guarantees that the next great online innovation or pioneering application will even be able to access the internet. for example, the next google or amazon or twitter will only be able to grow and be successful if they can reach their customers without worrying about interference from broadband providers that might want to preference another more established competitor. so what we're talking about here is that the f.c.c. is promulgating a commonsense rule that will provide predictability for both the broadband providers and the internet innovators. and the certainty of knowing the rules that broadband providers have to follow will give the confidence needed for investors to help the next groupon breakthrough or many of the other numerous applications that we're all familiar with online. innovation and job creation is what will finally lift our economy out of the slump that we

have been desperately trying to recover from. we need net neutrality to ensure that innovation thrives and that the next great product, service or way of doing business is not inhibited by market manipulations or restrictive online policies. so, mr. president, i came to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. it only serves to distract us from the hard work we have to do to foster job growth and get our economy back on track. let's agree to cement fair and reasonable rules of the road as the f.c.c. rule seeks to achieve in order to provide certainty and a climate of innovation for the next generation of job creators. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: mr. president, we don't use the congressional review act often. in fact, i think we have only used it once successfully, but

the regulators are working at a break-neck pace, and the overreach we see in this rule and some others that are coming out right now i think really requires the congress to pay attention, requires us to revisit the reason that the congress gave itself the ability to look at rules and regulations and see if they make sense. simply put, on this regulation, the federal communications commission lack the legal standing to produce the order that i think we're debating today. the net neutrality order of the -- that the f.c.c. enacted is not based on the facts or on the law, and in fact i have yet to hear a credible defense of why we want to have this massive regulatory burden. in fact, we have talked about net neutrality for several years now, and the definition continues to change because the free marketplace has driven the

innovation beyond every debate we have had. the marketplace where people invest and grow the internet and access to that internet has meant that as soon as a debate would be engaged on this issue of so-called net neutrality, it no longer mattered. and i think that's what we see here as well, but it will begin to matter if we begin to manage the internet in a way that slows down investment, that slows down innovation. three years ago, the f.c.c. attempted to reach far beyond any legislative mandate they had to regulate internet through a rule. last year, a federal court struck down that rule, saying the commission had no authority to do so. now we find ourselves debating a measure which in a round-about pay intends to accomplish the same end with a -- with a result that might be disguised in some other way. the commission is using a

provision of the communications act which was enacted to allow the f.c.c. to -- quote -- "remove barriers, remove barriers to infrastructure investment." now, why would we want to do that? why would we want to remove barriers to infrastructure investment? obviously, why would we have passed that law? because we want to encourage infrastructure investment by removing barriers. the basis that the federal government was using is actually deregulatory, not regulatory. they are basing this on a law that said they could do something 180 degrees different than what this rule would do. repeated government economic analysis have reached the same conclusion. there is no concentration, there are no abuses of market power in the broadband space, and even if there were, we have a lot of laws to deal with that. we have antitrust laws. we have consumer protection laws. there are plenty of ways to approach that if it happens, but

nobody thinks it's happening. the commission, like many other federal agencies, has often been put in a position where one industry is -- a competitor is being asked for a regulation that somehow would benefit them and their competition with somebody else. this order would greatly increase the frequency of those requests. this order puts the f.c.c. in a position of constantly having to monitor new innovations on the internet. one of the f.c.c. commissioners who didn't agree with this order clearly laid out the dissent when he said this, and this is a quote from commissioner mcdowell -- "using these new rules as a weapon, politically favored companies will be able to pressure three political appointees to regulate their rivals to gain competitive advantages. litigation will supplant innovation. instead of investing in

tomorrow's technologies, precious capital will be diverted to pay lawyers' fees. the era of internet regulatory arbitrage has dawned, and to say that today's rules don't regulate the internet is like saying that regulating highway on ramps, off ramps and the pavement doesn't equate to regulating the highway itself. in releasing the net neutrality order, the f.c.c. charted itself on a collision course with the legislative branch, as well as with the federal judiciary, which has already struck down a similar attempt to regulate this sector by the f.c.c." and they stated unequivocally in that attempt that the f.c.c. lacked the standing to do so. mr. president, this is a solution that is really searching for a problem, and let me guarantee, whatever anybody thinks the problem is right now, that will not be the problem six months from now unless we would figure out how to so slow down innovation in this area that

suddenly we're dealing in a static environment instead of a dynamic environment. even if there was a legal basis for this legislation, we still can't get away from the fact that it's a massive and unnecessary overreach into the private sector, which has thrived and even has thrived while our overall economy has slowed and stalled. in 2003, only 15% of americans had access to broadband. according to the commission's own national broadband plan, in the last year, 95% of americans had access to broadband. 2003-2010, 15% to 95%, it sounds like to me that there is -- access is doing what you would want it to do and is occurring how you would want it to occur. fixed and mobile broadband internet access expanded and improved upon by the private sector is the fastest growing

technology in history. in only seven years, 95% of americans got to where 15% were seven years earlier. competition in this field is robust. technology advances, network buildout and infrastructure improvements are happening quickly to the tune of billions of dollars of investment and innovation and an ever-expanding array of applications for consumers. and more competition is on the way as providers make use of increased amounts of spectrum coming online and lay new networks of fiber to connect americans in rural areas in the country. the telecommunications sector contributes more than $60 billion annually to our economy. net neutrality would slow that down. rather, the order that is set forth, the commission will begin to speculate on what might

happen as opposed to what clearly is happening. first, the kind of anticompetitive action that the commission seeks to remedy is already illegal. second, the commission in this space is far too fierce, their rule is far too repressive. most americans already have two options for wired broadband access at home or at work, and the number of wireless competitors available is exponentially higher. no government has ever succeeded in mandating investment and innovation, and until this order, nothing has held back internet investment and innovation in this country, and that's why it's done so well. broadband buildout is a thriving success story on which every american, virtually almost all americans now count. we now even take it for granted, it is incumbent on us to look at this rule, to understand the

negative impact it will have on a thriving way to communicate, to do business, to talk to each other, and to reject this rule and let this system continue to develop with the same innovation, the same intensity, the same incredible success that it has in the past seven years. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: 19 1/2 minutes. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. we are in a quorum call. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: and i will ask to give up to five minutes of our time to the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from texas for that. she has -- it is a critical subject she's dealing with right now. the problem we're having right now with regulation, i think we're going to be talking about that this afternoon. i only wanted to get one thing in and that is something as the chair is fully aware because he

was there all morning, something very significant happened this morning in our environment and public works committee, we passed out a highway bill. a highway reauthorization bill. we have not done this since 2005, and this morning we did. this is one where we sat down, one of the few times that democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, can get in a room and hammer out the differences and get things done. i wish the committee would be successful in doing that as we were this morning in getting a highway bill. so we are going to have a highway bill at the current spending level, which if you remember back in 2005, it was $286.4 billion, and that was for a five-year bill. that spending level right now would be to sustain that, somewhere between $40 billion and $42 billion for two years. this is a two-year bill and the two-year bill cannot pass until we locate an additional $12 billion to make this thing happen. i think a lot of us don't want

to take what would constitute a 34% cut in -- in funding for our roads and highways and bridges throughout america and able to sustain that. this is a life-and-death type of issue and i want to say how proud i am of the staff, of every democrat and every republican on the environmental and public works committee that made this happen this morning. so while we have many other things that we're concerned about, i think it shouldn't go unnoticed at this time that we have now started that ball rolling and that's good news. one laption thing i'd like to say about the overregulation. when we talk about the jobs bill and we always are talking about revenue and jobs and all of this and we seem to forget that the overregulation is really costing us a lot. i remember fighting the cap-and-trade bill, back -- since the kyoto convention, and impressing upon people that that bill, the bills that were

offered would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. that's not year, not just the first year. since they have not been able to pass that here 245eur trying to do it through regulations through the environmental protection agency. congress -- congress, myself and congressman fred upton over in the house had legislation that would take away the power of the -- the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. to get this done, and i think that this is going to be offered as an amendment this afternoon, i think it's very critical that we pass that. and i thank the senator from texas for giving me this time. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i yield up to seven minutes -- the speaker pro tempore: we're still in a quorum call. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: i yield up to seven minutes to the senator from south carolina.

the presiding officer: tax reform south carolina is recognized. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator hutchison for her efforts here in stopping another regulatory nightmare. i'm beginning to think the f.c.c. stands for fabricating a crisis commission because they're trying to create a new regulation for a problem that doesn't exist. and -- and the overriding problem here as the government intervenes increasingly into the internet and the investment in the internet, that that investment is going to dry up as the uncertainty is increased. i have seen in my state where private investors have put together the money with companies to put down broadband, put in rural areas only to find that some company is operating with a government grant or some

government money to compete with them. but under obama, it's become -- the f.c.c. has become very activist bureaucracy that's inventing a crisis here in order to take control of the internet. the internet is one thing in our country that's working vibrantly. it's a showcase of free enterprise. it doesn't need to be regulated. for years, liberals have warned us if the government doesn't take action, the internet won't be competitive or accessible. the opposite has happened. more people are using the internet and have access to cutting edge technology devices than ever. this is yet another misguided, big government solution in search of a problem. last year, the courts ruled in the comcast decision that the f.c.c. does not have the authority to mandate how private companies can enter into business agreements and limit the ways they provide internet services. the f.c.c. did not learn its lesson, and instead it's again with its open internet order,

which is vague, baseless and built on even weaker legal foundation than the activities in comcast, congress didn't authorize such actions and the courts have ruled against it. and the f.c.c. should not try to get around it by redefining terms or whatever they are trying to do in this case. there has been no demonstrable harm that the f.c.c. needs to respond to. they cannot give us a case where competition is not growing, where the expansion of broadband is not growing, and the technologies are exceeding the pace that the f.c.c. can even keep up with. we don't need to come in and slow down the growth here. if the f.c.c. wants to take action, it should prove there is legitimate harm in the marketplace. the department of justice and the federal trade commission had a number of laws and regulations to enforce in the name of protecting consumers who use the

internet and competition among companies involved in the market. if those laws are lacking, the f.c.c. should show how and ask congress to provide it with statutory authority that is available to us. the f.c.c. has not done so. they have not shown us that harm has taken place and that they need to take control essentially of the internet. congress has been yet again cut out of the picture, and many of my colleagues and the majority seem comfortable with abandoning their role. the f.c.c.'s bad logic here needs to be recognized. they admit that these new rules were not imposed due to any previous or existing wrongdoing. that's important for us to recognize. if a regulatory agency is issuing an order that intervenes into the private sector, there needs to be some substantial harm this time. the f.c.c. claims the government

must regulate the internet in order to protect consumers from future harms that could occur. that is not the point of the regulatory structure. i heard all these arguments back in 2006 when the senate was debating how to update our telecommunications laws. if the regulation advocates had won in 2006, today we would have had the internet of 2006. i don't want the internet of 2006 and 2011, and i don't want the internet of 2011 in 2016. i want it to grow and improve and evolve, just as it's doing now. the government cannot possibly manage the development of the internet, which is what the f.c.c. is trying to do here. the internet does not need government stimulus. it is a free market industry at this point that is working.

