have colleagues perhaps. and i want to apologize to any of my colleagues who had planned on speaking on the floor and have been preempted by my long remarks. but i feel that we have an obligation to the american people to address the issues that are of greatest concern and the greatest amount of pain to them today. andú and that's jobs and the economy. jobs and the economy. i care a lot about our national security challenges, and i care a lot about what's going on in the world. and when i go home, a woman stands up at a town hall meeting with her two children and says i don't have a job and i'm being kicked out of my home next week. and when we have people who are being thrown out of their houses, that there's over half of the homes in my home state of arizona are under water -- in other words, worth less than the

mortgage payments that they are required to make. when we have chronic unemployment that in some cases such as down in yuma, arizona, that is well into double digits, then we have to get going on getting some jobs and the economy back on the right track. now, i want to repeat again, and i don't mean to be confrontational with my colleagues, but we tried for two years when the other side had the majority in the house and the senate and they had passed major pieces of legislation that were advertised to get our economy back on track. they didn't. can't we try something different? can't we try the kinds of things that have brought us out of other recessions? can't we ask our colleagues in the senate to create a simplified tax system that the heritage foundation says by

lowering the corporate rate to 25%, the number of jobs in the u.s. would grow on an average of 581,000 annually from 2011 to 2020. can't we look at this regulatory system which has put such a damper on small businesses and large? can't we give american people a break from the flood of new regulations that continues to come down and creates, is a major factor in this environment of uncertainty amongst businesses small and large? it seems to me -- it seems to me that the approval rating of the american people of congress is now, the last poll i saw is 9%. that's something that i joke about, but it's also something that grieves me a great deal. because i believe that the overwhelming majority of the members of congress are here and are dedicated to serving their

constituents in the most honorable fashion and in the best possible way that they can according to their values and their principles. but it is a fact -- it is a fact that the american people are very angry and they're very upset. one of the major reasons is, of course, they have not seen progress in the economy. and that is very, very understandable. we are now seeing these occupy wall street people. we are seeing the tea partyers will probably be rejuvenated. we are seeing expressions of anger and frustration all over the country, and it's unfortunate. but i believe that a couple of things are going to happen unless we act in a more efficient fashion that addresses the concerns of the american people, and that is i believe you'll see the rise of a third party in this country.

and he think also you will see greater and greater manifestations of opposition to business as usual here in washington. and i'd like to repeat again, as i said at the beginning of my remarks, i'm more than eager to sit down with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and come together, particularly on some of the issues that clearly we have stated on both sides that we are in favor of. again, my appollings to my -- my apologies to my colleagues whom i may have preempt thaeurd time on the -- their time on the floor but i think this issue of jobs which we may be voting on tomorrow on the floor probably is one that deserves more than passing attention. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i thank the senator from arizona for his

remarks. and for me, at least, he owes no apology for having spoken his mind. i always welcome the opportunity to listen and more than honored to follow him. today as we approach veterans day, and i believe this veterans day may be particularly significant for our nation in part because we have the opportunity in this chamber to honor some very special veterans. the monford point marines who graced us with their presence yesterday as we celebrated the 236th birthday of the united states marine corps. they were present then. they were present in 1942 when they stepped forward to serve and fight for this nation. they are african-americans who fought and served for this nation at a time when they

anticipated no recognition, certainly no honor. and we have the opportunity between now and veterans day to approve a measure that would grant them the congressional gold medal kh-rbgs they richly -- medal, which they richly deserve. they have earned through their service. and they are the epitome of the marines. they happen to be marines. but of the service men and women whom we honor on this veterans day. they happen to be men of the greatest generation, the world war ii generation. they are among the greatest of that generation. and i had the great honor to be with them yesterday, in fact, to be the honored guest in the russell building when the commandant and i had the privilege to honor them.