right now, the technology sector has a 3.3% unemployment rate far below the national average. over the years, communication companies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars into broadband technology and development. no deficit-expanding stimulus required. if the government really wants to allow the internet and related businesses to prosper and thrive, it should stay out of it. the internet is not broken, but our government is. the private telecommunications sector knows how to create jobs. our government doesn't. the things that work best in our society, businesses, charities, volunteer organizations are the things that government doesn't control. consumers should be in control, not unelected activist bureaucrats intent on taking over the most successful parts of our economy. i encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to undo

the f.c.c.'s power grab. three unelected bureaucrats should not be permitted to simply give themselves the power to regulate the internet's infrastructure in the face of clear statutory language directing them to do just the opposite. the f.c.c. should not be permitted to circumvent congress and essentially enact laws that will impact vital services that we all depend on. to keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed, and i commend senator hutchison for bringing this up and using the powers of congress to take back control of our legislative responsibility. and with that, senator hutchison, i yield back to you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: how much time does there remain on this side? the presiding officer: the senator has 18 minutes under his control. mr. rockefeller: how much? the presiding officer: 18

minutes. mr. rockefeller: i would happily yield that to the distinguished senator from washington. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague, the chairman of the commerce committee, for his leadership on this important issue, and i'm glad to be on the senate floor to set the record straight because we are here to talk about internet freedom and about making sure that the internet doesn't have undo costs and expenses on consumers. if you liked tarp and you liked the bailout of the big banks, well, guess what? then you should vote for this resolution because this resolution is about whether you are going to stop the communications companies who want to make the internet more expensive by various techniques to have their way. now, if you feel that the f.c.c. should establish some rules to protect the freedom of the internet, then you should oppose the hutchison resolution. i myself prefer legislation that

i have introduced and some of my colleagues support called the freedom of the internet act that goes further than what the federal communications commission system has done to implement true net neutrality. i would prefer that, and maybe in the future my colleagues will be working on such legislation, but as it is today, the federal communications commission has taken a halfstep, if you will, by proposing some rules that will set in place some protections for consumers to make sure that they are protected on important aspects of keeping internet costs down. the problem with the f.c.c. rules is that they only apply in some cases to fixed broadband and not to mobile broadband, so if you think about it this way, the entire internet is moving to a mobile broadband platform. that is our hand held devices,

whether they are blackberries or phones or what have you. so many more americans are accessing the internet that way. so the f.c.c. has come up with rules on transparency and no blocking. that is to make sure that no content is blocked or slowed down for any undue cost or reason or nondiscrimination rule. unfortunately, those two last points, no blocking and unreasonable discrimination, don't apply to the mobile side, so we have work to do to make sure that the youth of america, who is consuming so much content online through their mobile devices aren't going to be artificially charged more or slowed down their access, all because the telecommunications industry wants to have its way with the internet. now, my colleagues have been out here talking about innovation. i can tell you the internet has had a ton of innovation and a

ton of content creation all because there has been an even playing field and net neutrality, and the fact now that the telecommunications company who is debating an important issue, the lines that get blurred between telecommunications and the internet, and it's clear that we don't have all the rules in place to make sure that consumer interests are protected, but we do today have one thing, the f.c.c. rules that are trying to slow down telecommunication companies from artificially either blocking or making your content on the internet more expensive. and again, when you go to the mobile phone model and you're being charged for time and data transfer, the fact that that data transfer and time take longer means you are going to have more expensive phone bills. that's kind of why i said it was tarp-like because the ka-ching

you are going to hear from the phone companies on the money they are going to make from this is unbelievable. so thank god the f.c.c. took a halfstep, said whoa, slow down, we're not going to let you do that. that's why people like vince serb and tim burnersly, the architect/inventors pushing the internet have said what a bad idea it is to not make sure that net neutrality is the law of the land. now, i -- i notice my colleague who just spoke said well, there haven't been any problems, there haven't been any issues. i read the online publications, and larry lasik, somebody that i trust, was recounting in one of his interviews exactly what happened, that comcast went in and basically blocked large data files of peer-to-peer transfer, what's called bit torrent traffic. at first comcast said no, we didn't do that, we didn't block

that, we didn't do it. and then literally, basically when it was found out that they did, they said oh, no, we didn't block it, we just slowed it down. and they sent little messages, as mr. lasik says in his article, to the internet traffic to confuse the recipient and basically disrupt their traffic. okay. so that's what's happening. these providers who think if i can control the pipe, now i can also control the flow. it's also, as mr. lasik said later in this article, as if the entire electricity grid, your refrigerator and your toaster and your dryer all of a sudden would get -- start charging different rates and different things because the electricity company would decide that it had the ability to charge different rates. would we put up with that? no, we wouldn't put up with that, so why would we put up with allowing telcos to just run wild on the internet, charging consumers anything that they want based on the fact that they

think they have a control on the switch? so i'm so proud that the chairman, senator rockefeller, has led this fight for the fema of the internet, to drive down costs, to keep innovation and to protect net neutrality. the f.c.c. rules do not go far enough. you can't continue to have this halfstep and not clearly on the mobile side give consumers the protection they need, but for today, if you want to vote with internet consumers and internet users on driving down the cost of the internet, then vote against this resolution and keep the minimal f.c.c. rules in place until we can get stronger legislation passed. make no mistake about it. the other side is talking about they don't want to regulate the internet. that's true. they don't want to regulate telcos who want to take advantage of the fact that they own pipes and can charge you a lot more. i'm glad the f.c.c. at least

took this measure. we should make sure that it stands until we can even get stronger internet freedom protection. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i thank the distinguished senator for her remarks and actually fully agree with them in that mobile is really kind of left alone and it shouldn't be because it is everything that is happening in the future, but it is a step and it was a wonderful, wonderful speech. it occurs to me that i don't think we have anybody left on this side, and i'm not sure about senator hutchison, but it may be a good time to yield back our time. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. mr. president, how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: the senator has four minutes. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i would like to just wrap up, and then i will yield back the rest of our time, and we can close

this debate because our vote is going to come tomorrow. mr. president, i just want to summarize what we have heard today. i just heard the distinguished senator from washington state say that without net neutrality, we would have more expense to consumers. i really do view this in a different way because i view the potential now delays, the regulatory processes, the hurdles that are going to have to be overcome for any kind of preclearance to put a new product on the internet, gate keeping for innovation, that's what, in my opinion, is going to increase the costs and cause delays, if not freezing, of many of the innovations that have occurred in our open internet

system. we now have, because of the f.c.c. ruling, the requirement for reasonable standards for access to the internet. well, there's no definition of "reasonable." i heard the senator from minnesota say that we need open -- we need net neutrality in order for google and youtube and facebook and twitter to be able to go and prosper. mr. president, those entities have grown and prospered without net neutrality regulations. they have grown and prospered because we have had open access. we and our competitors and our businesses that compete overseas have had open access. that has been the beauty of the success of the internet. now we see government coming in

and saying, well, you've got to be reasonable in what you offer. so, if there is a major dump of millions of pages on to the internet and it's going to slow down, for instance, a hospital network offering that is for world health care on an emergency basis or some kind of video taping that is going out, you've got to be able to let the providers have the judgment and let the marketplace work. if there is a problem which was not pointed out by the f.c.c. when they decideed to intervene in the internet in 134 pages of regulations, they had three paragraphs about problems, all of which had come to a

conclusion with the rules that are in place today. so this is clearly a problem that isn't there, that is being manufactured in order to put another government regulation on the books. and when senator -- the senator from massachusetts said this order doesn't regulate the internet, just the gateways, the on-ramps, that just doesn't hold water. because if you regulate the on-ramp, you are regulating the internet. you are causing companies that are providing not to have control of their networks, but to now have to go before the f.c.c. to justify maybe a new product that is going to give emergency access, quicker access for users that would need to have that kind of access for

emergencies. so, mr. president, i hope the senate will say the f.c.c. has extended beyond their authority, beyond any authority congress has given them. and i hope that we will stand for our prerogative in congress to make the laws and only have regulations come out when we delegate specifically to an age is s*eu to put -- to an agency to put out rules in a particular area which has not happened in this case. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. and i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: before i yield all time back on our side, i've listened to the entirety of this debate, and it seems to me it's been fairly clear on one side, that government regulates and messes things up. and the other side, that things are going swimmingly.

i just can't help but pay attention to all those peek out at technet -- to all those people out at technet and all the at&t people and the moody's and hamiltons and all these people who take a very, very dour view of government intervention and very sensitive view as to whether that intervention is in any way going to stop investment. and the answer is usually that it does. that's why i feel very happy that this was referred to by a number of the major players in this whole field as a very light touch, a very light touch of regulation which gave them a sense of where they were going to be, how far down they could look towards their future. and, therefore, to allow them to invest the money that they want to do, which is not to say they wouldn't have done it anyway. but there's nothing like

investing, encouraging capital investments in something as important as the internet. and i think that the net neutrality legislation does that very, very well. and i would hope that when we vote on it tomorrow that it would pass. having said that, i yield back all time. the presiding officer: all time has been yielded back. mr. rockefeller: and i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona is recognized. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 674 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 212, h.r. 674, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mccain: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 928. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes amendment number 928 to amendment number 927. mr. mccain: i ask reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues, the senator from kentucky and the senator from ohio, senator portman. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized for that purpose. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. and i think that it's --

i feel it's very important that we spend some time on this issue. i think that all americans realize that we are in almost unprecedented difficult economic times. that despite efforts that have been made over the now nearly three years that our economy has not grown, it has not provided the kind of job growth and opportunity that many of us had anticipated. when you look at previous recessions -- and this is a near depression, and by some calculations, the recovery has been amazing and agonizingly slow as compared to recovery from other recessionary periods. and in the view of this senator, the remedies have in many

respects made the problem worse rather than better. if you look at some of objective criteria, i would argue that the situation in america today is worse than it was on january 2009 when this administration came to office. we've had the stimulus package. we've had the health care reform act. we've had increases in spending in numerous other areas. we've had the dodd-frank bill which was going to fix the regulatory system in this country to prevent any financial institution in america from ever again being too big to fail. in other words, no financial institution would ever need taxpayers' dollars to, to the degree that america's economy would be impacted adversely in

case that institution failed. well, here we are nearly three years later and unemployment is at 9%, even though after the stimulus package was passed, the predictions were all that maximum unemployment would be 8%, headed down. the recovery has been anemic. in my home state of arizona, still nearly half the homes in my home state of arizona are under water. in other words, they are worth less than the mortgage payments that the homeowners are required to make. so, working together with my colleague from kentucky, senator paul and senator portman from ohio, we have put together a series of proposals and ideas that have been generated both within this body and outside of this body. we believe -- we believe with the utmost sincerity, that there

should be areas in this proposal that perhaps we and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could come to agreement on. we'd like to see this entire package. we think it's important in its entirety. and there is no doubt in our minds -- and when you look at the 9% approval rating that members of congress have with the american people that they'd like to see us do something constructive as well. so i guess i'd ask my colleague from kentucky how he thinks that we should have put this package together, what we should have included, what we haven't, and what the situation is in his home state as far as need for this kind of legislation. and let me add again, one of the -- before i ask my friend from kentucky, i talk to business people large and small all over

this country. and they all tell me the same thing. they tell me the same thing, and that is, they have no searnts to what the future lies for them, which then causes them not to invest and create jobs. overseas is $1 trillion. a here in the united states they're sitting on $1.5 trillion, which they're signature on and not investing -- which they're sitting on and not investing because they don't know what the next regulatory act is going to come down. they don't know when the next tax increase is going to be. the owner -- the founder of home depot, i saw on television the other day, mr. langone. and he wrote a piece in "the wall street journal." he said he couldn't start home depot today. he couldn't start it today. because of the environment that exists which is intended or not -- and i say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the most honorable intentions, but the result has

been a climate which has restrained investment, which then has restrained and killed job creation and caused this economy to be mired in the doldrums, which obviously is of terrible effect on everyday americans. i'd like to ask my friend from kentucky how -- first i'd like to thank him for the key role that he's played in putting this package together. and i hope that this is the beginning of our fight for passage of this legislation. mr. paul: i hope this is the beginning of a conversation with the other side and with the president. i've told the president personally that i want to help the problem we have in our country. 14 million people are out of work. 2 million additional people are out of work since this administration began, and we are serious about putting forward a republican jobs plan. there can be some areas of common interest. there's currently a supercommittee talking about some of these tax reform ideas. our side is putting forth a

message. we are putting forth a plan. we are willing to work with the other side. the problem is that my understanding is the other side has walked away from the table. the other side is unwilling to talk with us and engage us. i've asked the president personally, come to capitol hill, come and talk us to. i've talked to members of the supercommittee. we are willing to talk you to. we have some ideas to create jobs. some of these the other side has agreed to before. lowering the corporate income tax. there are members of the other party who understand we need to be competitive with the rest of the world. lowering the overall rate, getting rid of the loopholes. these are things the president talks about as he campaigns around the country. but if he were serious he would come and talk to us. instead, what i've heard at his campaign stops, republicans are too stiewrpd. that isn't getting anything done. the american people need to know that our jobs plan will create jobs and we are willing to talk

with the president and the other side. i think we're willing to get things done. i think we have important things this the bill that will do that. mr. mccain: and maybe my friend from kentucky and i can talk about many of the various provisions in this legislation, and it is a lot of provisions. it was impaved on the input from -- it was based on the input from outside and inside this body. and it also, by the way, is closely mirrored by legislation which has already passed the house of representatives as well. but we lead off with the requirement for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i was here many years ago when the balanced budget amendment failed by one vote. when you ask the american people if the government should not -- and the congress shouldn't live under the same constraints that they have, they are in total support. i've -- i've seen policy, and i wonder if my friend from kentucky has, that shows 80%-90% of the american people support

when informed about what a balanced budget amendment is to the constitution. at least we ought to put that up for a vote of this body. mr. paul: routinely, decade after decade, polls show that 75-% 80% of americans support a balanced budget amendment. we've shown ourselves to be fiscally irresponsible. we've had gramm-rudman-hollings, all of these different restraints but then we disobey our own rules. we say all the routine spend becomes emergencies. the debt gets bigger and bigger. those on the debt commission have said that the most predictable crisis in our history is the coming debt crisis in this country. they're seeing it in europe. but we need to be receiv seriour country and fix these problems before we get to a crisis situation. that's what our republican jobs plan does. it a addresses it. a balanced budget amendment, tax reform, regulatory moratorium. we can't keep on with regulatory

regulations. mr. mccain: congress cannot bind future congresses. i was here at the time of gramm-rudman-hollings. gramm-rudman-hollings was one of the most strict budgetary requirements ever passed by this body. it required automatic spending cuts in the event that budgets were exceeded and that excess spending was obviously taking place. but congresses cannot bind future congresses. so over time, over a very short period of time, th the restrains imposed by gramm-rudman went into the mist and we went back to business as usual. i will be very candid with my colleague. there are people who have legitimate concerns about a balanced budget amendment and what it would take to get there.

and the draconian measures that may be entailed. but what's the alternative? what is the alternative? mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's future? i believe it's $44,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in america. so why don't -- why don't we, in this body have, a discussion and a debate over a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and find out -- and find out exactly where people are but, at the same time, we have learned over the years that congresses cannot bind future congresses, and that is the problem with just enacting automatic spending cuts, whatever spending cuts or whatever that we achieve here. we cannot bind future congresses appropriately. so the only way to really address this issue is by amending the constitution of the united states, which i know the senator from kentucky and i do not view as a measure taken lightly. i've been od opposed to most changes in the stuvment i think

our founding fathers did it pretty well right. but this is an issue i think that has to be addressed. mr. paul: and those who say balancing the budget would be extreme, i think what's exsphreem is a $1.5 trillion deficit. we're on route now at the rate we are spending money that within a decade the budget will be consumed by intiementz and interest. there will be nothing left for national defense, nothing left for anything else if we keep on the same spending pattern. so we don't have to do something and what we've shown so far is it's been an utter failure up here. after goer dpr goer i think we had pay-as-you-go. we were paying as you go simply by saying it was an emergency. so i think that's a good cone text for our -- context for our republican jobs plan. there's some other important things we do. tax reform -- historically the one thing government can do to

create jobs or to lessen unemployment is to lower the upper rate. kennedy did it in the 1960's. unemployment was cut in half. reagan lowered it fro 70 beer t. as you cut the rate, you really didn't cut revenue. revenue stayed at 18% of g.d.p. through all the lowering of the dop rate. what lowering the top rate does is it unleashes economic growth. the other side has this vision that they'll hire people in government and somehow fix unemployment. you don't put a dent in it. to cure unemployment and lessen unemployment, you need to have millions of people hired. that can only be done in the private sector, and i think that is the difference in the vision between our side and their side is our vision is let's unleash the private sector. theirs is they're going to hire a few more people to dig ditches and fill them n and really

senior senator a different vision. mr. mccain: isn't it a fact that americans are very unhappy because of the economic conditions that we find ourselves. but they're also very unhappy because they perceive an inequity and inequality in our economy today. in other words, they see financial institutions on wall street making record profits and paying record bonuses. they see corporations that are large, that pay no income taxes -- none; zero -- and they see that and they see themselves paying their taxes the least of which may be withholding taxes or sales taxes or whatever taxes that they're still paying. so it seems to me that tax reform would address these inequities because over the years -- and i note the senator from ohio knows this better than anybody in his previous incarnation as the head of the office of management and budget -- over the years we have carved

out loophole after loophole, a better special deal, and it is a damming indictment to congress of the united states that we let it happen. but it is what it is. so we now have major corporations -- general electric paid no taxes last year. and average citizens who don't have a lobbyist here in washington, who can't carve out a special loophole for their small business, they are paying these taxes. how do you resolve that inequity? it seems to me that tax reform -- give people a tax code that's that big -- the senator from ohio has some much better ideas than i have -- three tax brackets, eltd all but charitable ducks, but even put ceiling on that. and then the american people would believe they're being treated fairly. and today they do not believe that they are being treated fairly.

and i'm talking about middle-income americans. and i think statistics confirm that belief because there seems to be a larger disparity between the wealthiest and the less wealthy in america. i would ask my colleague from ohio, who knows more about that than i do. the presidina senator: the senaz arizona is absolutely right. he's gotten it right bringing their income from overseas. on the individual side we've got an incredibly complex tax code with thousands and thousands of pages. by lowering the rates and branding the base, getting riffed some of this underbrush we will create economic growth. it is a necessary shot in the arm right now with over 9% unemployment. and on the corporate side, right now we have a corporate rate that's the second highest in the world you among all the gulf

countries. japan wants to lower theirs. by lowering the rate down to the average these other countries we will be able to bring more investment back to this country. again, you can do it by reducing. mr. mccain: could i say, what's the response -- you say, bring the corporate tax rate down to 25%, say, and yet at the same time -- a senator: companies will have to pay taxes. mr. mccain: statement we find corporations paying no taxes. a senator: exactly. by bringing the rate down to 25%, you get rid of the preferences, the exclusions, the credits, the tax deductions that enable companies right now to pay little or no taxes. we think everybody should be paying taxes. we think everybody should be vubility to a fair tax. we also think you shouldn't have to spend billions of dollars a year in complying with the tax code that is so complex. and so instead of hiring more tax lawyers, we want people to hire more americans to do the work, productive work to get our economy moving. tax reform is a way to give this

economy a shot in the arm right now. it's one of structural reforms in this legislation that the senator from kentucky and the senator from arizona put together with me. it is very consistent with this idea that america's best days are ahead her if we restructure some of the basic parts of our economy. tax reform if necessary. lowering health care costs, absolutely critical. allowing us to explore for energy here on our shores. be sure we're rhee duesing -- reducing regulations that are strangling america's businesses. i commend the senator from arizona for raising these issues, his compassion for him. the senator from kentucky. and i hope the senate will give us the opportunity to vote on this. and it should be a bipartisan vote, because so many of these issues are issues that transcend partisanship. and in each case there are democrats and republicans who understand the need to move our economy forward by making these structural changes.

mr. mccain: i'd like to discuss just for a minute with the senator from kentucky and the senator from ohio that enhanced rescission or what used to be known as line-item veto. the senator from ohio once had the misfortune of being the head of the office of management and budget. you saw these appropriations bills come over. many of them were that thick. and going through line by line, you find special interests, special deals, we call pork barrel projects which have no justification, which were never debated, never discussed, which were never brought to the light of day except maybe occasionally. certainly it contributed enormously to our debt and deficit. so you had to, the option of going to the president of the united states and saying veto the whole bill and send it back, and it may be overridden. or accept this pork-laden, big, thick appropriations bills. isn't that a dilemma that we

should not force the president of the united states to have? mr. portman: absolutely. that's one of the elements of this jobs bill. it was particularly tough, i will tell you, on defense bills. here you have our national defense at stake, and you have our soldiers and marines and sailors out there. and the bill comes to the president of the united states. is he going to sign it or not? if he doesn't sign it there is a risk there will be at least a gap in funding or if not be overturned. there's a lot of pressure to sign it. what happens is the president signs these pieces of legislation with the earmarks in them and we have more spending than we should have, and the spending is not going to the national priorities. this legislation's really simple t. says back in the late 1990's -- 1996, president clinton signed a line-item veto bill, constitutionally it was questionable and the supreme court overturned it. now we've come back with another way to do this that's called enhanced rescission. it's basically a legislative line-item veto where congress would have the right to be able to review what the president

rescinded. if they didn't act within a short period of time it would be rescinded. but congress could act to overturn the president. it's we believe constitutional. it beats all the obligations that were set out in that supreme court case that overturned the first line-item veto. and yet puts the pressure on the congress not to put this pork barrel spending in. and if they do, you'd have the light of day shown on it and congress would have to individually take up these line items, these pork barrel projects. we think this is a constructive way forward that is constitutional, that meets all the kerpbgs that have been raise -- concerns that have been raised and would help get spending down and prioritize spending at a time we have record deficits and debt. mr. mccain: i would say to the senator from kentucky, the president probably would veto some items we wouldn't like. there are some difference in philosophy between ourselves and the president of the united states. but i'm willing to take not only that risk, but that penalty associated with trying to get the elimination of the

pork-barrel spending. we've made some progress, i will admit, in the elimination of some of the -- quote -- "earmarks." we have a long, long, long way to go. and frankly, it's a disease that have i've watched. we see it a bit over time and then it pops back up again. and again. it's something like the balanced budget amendment. it needs to have a permanent fix. a senator: the line-item veto -- mr. paul: the line-item veto has cosponsors from both parties. it does have bipartisan support. many on the other side of the aisle see some of the waste. there's no reason why we couldn't begin to work together on some of these things. once again i get back to if the president is going to go on the road and call us too stupid to understand his jobs plan. it has to be broken up, that's not a good way to get to a consensus. the president needs to come to clinton administration and he needs to talk with the -- needs to come to capitol hill and needs to talk with the other side. do we need to do something different or just do the same? the problem with just doing the

same is we haven't had a budget in two or three years around here. the appropriations bills are supposed to agree with the budget but they can't because there is no budget. there is a rumor that appropriations bill will go to the conference committee between 2002 houses, and they will actual -- between 2002 houses and they will airdrop in whole other appropriations bills. do we need more scrutiny? do we need a line-item veto? absolutely because what we're doing around here is not working and adding up to trillions of dollars of annual deficits. mr. mccain: if the senator i don't see takes place, as the senator from kentucky just pointed out, that all of a sudden everything is decided by members of the appropriations committee, then it really does deprive the other members of this body of their input into the entire process. it takes -- and takes authority and responsibility from 100 and puts it in the hands of a few. that seems to me a disservice to the people of arizona that i represent. mr. paul: i think the

overriding message here -- and i appreciate the comments from the senator from ohio on this -- is that we have a jobs plan. we have our ideas. there is overlap in our ideas with some of the ideas from the other side. the message thaoerd is we are willing to -- here today is we are willing to talk to the other side. we are willing to say these are proposals and let's try to find areas of agreement. we think it is more important than a campaign right now. we think it's more important, the joblessness and the economy that we try to do something about it. we are willing to come to the table. we are willing to bring our ideas. we're willing to have a debate with the other side. and we want to get solutions. we're not doing this just to be partisan. we want to figure out a way to make our economy better. mr. portman: let me give you an example on where we can come together on something really simple. it's something the senator from arizona and the senator from kentucky included in their legislation. everybody knows the federal regulators are putting more and more pressure on small businesses around the country. i can't think of a time i

haven't been home at a plant where somebody hasn't raised with me a federal regulation that is costing them more money. at a time of such employment, lessen that regulatory burden, make sure it's smart. one of the pieces of legislation we're promoting is to say to the federal agencies go through a cost-benefit analysis including looking at what the impact is going to be on jobs. now who can be against that? that needs to be done not just in the so-called executive branch agencies but also the independent agencies which are not subject to these current cost-benefit rules. so it's more cost-benefit rules, looking at jobs but also making sure everybody has to comply with it. then when they come up with an idea for regulation, make sure it's consistent with the policy of the elected representatives. too often you'll see the regulators go off on their own and come up with ideas that they think might be good for the economy. that's one reason you have,

according to some statistics now, as much of a cost on the economy from regulations as from taxes. finally, it says when you come up with something, it has to be the least burdensome alternative. now if the e.p.a. had done this, for instance, in some of the legislation you're concerned about, the senator from kentucky, they would not be able to come up with huge new costs on business, because they would have to come up with a cost-effective way to meet the policies set out by congress. they don't have to do that now. who could be against that? these are specific items that are within this bigger project here of getting america back on track, increasing our jobs, dealing with the fact that america's competitiveness is at risk, that our commonsense, bipartisan ideas, everyone should be able to agree with. i again encourage the senate to allow us to have a vote on this. let's encourage a full debate on both sides of the aisle. let's have a bipartisan vote on it. let's show people who, after all, were elected here to represent, that we can come

together as republicans and democrats and deal with the real problems facing our economy. mr. mccain: i see the senator from washington is here, and i don't want to encroach on her time. i'd just like to say we're going to spend a lot more time today on this issue and this proposal. the american people want change in washington. they want us to address the concerns and problems that they face. and we believe that we have a great blueprint for moving forward in that direction. and as my friend from ohio and kentucky have said, we are eager to sit down with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and discuss at least some of these which we think we could come to agreement on. maybe our approval rating, if we did so, could climb back up into double digits. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that an intern from

senator merkley's office, jeff whitmore, be granted floor privileges for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have come to the floor this afternoon to discuss the vow to hire heroes act, which is an amendment to help put our nation's veterans back to work, that we will be voting on tomorrow on the eve of veterans day. the real meaning of veterans day is to remind ourselves to take care of service-connected veterans and their families. that's what this amendment does. now we all realize, of course, that this chamber has had its share of disagreements and discord lately, and it's no secret that we are sharply divided on any number of economic and political issues that are facing average americans right now. but this is one issue that we should never be divided on. i've served on the senate veterans' affairs committee for over 16 years, and i can tell that you veterans have never been a partisan issue.