their presence yesterday reminds us of our continuing obligation to all veterans and of the need to make the well-being of our veterans a priority, as i have sought to do. indeed, my first bill entitled "honoring all veterans" has as its objective to leave no veteran behind. it offers a comprehensive set of measures to assure that we keep faith with every veteran, every veteran who needs a job, every veteran who needs better health care or counseling or training or education. these commitments we have made as a nation to all of our veterans, and now we have the opportunity to keep those promises and keep faith with them as we have a solemn obligation to do every day, every year.

not just veterans day. i want to thank senator harkin of iowa for cosponsoring the legislation that i've offered and also to thank senator tester, chairman murray of the veterans' committee, and ranking member burr of that committee for their work to address these challenges recognized by the honoring all veterans act and this comprehensive measure vow to hire heroes amendment. truly we should vow to hire our heroes, and we should do so not just in word, but in deed. not just in rhetoric, but in action. and i am proud to be a cosponsor of the important tax credit provision in the tester veterans jobs amendment for businesses that hire veterans, helping veterans is a challenge that will require the engagement of everyone in the community, from

congress to veterans service organizations, and business leaders across the board, across the country, across the state of connecticut. at a recent veterans hiring forum i hosted in connecticut, i heard firsthand the challenges in veterans recruitment and what innovative companies like united reynolds are doing to hire skilled and talented veterans in this symposium in that setting. they provided an example of what we can and should do. so i see my cosponsorship of this amendment as honoring a commitment to push for legislation to, provide incentives to hire unemployed veterans and to make it easier for companies to connect with veterans so they can fill some of the jobs that are now available. there are jobs available, and we should give our veterans the skills they need, skills they may have acquired in part during their service that need to be

honed and expanded. and we have that opportunity. and i want to thank all of those senators for championing this measure. my own legislation, honoring all veterans act, allows a veteran to attack the transition assistance program, known as tap, an interagency workshop coordinated by departments of defense, labor and veterans affair for up to one year after separation of any military facility. the bill before us makes participation in the "tap" program mandatory. low participation rates in this program are especially concerning as junior members tend to be those most in need of the services provided by tap and the benefits available through the b.a. for many skills such as, simple skills -- writing resumes or interviewing -- have never been needed or learned before. and not having such skills, not

knowing how to interview or write a resume, puts them at a severe disadvantage when they are attempting to enter and succeed in the workplace after they exchange their civilian -- their military uniforms for civilian clothes. section 222 of the vow to hire veterans act authorizes an assessment of the equivalence between skills developed in military occupational specialties and qualifications required for civilian employment with the private sector. i always like to say that when you call out the national guard, you call out the best in america. when you call out the connecticut national guard, i call out truly the very best in america. the military recruits, the most talented man and woman in america to serve and then invest heavily in those skills in their professional development. yet, when they enter the civilian world, very often those

skills are simply unrecognized by laws requiring separate training or lie shiner, and we -- licensure and we ought to do more to recognize these brave men and women. that's why i author a similar provision in the honoring all veterans to ensure educational institutions recognize a veterans military training. the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america reported -- and i'm quoting -- 61% of employers, 61% do not believe they have a complete understanding of the qualifications ex-service members offer. and recently-separated service members with college degrees earn on average almost $10,000 less than their non-veterans counterparts.

i applaud my colleagues for including section 222 in the vow to veterans act. it is a vital step toward helping employers find the employees they need and toward closing the income gap that exists now. the legislation before us also expands education and training opportunities for older veterans by providing 100,000 unemployed veterans of past wars with up to one year of additional g.i. benefits to go toward education and training programs at community colleges and technical schools. i'm proud of the bipartisan compromise to extend this period for one year. i hope it would be even further broadened and extended. but this measure is a great first start for providing skills for job opportunities that now exist and can be filled by men and women coming out of our military to civilian life. let me just say finally again,