we have all made a promise to those who signed up to serve, and we all need to keep it. that's why i've been so pleased to work to help put this amendment together in a comprehensive and bipartisan manner. this amendment brings all ideas to the table. democrat and republican, senate and house, those from the president and from members of the congress. and it uses all those ideas to address one of the most daunting and immediate problems facing our nation's veterans: finding work. mr. president, on this veterans day, after almost ten years of war, nearly one million american veterans will be unemployed. it's a crisis that faces nearly 13 million other americans. but for our veterans, many of the barriers to employment are unique. that's because those who have worn our nation's uniform, and

particularly for those young veterans who spent the last decade being shuttled back and forth to war zones half a world away, the road home isn't always smooth. the red tape is often long. and the transition from the battlefield to the workplace is never easy. too often today our veterans are being left behind by their peers who didn't make the same sacrifices for their nation at a critical time in their lives. too often they don't realize that the skills they possess and their value in the workplace is real. and too often our veterans are not finding open doors to new opportunities in their communities. but those who know the character and experience of our veterans understand that shouldn't be the case. our veterans have the leadership ability, p discipline, technical skills to not only find work but to excel in the economy of the 21st century. and that's why two years ago i

began an effort to find out why, despite all the talent and drive i know our veterans possess, this problem persists. so to get to the crux of this problem, i knew i had to hear firsthand from those veterans who were struggling to find work. so i crisscrossed my home state of washington in communities large and small, at worker retraining programs in, v.a. facilities and in veterans halls. i sat down with veterans themselves to talk about the roadblocks that they face. what i heard was heartbreaking and frustrating. i heard from veterans who said that they no longer write that they are a veteran on their resume because of the stigma they feel -- they believe employers attach to be invisible wounds of war. i heard from medics who returned home from treating battlefield

wounds and can't get a certification to be an e.m.t. or even to drive an ambulance. i spoke with veterans who said that many employers had trouble understanding the vernacular they used to describe their experiences in an interview or on the resume. i talked to veterans who told me the military spent incalculable time getting them the skills to do the job in their field, but very little time teaching them how to transition the skills that they have learned into the workplace when they come home. the problems were sometimes complicated and sometimes simple. most importantly, though, they were preventable. but the more i relayed the concerns of our state's unemployed veterans to federal government officials for answers, the more i realized there were none. it became clear that for too long, we have invested billions of dollars in training our young men and women with the skills to

protect our nation, only to ignore them once they leave the military. for too long, at the end of their career, we have patted our veterans on the back for their service and then pushed them out into the job market alone. that's why in may of this year, as chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee, i introduced a bipartisan veterans employment bill to ease the transition from the battlefield to the working world. it's a bill that will allow our men and women in uniform to capitalize on their service, while also making sure the american people capitalize on the investment that we have made in them. for the first time, it requires broad job skills training for every service member as they leave the military as part of the military's transition assistance program. it allows service members to begin the federal employment

process prior to separation in order to facilitate a truly seamless transition from the military to jobs in our government, and it requires the department of labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable into the civilian sector in order to make it simpler for our veterans to get the licenses and certifications that they need. all of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work, and today they are being combined with the other great ideas in this comprehensive amendment that's now before the senate. including an idea championed by my house counterpart chairman miller that will ease the employment struggles of our older veterans by providing them with additional education benefits so they can train for today's high-demand jobs. and an idea that's been championed by president obama, senator baucus and many others that provides a tax credit for employers that hire veterans.

mr. president, with this amendment, we are taking a huge step forward in rethinking the way we treat our men and women in uniform after they leave the military, and for many of us, particularly those who grew up with the vietnam war, we are also taking steps to avoid the mistakes of the past, mistakes that i believe we stand perilously close to repeating. you know, every day, we read about skyrocketing suicide statistics, substance abuse problems and even rising homelessness among the post-9/11 generation of veterans, and while there are a lot of factors that contribute to those challenges, the failure to give our veterans the self-confidence, the financial security and dignity that a job provides often plays a very crucial role. so on this veterans day, we need

to redouble our efforts to avoid the mistakes that have cost our veterans dearly and that have weighed on the collective conscience of this nation, and we can do that by passing this amendment, but also by looking back on a time when we stepped up to meet the promise we made to our veterans. mr. president, i have mentioned on the floor here many times before, my father was a veteran of world war ii, but what i don't always talk about is the fact that when he came home from war, he came home to opportunity. first to college and then to a job, a job that gave him pride, a job that helped him and my mother raise seven children, who have gone on now to support families of their own. this is the legacy of opportunity we have to live up to for our nation's veterans. the responsibility that we have on our shoulders, it doesn't end on the battlefield. it doesn't end after the parades on friday. in fact, it doesn't end.

i urge my colleagues to put aside our differences, to come together and meet the challenges of putting our nation's veterans to work. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i ask to be recognized for not more than ten minutes. mr. president, i rise to speak in support of the jobs for growth act today. i don't think there is any question that the number-one solution to our deep financial hole that we find ourselves in in this country today is in economic growth. the fact is we do find ourselves in a very deep financial hole. within a day or two, certainly within the next week, we will surpass the $15 trillion debt mark in this country. now, that wouldn't be a problem, $15 trillion worth of debt if

our economy was $100 trillion large, but it's not. it's about $15 trillion large. so our debt to equity ratio has now reached 100% which is a very dangerous metric. in order to understand how that affects our economy, i would ask people to understand or think about how your own personal economy is affected if you are in debt, if you are too deep into personal debt. the fact of the matter is when you are in debt over your head, you simply can't increase your consumption because any extra money you have just beyond the basics is spent on servicing that debt. the exact same dynamic happens with our nation, and we find ourselves in way, way too much debt. and unfortunately, there is no end in sight. the last three years, we have added $4 trillion to our nation's debt, and the prospects

for this year is it will add another trillion. so during president obama's term, we will have added $5 trillion to our nation's debt. this scares consumers, it scares business investors as well, because we all recognize that when the government gets into this much debt, when it spends so much money that it doesn't have, eventually it will have to take from all of us, either in the form of inflation or in the form of taxes. and we're simply not coming to grips with the problem. i like to put things in historical perspective as we talk about supposedly cutting our budgets. ten years ago, in 2001, our nation spent $1.9 trillion. this year, we spent $3.6 trillion. we have doubled spending in just ten years. and the debate that we're engaged in right now is whether

according to president obama's budget in ten years in the future whether we will spend $5.8 trillion or as the house budget calls for $4.8 trillion. let's look at ten-year spending. the last ten years, we spent $28 trillion. and again, the debate is whether in the next ten years we spend $46 trillion, as president obama budgeted, or whether we would spend only $40 trillion. i don't care how you look at it, $40 trillion or $46 trillion is not a cut in comparison to $28 trillion. and now, unfortunately, the super committee who is charged with finding $1.2 trillion worth of savings is at an impasse, and it's at an impasse because it looks like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have walked out. i'm afraid they simply don't want to deal because president obama is already in re-election

mode and he doesn't want a result so he can run against a do-nothing congress. i'm certainly one senator that came here willing to work with anybody who is willing to acknowledge the problem and who is willing to work with me and i think work with our side to seriously address a problem, and that's exactly what the six members of the republicans on that committee were trying to do. now, we all recognize that the number-one solution to our debt and deficit crisis is economic growth, and what is holding back growth? it really is the high level of uncertainty, the lack of confidence, and i say to a great extent that lack of confidence and high level of uncertainty was caused by president obama's agenda. there is no doubt about it that he came into office in tough economic circumstances, but his policies have made it far worse. they have moved us in 180 degrees in the wrong direction. i mentioned the $15 trillion

worth of debt. president obama's budget would have added $12 trillion, but that understates the problem because we have underestimated the cost of health care. that will add trillions of dollars as more employers drop coverages and people go on these exchanges at highly subsidized rates. the fact that we are not achieving the projected growth rates in those budgets will add trillions. if we only average 2.5% growth, that will add $5 trillion to our debt and deficit over the next ten years. so what do global investors, what do american investors take a look at when they look at the united states economy? if you're going to be investing in business, if you're going to help grow our economy, you're going to look around the world and say where are there economies that are currently growing? currently it's not the united states. it's china, india, places like brazil. strike one. you will take a look at the tax

environment. you're going to look at the united states with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world at 35%, and you say strike two. and then you're going to look at the regulatory environment and you're going to realize according to president obama's own small business administration that the cost of complying with federal regulations is $1.75 trillion. think about that. put that in perspective. that's a number that is larger than all but eight economies in the world. it's 12% the size of our economy. that's what we burden our job creators with each and every single year. strike three. so we need a growth agenda. we need to recognize that america needs to be an attractive place for business expansion and job creation.

and the jobs through growth act recognizes that, and it utilizes pieces of legislation that are already available to actually address the problem. we need a credible plan to restrain the growth in government. as i pointed out earlier, that's all we're doing. we're not cutting the growth, we're not cutting government. we're just restraining the growth in government. we absolutely need dramatic, significant tax reform. our marginal tax rates are too high. our tax code is 70,000 pages long and costs $200 billion to $300 billion to comply with. we need to utilize our god-given natural resources in this country. we need an energy utilization policy that will create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs over the next decade or two. we need freed. it -- free trade.

it must be fair. we need to recognize that as these billions of people around the world seek to improve their lives and develop their economies, it actually offers us a phenomenal market opportunity. we can't be afraid of that. we need to embrace it. we need to understand that we don't have a choice of whether or not we're going to compete in this world. we must compete, and we certainly capable. we have the finest, most productive workers in the world. and finally, we absolutely need regulatory reform. part of the jobs for growth act is a bill that i introduced a couple of months ago called the regulation moratorium and jobs preservation act of 2011. it's a pretty simple bill. it just basically says that until our economy gets back on its feet again, we will stop issuing new rules and new regulations that harm economic growth until the unemployment

rate drops below the level it was when president obama took office, which would be 7.8%. it's a very reasonable proposal. it's one that i hope could gain bipartisan support. i have to believe every member of congress, like me, is visited daily by businesses in their district and in their state that are coming to washington or calling us on the phone and describing the harm that president obama's regulatory agencies are inflicting on their ability to create jobs. so, mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to support a very sensible, very sensible piece of legislation, the jobs through growth act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, this friday we will celebrate veterans day and this year we will be celebrating military families month. it is time to recommit ourselves to helping every military family as the first lady and dr. biden are doing with a program called joining forces to address the unique needs of those who serve and the needs of their families. we as a congress and as a nation need to do exactly that. we need to reach across the aisle, we need to put aside our differences and join forces, we need to help businesses help veterans and their spouses build

careers, we need to make sure that schools are doing all they can to help military children, we need to promote community involvement by asking all of us to do what we can to help military families in our local communities, but there is more we can and should do to honor our heroes. honoring our heroes means providing jobs. job training. and every job opportunity possible to unemployed veterans in my state of new jersey where we have over 450,000 veterans, 12% of them unemployed. that's why i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the vow to hire heroes act. every year, 160,000 active duty service members and 110,000 national guardsmen and reservists come home. when they transition to civilian life, and are looking for options to get back to work at home, they need to know someone

will be there to help them, that businesses will help them start new careers or continue where they left off. we should be giving businesses a tax credit for hiring a returning veteran and giving them more of a tax credit if they hire a wounded veteran. i'd like to see american businesses pledge to hire 100,000 veterans or their spouses by the end of next year. and i don't think that's asking too much. i hope my colleagues don't think that's too much, either. i don't think it's too much to ask congress, both parties, without politics, in a bipartisan effort to honor our veterans by passing a veterans job bill the president can sign into law. as we approach veterans day as our last troops come home from iraq, as our military presence around the world enters a post-iraq era, we need to commit ourselves as a nation to

helping every one of our men and women in uniform, particularly in the hard economic times. this year, with the unemployment rate for veterans at almost 12% nationally, as it is in new jersey, with nearly one million unemployed veterans nationwide, i would hope that we can find bipartisan support for something that we should all be to be able agree on, and that's jobs for veterans. and that's the vow to hire veterans act. veterans cannot and should not have to wait for the help they deserve. no delays, no filibuster, no politics. just a bill for the president to sign and help our nation's veterans now. to me, that's about fairness and it's about keeping our promise to our veterans. i think we can always do better for our veterans and their families and every veteran deserves better. our duty to them is not just

remembering their service. it is not just saying thank you once or twice a year on veterans day and memorial day which we certainly should march in a veterans' day parade or go to a memorial day observance. we should do those things. but it's also delivering on the promise of a grateful nation every day. it means providing the health care and services veterans need when they come home and helping them transition back into the work force. our brave men and women did not wait to sign up to serve their country, and they should not have to wait to get the benefits they earned defending it. and they should not have to come home only to stand on the unemployment line after putting themselves on the line serving their nation. that's why, mr. president, i'm proud to have cosponsored a good, solid, bipartisan jobs package to help our military men

and women transition from their work defending our nation's freedoms to civilian work, rebuilding our nation's economy. it would ensure that disabled veterans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits get the training and rehabilitation they need, the counseling they need, the vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits they need and jobs assistance tailored to a 21st century job market. it establishes a competitive grant program for nonprofits that provide mentoring and training programs for vets. it allows players to -- employers to be paid for on-the-job training for veterans and provide returning heroes and wounded warriors work opportunity tax credits for businesses that hire veterans and more for businesses who hire disabled vets. the credit for unemployed veterans expired the end of 2010. this provision is essentially a work opportunity tax credit for

hiring vets. a credit up to $2,400 for short-term unemployed and up to $5,600 for long-term unemployed, and an increased credit up to $9,600 for hiring unemployed wounded veterans. i fully support and believe in this bill. we made a promise to veterans, and it's a promise we must keep. so while i believe that reducing the deficit is a critical issue, we cannot and should not balance the budget on the backs of those who have served. veterans are not bankrupting america, they're protecting it, and it's not veterans' programs, health care, or services that should be cut. i've said before and i'll say again, mr. president, the grateful nation not only honors its heroes once a year on veterans day or memorial day, but it better be able to look every veteran in the eye when he or she comes home from service

and say we meant what we said and we'll keep our promise. and we must be prepared to deliver that promise. i certainly i am. i come to this chamber today on behalf of every new jerseyan to say to every man and woman who has served in uniform and the more than 450,000 veterans in my home state of new jersey that we will keep working for fairness for every veteran and their families. there will always be political obstacles in our way but we will fight the good fight to keep our promise to you as you have served us. be assured you have the respect and thanks of a grateful nation for the sacrifices you and your families have made. and to me, that thanks is ultimately demonstrated not by what we say but how we act. god bless our troops and may this opportunity be an example of our willingness to come together on behalf of those who wear the uniform, serve the nation, and have the gratitude

of a grateful country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senator's second-degree amendment is the pending question. mr. mccain: that is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: it is the pending question. mr. mccain: is there any unanimous consent on speakers? the presiding officer: there is not. mr. mccain: there is none. thank you. mr. president, then i will continue to discuss the pending amendment before the senate and i would yield such time without yielding the floor, yield such time as he may use, the senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. corker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i rise to speak about a bill we introduced this morning called the residential mortgage market privatization and standardization act. i just want to speak briefly on this bill that deals with a pressing issue that i know the senator from arizona probably as much as anybody in the senate has spoken about and has championed for many, many years. the current dynamic permit conservatorship is not sustainable with fannie and freddie and the g.s.e.'s as they are today. there's been a lot of discussion recently about various things that are happening with these organizations. the fhfa which actually regulates fannie mae and freddie mac is begging congress for direction but in their words is only getting mixed signals. today we've introduced a bill to really give a very clear direction as to what ought to happen to these major g.s.e.'s,

both of them together -- together they sit atop $5 trillion in obligations plus hundreds of thousands of our r.e.o. properties. in other words properties that they've taken back and are now overseeing throughout america. with a $5 trillion book, any mistake they make is very expensive and obviously the taxpayers of this country know full well that billions and billions of dollars continue to flow in these organizations to keep them afloat. and yet these organizations today are lame duck organizations with no clear guidance on their future. they really have no idea what the future holds, the organizations themselves basically are treading water. over the most recent decade, fannie and freddie became in part corporate welfare schemes for mortgage banks. there's no question that what was happening is the governance

balance sheet was helping fund corporate welfare programs or basically mortgage brokers could sell off to fannie and freddie mortgages that they had put in place and have them guaranteed. as they raced to the bottom to lower guarantee fees to take a bigger market share for the biggest mortgage originators, they helped fuel the housing bubble that has led us where we are today. there's no question it. so many people talk about fannie and freddie and say without them, we wouldn't have affordability in housing. well, at the end of the day fannie and freddie don't make housing more affordable. what they do is they simply make interest rates too low. what that actually does is push up home prices. that's the exact equation that occurs in this process. housing affordability is determined by your mortgage -- monthly mortgage payment. fannie and freddie make interest rates cheap, but the price of housing ends up being more expensive as a result of that.

so in effect, the taxpayer is suddenly on the hook for losses when these -- when these housing prices are pushed up and the fact is that we end up having a bubble like we've had. the market can and will take over the functions of mortgage credit risk if we make the transition in an intelligent way. that's what this bill does. our plan phases out fannie and freddie over ten years, but it does so in a way that allows for feedback from the markets. gradually riewftion the guarantee share of new mortgage-backed securities allows us to see where the market price -- where the market's price credit risk. we also add transparency to the market by making the valuable data at the g.s.e.'s publicly available. one of the things that's happened in both fannie and freddie through the years is that they have developed

obviously more expertise than any entities in the country because they in essence where have been almost monopolies in this process. so what we'd like to do is make that data publicly available to folks who will be doing this on the private side. uniform documents managing the servicing process will give investors and homeowners a like certainty in how they will be treated by their servicer. this is part of the plumbing of a system that needs to be addressed and our plan does that. in other words, t -- in other words, this plan not only phases down fannie and freddie over a ten year period through a process that gives market signals so we can understand what's happening in the marketplace as it is occurring, but it also creates a mechanism for private investors to come back in the market. ten years from now under our plan, we will have a housing finance system based more on market fundamentals free of taxpayer risk and more able to

price credit appropriately. the idea that the private market cannot price credit risk is a total red herring. the biggest risk on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage is the prepayment risk. this is called convexity. the private market has already figured this out. we have homeowners throughout our country that constantly prepay mortgages, and the market has figured out a way to price this. so private lenders can and will price credit risk. we just have to be accustomed. we have to get this -- we've been very accustomed to the government selling this too cheaply, but the market can easily price this. all we have to do is put those mechanisms in place that allow the private sector to be able to do that. it's time to move beyond fannie and freddie. we cannot pretend this problem away.

our plan is thoughtful and it will earn back private capital over time. so, mr. president, we've offered a piece of legislation that we think is something that can receive bipartisan support. it allows fannie and freddie to be phased out over time. it allows us to see market signals as this is occurring. it allows -- and you and i know, have worked on this and looked at these things in the banking committee itself. it allows us to actually put in place those mechanisms that will allow the private sector to come in and backfill as the guarantee continues to diminish over time. mr. president, i'm offering this bill hopefully to be a marker. if people want to change and talk with us about things that they think might enhance this bill, we're open to that. but we really believe at this time, a year after, a year and a half after dodd-frank has passed

that it's time for us to actually begin looking at a real way to phase down fannie and freddie's involvement in the marketplace. and i hope that republicans and democrats will join in with us, try to make this bill better if they'd like to do that. but certainly move us in a direction of doing something that is thoughtful and will move us along towards the private market and residential finance. thank you very much. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague from tennessee, who as he knows, we opbd dodd-frank -- on the dodd-frank bill had an amendment to do away with fannie and freddie over a five-year period. i think it's obvious the senator from tennessee has done a lot of homework, in-depth examination on this issue. i think the senator from tennessee would agree that what went on with fannie and freddie is really one of the worst

crimes inflicted on the american people all during the 1990's into well into 2000, which led -- which was a major contributor to the housing collapse which then triggered the financial collapse which we still haven't recovered from. i wonder if the senator from tennessee would like to elaborate on that. a senator: i don't think there's any question. i know the senator from arizona, mr. president, has been a reformer all of his life. mr. corker: what we find in this body is you end up having a corporate welfare system built around many of the things we do here. as much as i hate to say it, both sides of the aisle through time empowered this organization to be what it is. we built an industry in our country around ensuring that the status quo stays in place. it's unfortunate. as the senator from arizona knows as well or better than

anybody in this body, the taxpayers are bearing the brunt of this. and so, to me, it's way past time for us to deal with this. i know that many people say, well, in the height of the housing crisis, this is not the time. but the fact is the way this bill is crafted -- and it sounds like the senator from arizona's amendment, i remember supporting that strongly, again, would have phased out fannie and freddie over a period of time. i really do think that we've gone to tremendous extremes to phase this out in a way that makes sense and really allow the private sector to come back. if you really think about the type of finance that takes place in this country around all types of complexities, there is no reason, as long as we create the proper structure for the t.b.a. market, for the private market to function, there's no reason that the private sector cannot do this on its own. it's really amazing when you think about what's happening

with low-interest rates, most homeowners in our country, what they do is they look at the payment they're going to make. when you have artificially low rates, what happens? the price of housing actually goes up. and so we end up in a situation where we have this bubble, and prices drop tremendously. what happens? the taxpayer ends up bearing the brunt of it. i could not agree more. you know, the senator's always taken on tough issues, and pha*eurb i'm responding -- maybe i'm responding longer he wants to. this is one of those issues where i know many people back home, candidly, there's a whole industry that is built around this and i know a lot of times people don't want to take on something like, don't want to change something like that because they know it's tough back home. i'm just glad the senator from arizona has championed this issue the way that he has. as you mentioned, we've done a lot of work on it also. we think this is a sensible bill

that will allow our country to get back where it needs to be. and i know that the americans that you so well represent, who care so deeply about these transgressions on our citizens, i know that they will support this if we'll just allow this type of legislation to come to the floor and be voted on. mr. mccain: i think the senator from tennessee would agree -- and i want to get back to the jobs bill. but i think the senator from tennessee would agree as long as fannie and freddie are in existence and behave in a manner, and have the opportunity to behave in the manner that they did in the past, we risk another housing bubble followed by a housing collapse. and that's why i think the senator's proposal is something that deserves our attention and that of the country, so we don't have a repetition of the pain that people in tennessee and arizona are experiencing today. nearly half the homes in my home state of arizona are -- quote --

"under water." they are worth less than their mortgage payments. as long as that's the case, it's going to be very difficult to see a way for a strong economic recovery to take place. i think that phasing fannie and freddie out is probably one of the key elements in bringing about not only beneficial change, but prevention that's -- a number of other things have to happen too, but to prevent the kind of catastrophe that was visited on us in 2008. mr. corker: you know, what happens, it's interesting, when you have a bubble that's taking place, a lot of times there's a, the private sector becomes very concerned that a bubble is developing, and they begin to slow the process down. they begin to see that, wait a minute, there's a lot of risk here. it's getting pretty frothy. housing prices in arizona and california and other places are

getting awfully high. maybe we should be cutting back. but as long as there's a ghost entity on the other side of that that's going to take all the risk and they can dump it off to them, all it is is a machine. the more they do, the more money they make. that's what's missing in this current formula, is there's no gauge there to slow the process down when the bubble is becoming overheated. that's one of the huge contributing factors that i know you've talked about a great deal to what we just saw. the reason that you're offering this jobs bill today, the reason you're offering it is we've been through such a financial crisis, and it's brought our country to its knees. on top of that, we've had tremendous amounts of regulation that have enhanced the slowdown even more. but the fact is, i would say to the senator from arizona, you might not be offering this piece of legislation that you have

done such a great job leading on today had it not been for this double that was created. you might not even be here today. we might be talking about a totally different subject on the senate floor. i thank you for your leadership and for your time and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: i thank the senator from tennessee. he also has been one more than willing to take on the tough issues and the challenges that we face with a commitment to bipartisanship that i think we all need. i thank the senator from tennessee. mr. president, i'd like to inform my colleagues that i have a lot to say about this jobs bill. and so -- and there is no unanimous consent agreement. i believe that this is of transcendent importance. i see the senator from minnesota here. i apologize ahead of time. but we've only got until tomorrow morning to address this issue. this is a compelling issue for this nation. and i intend to talk for a

fairly extended, a fairly extended period of time on this issue. so, for the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment is identical to the jobs and growth act which was introduced on october 17. i'm pleased by joining most of my republican colleagues. and i'd like to highlight the hard work done by my colleagues senator paul and portman in putting this legislation together. in fact, i'd like to thank all of the senators who, and some of them bipartisan, that put this jobs bill together. it requires a lot of discussion. it's a, it's issues of transcendent importance. i don't have to tell any american how difficult our economic times are, how slow the recovery has been, if at all. the risk of further recession, and it's time we did something

different. i would point out to my colleagues that for two years the other body, the other party had control of in body and had control of the hours. for two years until the 2010 elections. during that period of time we passed stimulus bill, health care reform, we passed other bill spending bills all on the premise that america's economy would recover. it didn't. in fact, by any measurement, things are far worse than they were in january of 2009. so as the president has a jobs bill and the majority leader has put forth legislation as part of that jobs bill, we republicans have a jobs bill. and i know that my friends on the other side of the capitol also agree wholeheartedly with the majority of what we are proposing today. the difference between our plan

and theirs is we want to create jobs through growth. they want to create jobs through government spending. spending and borrowing and taxing, that doesn't work. what they have proposed amounts to nothing more than another stimulus bill and we saw that movie before. it added to our debt and our deficit, and we lost jobs. today my colleague and i are putting forward a plan. economic growth is a part of long-term sustainable job creation and that's what our plan offers the american people. i'd like to quote from an article in "forbes" magazine by peter ferrara that said the g.o.p. jobs plan versus obama's. senate republicans have taken the lead in proposing a jobs plan alternative to president obama's in the forms of jobs through growth act led by senators mccain, rand paul of kentucky and portman of ohio.

the republican are unified with broad job growth ideas with house republicans even passed several components of that plan. the 28 components of their program add up to exciting prospects for finally sparking the long overdue economic recovery based on proven economic logic and proven experience concerning what works in the real world. most important are the proposals for both corporate and individual tax reform, closing loopholes in return for reducing the rates. lower marginal tax rates are the key to providing the necessary incentives for economic growth and prosperity. the marginal tax rate is the rate on the next dollar to be earned from any investment, interprice or productive activity. that's the key because it determines how much the producer is allowed to keep out of the next unit of what he or she produces.

at a 50% marginal tax rate, the producer can keep only half of any increased production. in that rate is reduced to 25%, the portion the protkaourgs can keep grows by 50% from one half to three-fourth. that powerfully increases the incentives for more productive activity such as savings, investment, starting new businesses, expanding businesses, creating jobs, entrepreneurship and work. the republican jobs plan includes closing the special interest loopholes that enable obama corporate cronies such as general electric to get away with paying no taxes on $14 billion in corporate profits in return for reducing rates to internationally competitive levels. the united states suffers virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly 40%, with a 35% federal rate and another 5% in

state corporate rates on average. even communist china enjoys a 25% corporate rate. in a supposedly mostly socialist soviet union, the corporate rate is even lower than that. in formerly socialist canada, the federal corporate rate is 16.5% and going down to 15% next year. the g.o.p. plan would reduce the federal 35% rate to 25%, which is the minimum reduction to restore international competitiveness for american companies. note that closing loopholes may well raise the average corporate rate on which democrats and liberals have focused, but it is the marnlingsal in tax rate that -- the marginal tax rate that drives the economy. the g.o.p. jobs plan also includes reducing the top personal individual income rate to 25% as well in return for

closing loopholes. the ryan budget also passed by the house would apply that rate to family incomes over $100,000 with a 10% rate applying to incomes below. those rate reductions would powerfully boost incentives as well, as proven by the dramatic response to the reagan tax rate reductions in the 1980's. another component of the plan would eliminate the double taxation of the u.s. corporate profits earned abroad by the u.s. -- quote -- "worldwide corporate tax code" which adds u.s. taxes on top of the taxes of foreign profits by the host country. the g.o.p. plan calls for adopting the territorial tax code of most our international competitors, which allows profits to be taxed in the country where they are earned and not again when they are brought home. that would unlock for reinvestment in the united states the $1.4 trillion in american corporate profits earned overseas that remain

parked there to avoid u.s. double taxation. the g.o.p. jobs plan also recognizes the enormous problem of excessive runaway regulation, which increases the cost of production and so further discourages it. reducing such costs would consequently increase production, economic growth, and jobs. step one in the plan to reduce such regulatory burdens is to repeal obama care with its employer mandate adding to the cost of each job by requiring employers to buy more expensive politically driven health insurance coverage for every employee. that repeal would also reduce future taxes and spending by trillions as well. further critical relief would result from the g.o.p. jobs plan -- plank to repeal dodd-frank which has threatened to squelch credit for businesses and

consumers essential to jobs recovery. the g.o.p. proposal cites research showing that higher costs for financial services resulting from dodd-frank would cost the economy nearly 5 million jobs by the year 2015. another critical area of overregulation is energy. the republican program would require the interior department to move forward in order to free up leasing and development of drilling on public lands on shore. it also eliminates e.p.a. foot dragging on air permits necessary for offshore drilling and removes e.p.a. authority for unnecessary and burdensome greenhouse gas regulation altogether. this deregulation would ensure a steady supply of low-cost energy essential to booming economic growth. also in the proposal is the reins -- regulation.

this will reestablish the original congressional check on executive power and democratic accountability for regulatory burdens so politicians can no longer hide behind faceless bureaucrats to evade public scrutiny for regulatory drains on our freedom and prosperity. this would provide an important solution to excessive regulatory burdens and costs across the board. the tea party will favor the plan's plank for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution which would include necessary tax and spending limitations in the constitution. also included is a statutory line-item veto giving the president more power to cut spending, reduce government spending, deficits and debt, will reduce the government drain on resources in the private sector economy needed to produce jobs and growth. finally, the plan even includes

a provision for free trade, giving the president renewed fast-track authority to negotiate further trade agreements, eliminating foreign trade barriers, and opening new markets for american goods. for nearly three years, president obama failed to even send to congress free trade agreements that president bush had negotiated with south korea, colombia, and panama. but that didn't stop him from political rhetoric blaming congress for failing to pass them. though congress did approve them within weeks of obama finally submitting them. that's abusive -- that abusive rhetorical style veers into dishonorable. the g.o.p. program is an exciting, comprehensive strategy for creating another generatio generation-long economic boom. it includes all the components of reaganomics under congressional control, lower taxes, deregulation, and restrained spending besides the economic logic of each of these

components discussed above, the experience with reaganomics prove the plan will work within a year or so of adoption to get the economy booming again. after reaganomics woos adopted in 1981, the economy took off on a 25-year economic boom. in late-1982, what art laugher and steve moore have rightly called "the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet," 20 million new jobs were created in the first seven years alone, even while an historic inflation was tamed. american economic growth during the 1980's was the equivalent of adding the third-largest economy in the world -- west germany -- to the american economy. by contrast, obama's jobs plan is recycled, brain-dead keynesian economics already tried and failed throughout the obama administration and all around the world for decades

before whatever has been tried. it is about half the size of obama's nearly $1 trillion 2009 so-called stimulus plan but contains otherwise the same policies. that 2009 stimulus didn't stimulate anything except runaway government spending, deficits, and debt. part of the jobs plan is devoted to increased government spending on supposed infrastructure which only recalls the laughable shovel-ready jobs of obama's 2009 stimulus. even obama has joked about it. another part is increased spending to bail gart spendthrift democratic states which obama calls hiring more teachers, firemen and cops, a state and local function shall not a federal function. but economic growth is not bade on increased government spending, a fallacy which "wall street journal" senior economics writer steve moore has rightly labeled "fog fairy economics."

that's because the money for such spending needs to come from somewhere, and so drains the private sector to the extent of such increased government spending, leaving no net effect in any event t what drives economic growth and prosperity is incentives for increased spending. that's why trillions are sitting on corporate and bank balance sheets and america is suffering a capital strike and capital flight. the occupy wall street protesters and threatening property and profits are just further undermining incentives and contributing to that capital strike and capital flight which only contributes further to extended and increased unemployment. the other half of the jobs plan includes temporary payroll tax cuts which are a continuation and expansion of temporary payroll tax cuts obama convinced the december 2010 lame-duck

congress to adopt for this year. but such a temporary tax reduction does not stimulate economic growth and jobs either, as permanent cuts and incentives are necessary for permanent jobs. that was just proved by the failure of this year's temporary payroll tax cut to promote the long overdue recovery. but even worse than the 2009 stimulus is that this current half-stimulus echo is a a accompanied by obama's proposal for $1 mo.5 trillion in permanet tax increases. that now includes obama's support for a 5% millionaire surtax. those permanent increases only further reduce incentives for production and only contribute further to economic downturn and stagnation under any economic theory. those tax increases, moreover, would come on top of all of the tax increases obama has already enacted under current law for

2013, which major media institutions as well as most of the public are unaware. in that year, the obama tax increases will go into effect and the bush tax cuts expire, which obama has refused to renew for the nation's job creators, investors, and more significant small businesses. under those tax increases, the top tax rates of every a major federal tax, except the corporate income tax, already virtually the highest in the industrialized world, with no relief in sight. in sharp contrast to reaganomics, such keynesian obamaomics has already failed miserably to generate a timely roarve consistent with the history of the american economy. before this last recession, since the great depression, recessions in america have lasted an average of ten months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.

but here we are 46 months after the last recession started and still no real economic recovery with unemployment still at 9%, the longest period of unemployment that high since the great depression. moreover, it cannot be said this is because the recession was so bad as the experience in america has been the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. based on these historical precedents, we should be nearing the entdz of the second year -- the end of the second year of a booming economy right now n this crisis, obama to now just advocate the more of the same with only new more warmed-over rhetoric is a complete abdication of leadership. moreover, at this point, outdated economists still peddling keynesian fallacies should be subject to civil liebt

liability for fraud. as i explained in my new publication just out this week, more likely than recovery is a renewed double-dip recession in 2013 with all the tax rate increases, regulatory burdens, building to a crescendo, rising interest rates by then, et cetera, resulting from obama obamaomics. congressional republicans should just tell obama thanks but no thanks on his job plan and pass their own plan proven to work. then they can insist he explain to the public why he stands in the way. you know, its it's a very interesting article in "forbes," and it is a fairly long one but it puts in adequately the argument for adoption of this legislation, but it also points out one of the results, and i would point out in the ""investors business daily"" entitled "better in rwanda," it

says, "the u.s. has slipped again in world rankings to assess the ease of starting a new business. if we're to bring down our stubbornly high unemployment rate this trend hazard to be reversed. according to the world's banks, doing business in 2012 report, america is 13 among 133 countries ranked in the starting a business category. in the 2011 rorkts the u.s. ranked 11th. the year before, it was number eight. in 200 th 9, the u.s. was number six. it was 4th in 2008 and third in 2007. these are not republican documents. this isn't a republican assessment. this is the assessment, according to the world bank, that doing business in the united states of america has gone from third -- as the

third-best country to do business in in 207, to 13th in 2012. now, this is ample and adequate proof that we poreo too much, we tax too much, we have issued so many regulations that we have people like mr. langone, the founder of home depot who i will quote from in a manipulate, that says today he could not start home depot all over again. one of the great success stories by the way, in recent years. in the 2012 ranking, the u.s. trailed such job creators as macedonia, georgia, rwanda, belarus, saudi arabia, armenia and puerto rico which are ranked number six through number 12. big companies aren't usually founded as multinational corporations. most begin as small businesses and it's small businesses which

employ more than half the domestic nongovernment work force that generates the bulk of new employment opportunities. our own research, from this article, our own research shows that small businesses create more than 80% of the new jobs in this country. this isn't some fantasy we've cooked up. it's been confirmed in "the new york times" by reporter steve larrer who wrote in september -- quote -- "it's an irrefutable conclusion that small businesses are this country's jobs creators. two-thirds of net new jobs are created by companies with fewer than 500 employees which is the definition of a small business. but job creation is more than a function of size. lorrer creates a bureau of economic research report that states that the age of business is the biggest factor. startup, an economist at the university of maryland are where

the job creation actually occurs. yet it's the small and new businesses that are being choked by government policy. the capital gains rate on investments held more than a year, lorrer wrote, directly impacts angel investors role in seed startup. this is the rate the administration wants to hike from 15% to 20% on households earning more than $250,000 a year. that's just a single instance of poor public policy. there are more in the 160,000 pages of federal regulation and in the web of state and local rules that squeeze small businesses and startups so tightly that they simply cannot hire. until this burden is lifted, america's jobs problem isn't going to get any better.

quite an indictment that the united states of america, a beacon of liberty and hope and freedom and example to all the world has gone from the third most -- best place to do business, to start a business in the world, now to number 13 in just five short years. so we have -- and so what does that result in, i would point out to my colleagues, is that the -- is that people like mr. langone who i have watched on television on several occasions, certainly an outspoken individual to say the least, says that he could not start his business again under the present environment in which they are. i quote from a "wall street journal" article july 15,

between, "stop bashing business, mr. president" it's entitled if we tried to start home depot today it's a stone cold certainty it would not have gotten off the ground. if we started home depot today under the onerous regulatory controls have you advocated -- mr. langone is writing to the president in this -- if we tried to start home depot today under the controls you have advocated it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground much less thrive. it's quite an indictment. i he goes on to say rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from northwestizing worthy employees in the startup phase, never mind the incredibly high cost of regulation compliance overall and mandatory health insurance, still worse are their ever a

paishous trial lawyers. he goes on to pay i stand behind no one in my enthusiasm and dedication to improving our society and especially our health care. it's worth adding it makes little sense to send treasury next to high net worth people in the home of social security. that includes you, and scores of members of congress. why not cut through that red tape, apply a basic means test to that program to make sure that money actually reduces federal spending and isn't simply shifted elsewhere. so it's a very interesting article. he says a little more than 30 years ago, we got together and founded the home depot. our dream was to create a new kind of home improvement center catering to do it yourselfers. the concept was to have a wide

assortment, a high level of service and lowest pricing spectacular. we opened -- pricing possible. we opened the front door in 1979, also a time of severe economic downturn, yet today home depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-trained and highly motivated people offering outstanding service and knowledge to millions of consumers. and then he goes on to say if we tried to start home depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls have you advocated it's a stone cold certainty our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. a man named jim mcenernie is the c.e.o. of boeing aircraft. he writes what business wants from washington. and again, i quote from october october 31, 2011. he says "america works best when

american business and government complement one another. business plays the vital role in economic expansion and job creation while government oversees the environment in which businesses can innovate and compete. this approach fueled prosperity for generations and produced the world's largest and most powerful economy. we seem far adrift of that ideal today. the regulatory climate is a perfect example, a tsunami of new rules and regulations from an alphabet soup of federal agencies is paralyzing investment and increasing by tens of billions of dollars the compliance costs for small and large businesses. no one wants to discard truly meaningful public safety or environmental regulations, but what we face is a jobs crisis, and regulators charged with protecting the interests of the people are making worse the problem that's hurting them

most. regulatory relief in the energy sector alone could create up to two million new jobs and we won't have to borrow a penny to pay for it." he goes on to talk about the super committee and he talks about the white house and congress should build on that momentum and -- quote -- "enact comprehensive pro-growth tax reform, proceed with regulatory reform and reform and restructure existing entitlement programs. if washington can once again find the ability to mix democracy and effective governing, american business will once again unleash america's economic potential." so mr. mcen ernie in his article reflects the views of everybody i talked to, small businesses and large. they want tax relief, they want regulatory relief. in fact, what they want more than anything else is some kind

of certainty about the economic future in the playing field in which they will have to compete. will there be increasing regulatory burden? will there be a raise in taxes that is facing us in 2013? can we have a tax code they can understand and comprehend that's fair to one and all? can they -- can they -- can they unleash their savings accounts and the money they have kept in reserve and invest and hire with some confidence that there will be a return on that investment, that they will succeed for themselves and their children? that's what this jobs bill is all about. that's what we are trying to get done here. this is a -- this is an attempt to look at the problems that america faces today, which by the way, do spill over onto our national security problems as

the former chief -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff pointed out. and so it affects all -- all of america. it hurts us in so many ways. and yet we sit here apparently the select committee, the super committee as it's called, is at some kind of gridlock. we sit here today with these one amendment here, one amendment there, back and forth, and then run right out to the media and attack each other for being uncooperative and why aren't we more -- why aren't we more congenial and why aren't we willing to compromise. well, i will plead guilty for perhaps not being willing to compromise on some issues because some issues are a matter of principle. and you don't compromise principle, i have found out. but you do -- you do come forth

with proposals and try to find those that we can agree on. i don't know why we don't agree on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. every state, every mayor, every city councilman, every county supervisor, every one of them is faced with the first problem of a balanced budget. why should we exempt ourselves? why can't we together work out the -- the details concerning a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? the overwhelming majority of americans would heave of sigh of relief if we ever did that because they knew we would be more careful stewards of their tax dollars. it seems to me that we could move forward with that. enhanced rescission authority. i believe that the president of the united states should have enhanced rescission authority, what we used to know of as the old line-item veto. taking those lines in

appropriations bills which he objects to and veto them -- and i won't go through the comp saying -- the complications of how it's done but have them taken out with certain restrictions as to how many times he could do it and then like every governor -- not every governor but most governors in america have, to line item out without having to veto the entire appropriations bill, sometimes maybe even causing damage to our ability to govern. now, i am well aware if we voted and enhanced rescission to -- by the congress of the united states signed by the president, the president would probably line-item veto some programs that i would object to him doing so. i'm willing, i'm willing, more than willing to take that pain as opposed to today where we continue to have appropriations bills which in many cases people have not read or truly

understand. tax reform, every place i go, people talk to me about the need to -- for tax reform. i have yet to meet an american who understands completely the tax code. i have yet to meet an american who believes that our tax code is fair. i have yet to meet an american that says if you would just give me three tax bracket, very small number of deductions and then i could fill out my tax return on a post card or in the case of some of the countries, the baltic countries that used to be under the soviet union, on my computer, then you would see greater compliance, you would see less of a need for the i.r.s., and you would see americans more than willing to pay their fair share if they believed that the system is fair and it's not fair when major

corporations and individuals pay no taxes. because they've got bright lawyers and they take advantage of all of the loopholes and deductions that they've been able to get put into the tax code over the years with the help of very powerful lobbyists in this town. repatriotryation and territorial reform, the president -- repatriation and territorial reform, the senator from north carolina and i have proposed a simple proposal, the $1.4 trillion now sitting overseas because they won't bring it back because of the tax situation that we could bring them home and we could provide a permanent incentive with that for repat rating these foreign earnings. i say to my friend from north carolina i've been kind of astonished at some of the resistance to this where people say it wouldn't do any good. help me out. it wouldn't do any good to bring

$1.4 trillion back to the united states of america? do we really believe that that would just go in people's wallets and purses? of course not. t -- the senator from north carolina and i have talked to too many people, corporation executives, who have said yes, i will not only create jobs and invest that money, but i'll give you a plan, i will give you a plan that we will implement with that money that i.b.m. or boeing or these major corporations that have this money parked overseas. and they are enthusiastic about it. and yet, unbelievably to me, there are people who argue that it would have no effect whatsoever on our economy. now, i mean, it's -- it's hard -- it's hard to understand. obviously we get into obamacare. i notice the latest, the latest polling showed, i believe, some

54% of the american people want the health care law repealed and some 30-some percent still support it. the fact is that over time, as americans have learned more and more about this health care law that we passed, they have become more and more opposed to it, and they are angry because the whole purpose of the health care act was to provide all americans with health care that's affordable, but also to bend the curve of the inflation of health care in america, because we all know that the present inflation, the present inflation of health care is unsustainable, it's unsustainable. and yet, what has been the result since the passage? the inflation of health care continues to go up. the cost of health care, whether it be to the men and women who are serving, our average citizen

continues to go up, and it has to stop. we need to look at that. we need to look at medical malpractice reform. in texas today, they passed medical malpractice reform, and it seems to work, and most people are happy with it. the dodd-frank bill -- you know, it's still stunning to me that we pass this regulatory reform bill, called it financial takeover, as the dodd-frank bill is commonly known, that the whole purpose of it was that we would not have legislation -- that we would have legislation that would ensure that never again would any institution be too big to fail because the taxpayers never again should have to bail out any financial institution. is there anybody that believes that these large, these huge institutions on wall street haven't grown bigger, that they are bigger to fail than they

used to be? the fact is they are. so what did we get? we got a whole bunch of regulations and a whole bunch of different bureaucracies, some of them less accountable than others, and obviously a damper on some of the financial activities. we need to make sure that no financial institution is too big to fail. we need to make that -- assure the american people that never again will they suffer the way that they have during this period of time because of the malfeasance of others. but unfortunately, the dodd-frank bill did not achieve that goal. we need to have a moratorium on regulations. senator johnson of wisconsin has a bill that prohibits any federal agency from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate is equal or less than 7.7%. senators snowe and coburn have introduced legislation that's

part of this. freedom from restrictive excess executive demands and onerous mandates act. it streamlines and strengthens the regulatory flexibility act by requiring regulators to include -- quote -- "indirect economic impacts in small business analyses, requiring periodic review and sunset existing rules, and expanding review panels as a requirement for all federal agencies instead of just the environmental protection agency and the occupational safety and health administration." i noticed my friend from wyoming, dr. barrasso, on the floor, who knows more about perhaps the health care reform act. i will try to be polite today and refer to it as the health care reform act. could i -- i would ask -- i ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the senator from wyoming. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming.

mr. mccain: senator barrasso, could tell perhaps the effects on the costs of health care since the passage of this legislation and perhaps what we need to do to -- to really fix health care in america, which we all agree needs to be fixed. mr. barrasso: and i agree with my colleague from arizona, and i thank my colleague for his -- his leadership and congratulate and commend him for the piece of legislation that is currently on the floor, and i'm here to speak in support of it because i want to get small businesses hiring again. i want to get people back to work. we need to find ways to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs, but this health care law that my colleagues asked me about, it's one of the things the president promised if you passed it that health insurance rates for families would go down. he said about $2,500 per family per year. instead, we have seen in response to senator mccain's question, we have seen health

insurance rates go up. across the board, people agree that they have gone up higher and faster than they would have if the law had never been signed. so i think it was interesting and telling yesterday that the voters of ohio went to the polls and voted overwhelmingly, almost 2-1, to say they don't want to be forced to participate in the president's so-called health care law. the people in ohio, people in my home state, people in all the states around the country, what they are asking for, my goal is to provide people with the care that they want from the doctor they want, the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. and there are things that we need to do, but to put these additional expenses and mandates on the small businesses of this country, the job creators, that just makes it harder and more expensive for those small business owners to hire more people. and at a time in this nation when we have 14 million

americans out of work, over 9% unemployment, we need to take positive steps, positive steps to help them put -- to help people get back to work. and i view this health care law and the expenses as a heavy, wet blanket on the small businesses that are trying to hire people. we know of small businesses around the country that know that the penalties get significant when they hire that 50th employee, and we have businesses that could actually grow who say no, we're not going to hire that extra person and go beyond that because of the significant expenses to the businesses. they need some certainty, and they are getting so much uncertainty out of washington with rules and regulations and red tape and the spence of the health the -- spence of the health care law, the threats that keep coming with threats of increased taxes, that small businesses and businesses are just not hiring. and that's why i'm here to commend and to compliment my colleague from arizona for bringing forth to the senate, to

the american people a positive proposal to put people back to work. mr. mccain: on two other issues. one, the issue was not included in the health care reform act, which is the issue of medical malpractice, which the senator, dr. barrasso, has had a lot of personal experience with, and the other is this, which i think is symptomatic of really the way that we cobble this whole thing together that we have now found a provision in the bill which cannot be and will not be enforced, and that was the so-called class act. mr. barrasso: both of those are areas where there can be significant savings. and the folks that kind of say how much savings, they have said that if they would do this sort of approaches, legislative approaches to remove this lawsuit abuse, that the savings to the federal budget would be

about $50 billion over the budgeting time frame, $50 billion. now, if you talk to any physicians or nurses or nurse practitioners, physician assistants, they would say that the savings would even be greater than that because of all of the additional tests, the so-called defensive medicine that is practiced in an effort to protect hospitals, physicians, health care providers from the possibility of a suit, so they do a lot of diagnostic studies, special x-rays, cat scans, m.r.i.'s, blood tests, aimed at trying not to miss something that is very unlikely. but then the problem, they want to make sure they can protect themselves from a suit. so i think this savings would be even greater, but even the government accountants who look at this say the savings would be $50 billion. the other is the so-called class act. it's something that one of my democrat colleagues said was

comparable to a ponzi scheme that even bernie madoff would be proud of. it was an accounting gimmick, a bookkeeping trick that was used during the passage of the so-called health care law, and it was aimed at trying to bring money in in the first five years of an accounting scheme where they would then not have to pay for any services and then start paying for services slightly at about the sixth year, and then the expense would go up and up and up. but what they have now realized -- what we realized on this side of the aisle initially, right away, pointed out on the senate floor before the debates and before the votes that this couldn't work long term. but in an effort to try to use this scheme to say oh, the health care law was going to pay for itself, they forced this through, crammed it through just like they did with the rest of the health care law, and now we find out that even the administration says this can't work, it's not going to work. so they say okay, just repeal that part of the law.

oh, they sure don't want to do that because that would admit that it was a scheme from the beginning. mr. mccain: disturb their predictions as far as the fiscal impact of the class act as well. mr. barrasso: it would. it would undermine the argument of the president who says well, this is going to pay for itself when, in fact, it is not. it is interesting, if you just ask people who are watching at home, people when you go to town hall meetings and you say do you think under this health care law that your health care is going to be better or worse, they will tell you that it's going to be worse. very few people think that their health care is going to be improved under this -- the law that the president has forced through. and then you ask this same group of people, a cross section of people in any of our states if they think that the cost of their care is going to go down like the president promised or go up, they all say no, no, it's going to go up. it's going to have to be either

paying more, getting less, unhappy with it, which is why i think yesterday in ohio, two-thirds of the voters who turned out -- and the margin was over a million voters different between those who are for and against, the voters overwhelmingly voted to say we do not want to have to live under the obama health care law. we want to be able to opt out of that. which is all the small businesses of this country want. they want to say we don't want it to apply to us. we don't want to have to deal with these mandates, these expensive mandates. let us work together, let us work within our states, let us work with other small businesses, but we don't want to live under these very expensive washington mandates, which makes it that much harder for us to hire people. mr. mccain: turn just a minute to medical malpractice reform. because there are many people when you talk about that, when people believe that there has to be appropriate compensation when malpractice occurs. we all know that malpractice

occurs, and so we don't want to the innocent victims of medical malpractice, however it occurs in the health care scenario, to not be able to get just compensation in the case of malpractice on the part of the caregiver. mr. barrasso: that's exactly right. i agree 100% with my colleague. the studies have shown, though, that under the system that we live with today, less than a third of the money actually goes to people who ought to be deserving and receiving that money, where the other two-thirds goes to the system, whether it's the lawyers, the courts, the expert witnesses. so very little of the money that is paid in in premiums actually gets to the injured party, and there are ways to do a better job of that with significant savings in the process. not making sure that people are appropriately compensated if an injury occurs, but at the same time it is getting savings out of a system which is overwrought

with the money going to the wrong place, and also results in so many unnecessary tests being done in efforts of doctors and nurses and hospitals to protect themselves. mr. mccain: i thank the senator, and i appreciate his unique expertise in the health care issues that are still transcendent in this country, and i thank him for his enormous contributions. i'd like to continue with some of these -- this legislation that is the unfunded mandates accountability act, which was originally an act of senator portman's. it requires agencies specifically to address the potential effect of new regulations on job creation and to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to regulation, broadens the scope of unfunded mandate reform act, to include rules issued by

independent agencies and rules, that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million or more, requires agencies to adopt the least burdensome regulatory option, it achieves the goal of the statute authorizing the rule and creates a meaningful right to judicial review of an agency's compliance with the law. if there is anything that's grown out of control in the view of this member, is government regulations. the flood, the term first was a trickle, then it's a flood, of government regulations which then impose additional costs which then take money away from job creation and particularly small businesses people and this is i think the unfunded mandates at least accountability of unfunded mandates is called for. senator barrasso, and he may want to discuss it, the government litigation savings act, reforms the equal access to justice act by disallowing

the reimbursements of attorneys' fees and costs to well funded intint groups who repeatedly sue the federal government. the bill retains federal reimbursements for individuals, small businesses, veterans and others who must fight in court against a wrongful government action by eliminating taxpayer funded reimbursement of attorneys' fees for wealthy special interest groups, the legislation helps eliminate repeated procedural lawsuits that delay permitting exploration and land management. senator, would you like to comment? mr. barrasso: madam president, i would. the section 8 of this jobs through growth act is the government litigation savings act. this is something that was introduced in the house by cynthia lumis from wyoming, our member of congress, and i introduced it in the senate and this legislation will return the equal access to justice act, what i refer to as eaja, back

to its original purpose. its original purpose. the small business entity or individual citizen should not have their individual liberties overrun by washington. ae ja was meant to provide people with limited financial resources, small business owners, the ability to defend themselves against harmful government actions. and that's how it was intended to be used. it allows individuals to sue the federal government to recover part of their attorneys' fees and the costs. but this was a well-intended law and it has been exploited, exploited by large environmental groups with large legal departments and it being used now as a profit center for these large organizations through litigation against our government and they're all getting paid to do it. the total amount has been paid is unknown and the reason it's unknown is since 1995, something called the paperwork reduction act defunded all the reporting requirements. there is an attorney in

wyoming, karen bud phalen, she has sought and did research to find out how much money a lot of these environmental groups have made. what she found is 14 different environmental groups have brought over 1,200, 14, groups, over 1,200 federal cases in 19 states and the district of columbia, collected over $37 million in taxpayer dollars, through this the equal access to justice act and similar laws, and this doesn't even include settlements and fees that were sealed from public view. this is what we can find in public documents. lowell bear he tracked through the i.r.s. 990 forms and found of the most litigious -- so-called nonprofit groups, they -- they average over $9 million a year of taxpayer money which of course hinders

economic growth, limits creation of jobs by individuals and by small businesses and by energy producers, by farmers and ranchers. so i am very happy to see my colleague included this, included our efforts in this overall jobs package because i think these are the sorts of things that make it -- that we're trying to overcome that make it harder and more expensive for private sector to create jobs. i want to find ways of making it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs and just if i could, we've been talking about the private sector. the majority leader has said the problem wasn't the private sector. he said it was the public sector, the government. the government's doing just fine. it is the private sector that's lost over a million and a half private sector jobs since -- since february of 2009 through september of 2011. mr. mccain: i thank my friend. there is also included in this

package is the employment protection act introduced by senator toomey. it requires the e.p.a. to analyze the impact on unemployment levels and economic activity before issuing any regulation, policy statement, guidance document, endangerment finding, or denying any permit. each analysis is required to include a description of estimated job losses and decreased economic activity due to the denial of a permit including any permit denied under the federal water pollution control act. senator johanns has contributed the farm dust regulation prevention act, prevents the e.p.a. from regulating dust in rural america while still maintaining protections to public health under the clean air act. the national labor relations board reform which is introduced by senator graham of south carolina. back door car check to threaten jobs in south carolina, the out-of-control national labor

relations board is paying back union officials at the expense of worker rights and jobs to create more jobs, legislation prohibiting the nlrb from stopping new plants and legislation to prevent coercive quick-snap union elections should be passed. i'm sure that my colleagues are very well aware of the unprecedented and incredible action by the nlrb that basically prohibited a major corporation -- aircraft manufacturing company from locating in the state of south carolina where it is a right to work state. unbeliefable overreach by a federal bureaucracy which is still -- still staggers the imagination but it also shows that elections have consequences. there is also the government neutrality in contracting act and it repeals the president's order requiring government funded construction projects to only use union labor.

this would reduce costs of federal jobs projects by as much as 18%. and that was senator vitter's contribution. senator shelby has introduced financial regulatory responsibility act, requires financial regulators to conduct consistent economic analysis on every new rule they propose, provide clear justification for the rules and determine the impacts of proposed rule making including effects on job growth and job creation. so many of these pieces of legislation i'm talking about a lot of americans might say don't we do that already? well, unfortunately, we don't. senator roberts has the regulatory responsibility for our economy act, which codifies and strengthens president obama's january 18 executive order that directs agencies within to review, modify, streamline, expand or repeal

those significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome or would have significant economic impacts on americans. congressman gibbs over on the house is reducing regulatory burdens act, it eliminates a new duplicate e.p.a. regulation that will cost millions of dollars to implement without providing additional environmental protection. on domestic job promotion, we have from senator vitter the domestic jobs and deficit reduction act that would require the interior department to move forward with off-shore energy exploration and create a time frame for environmental and judicial review. senator murkowski, we've included the jobs in energy permitting act, eliminates confusion and uncertainty surrounding the e.p.a.'s decisionmaking process for air permits which is delaying energy

exploration in the alaskan outer continental shelf. it will create over 50,000 jobs and produce one million barrels of oil a day. there's no one in this body that knows as much about these issues as the distinguishes senator from alaska. senator barrasso, again, has brought forward the american energy and western jobs act, the bill steamlines the preleasing and developmental process for drilling on public lands and requires the administration to create goals for american oil and gas production. the mining jobs protection act is by senator mcconnell, inhofe, and paul -- and rand paul, requires the e.p.a. to use or lose their 404 permitting review authority under this bill the e.p.a. will have 60 days to voice concerns about a permit application or the permit moves forward. any concerns voiced by the e.p.a. would need to be published in the federal register within 30 days. senator inhofe has contributed

the energy tax prevention act, prohibits the e.p.a. from using the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases. repeal restrictions on government use of domestic alternative fuels, repeal section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007 which prohibits federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels such as coal to liquid fuels. the public lands job creation act of senator heller eliminates a burdensome and unnecessary delay in approval of projects on federal lands by allowing the permitting process to move forward unless the department of the interior objects within 45 days. this will streamline the permitting process for domestic energy and mineral production on b.l.m. lands without compromising environmental analysis. senator mcconnell has introduced the renew trade

promotion authority which would provide the president with fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements that will eliminate foreign trade barriers and open new markets for american goods. we all know that trade promotion authority is vital to the eventually enactment of free trade agreements, and i am incredibly depressed that we would not have renewed this trade promotion authority along with the passage of the long-overdue free trade agreements that we just passed through this body. the president and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been fond of saying republicans have no plan for creating jobs and putting america back on a path to fiscal prosperity. nothinging could further from the truth as i've just laid out in the plan before us today we have compiled many job creating measures authored by our

colleagues in the senate. since january our colleagues in the house of representatives have passed at least 22 job creating bills. guess how many of the bills that were passed by the house of representatives have gotten -- have gotten consideration here in the senate -- five. like our plan, our colleagues in the house have focused a great deal of attention on empowering small businesses and reducing government barriers to job creation. here are just a few of the commonsense jobs creating measures passed by the house, none of which have been considered by the senate. review of federal regulations, reducing regulatory burdens, the energy tax prevention act, the clean water cooperative federalism act, the consumer financial improvement act, protecting jobs from government interference act, transparency and regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation act, cement sector regulatory relief act, e.p.a. regulatory relief act, so the next time you hear

the president of the united states say that republicans are blocking or have failed to take up or failed to have a proposal, we have proposals, measures have been passed by the house, these proposals in this jobs plan bill deserve the consideration of this body. we need to prove to the american people we will do everything we can to eliminate the waste of their hard-earned dollars. enacting an enhanced rescission authority to give the president statutory line-item veto authority to reduce wasteful spending is an issue we've been looking at for years. why do we need to grant the president enhanced rescission line-item veto authority? according to a data base created by taxpayers against earmarks, washington watch.com, and taxpayers for common sense, for fiscal 2011 members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling

over $130 billion. just last december, we were forced to consider atth the very last minute an omnibus appropriations bill that was 1,924 pages long and contained the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of $1.1 trillion. and the short term i had to review that massive piece of legislation before it was brought to the floor i identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. we need an enhanced rescission act. thankfully, the massive omnibus was not enacted, but these earmarks and the process by which they make their way into spending bills are evidence that the system is badly broken and in need of reform. mr. president, i have more to say, a