to come back to the monford point marines. i want to thank senator pat roberts who was with me yesterday at the 236th birthday celebration. and most especially thank the senator from north carolina, kay hagan, who is with us today, for her leadership on this issue. truly we can make this veterans day special. for all of us in this nation, if we approve this congressional gold medal to men who step forward to serve and fight when this nation failed to appreciate their service and valor, and now we have the opportunity to make good on our commitments to them as veterans, to all of our veterans in this measure. i am proud to join colleagues on

both sides of the aisle in nearing now the number that is news to approve that measure. and i hope that we can reach that kind of bipartisan consensus on that legislation but also on the broader vow to hire heroes act that can lead us back to the kind of bipartisan approach on so many issues that we need to emulate in this body. i want to thank my colleagues for supporting this measure, and i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. hague mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: thank you. mr. president, i stand today

just two days away from veterans day to urge my colleagues to support our courageous servicemen and women, our veterans and their families by voting for the vow to hire a heroes act of 2011. this legislation would have a tremendous impact on every part of our country, but it would be especially significant in my home state of north carolina, the most military-friendly state in the nation. in north carolina, we are blessed to be home to so many of our country's heroes. i don't think most people understand that nationwide military service members account for only 1% of our country's population, but in north carolina more than a third of our population is either in the military, is a veteran, or has an immediate family member who is in the military or is a veteran. over 700,000 veterans call north carolina home. and i know that make our state stronger. and i know because, like so many

north carolinians, i, too, come from a strong military family that instilled in me a sense of responsibility to my community and to my country. my husband, my father, my brother are navy veterans. my father-in-law was a two-star general in the marine corps, and my two nephews have both served in iraq and afghanistan. and i know because i've traveled my state's eight military bases from fort bragg to jerry point to camp le jeune to bases in iraq, afghanistan, and kuwait. i've seen up close the incredible demands placed on our military and the remarkable bravery and patriotism they exhibit each and every day. and i know because whether i'm meeting a general, a young private, 0 would-be warrior or a 90-year-old veteran traveling on one of the flights of honor that brings our world war i i veterans to d.c. to see their monuments, there are certain

qualities that i always recognize in those who serve. in the armed forces and these are selflessness, personal integrity, and unhatched work ethic and unwavering courage. so, mr. president, i take it personally as a senator from north carolina, as well as a proud daughter, wife, sister of a veteran, when our military members and their families are hurting. and i take it personally with this country of ours does not live up to the promise we make to our servicemen and women. mr. president, right now our military families are unquestionably hurting. right now we have lapsed in our commitment to our heroes. as has been said many times on this floor, the unemployment rate among iraq and afghanistan war veterans is an unconscionably high 12.1%. that's more than 3 percentage points higher than the national average unemployment. that's about a quarter of a

million men and women who have all put their lives on the line to protect our country, who are now struggling just to earn a paycheck. 240,000 heroes with irreplaceable skill sets and experience, who cannot find a job. and we cannot forget that every unemployed veteran has a family, a family who has likely spent untold sleepless nights worrying if their loved one was safe and now, after years of selfless service, these families are forced to worry if they can pay their monthly bills, if they can even afford to keep their house. according to h.u.d.'s 2010 annual homeless assessment report, more than 1,000 north carolina veterans are homeless and spend every night without a roof over their head. that is simply 1,000 too many. and this is not fate that we can accept for our veterans. this is not the country that we strive to be.

we need to support our veterans when they make the transition from the military to the civilian workforce. we need to provide them with the training and resources they need to transfer those skills to the private sector, and we need to encourage our business owners to employ some of our country's most highly trained, highly ambitious, and highly motivated individuals. the vow to hire a heroes act does just that. it provides a tax credit of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans. and for our wounded warriors, it includes a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring veterans with shfs connected disabilities, and it requires our servicemen and women transitioning to the civilian workforce to participate in the transition assistance program which provides services such as resume writing workshops and career counseling to help these

individuals land the jobs that are available in these new jobs. and it expands education and training opportunities at our community colleges and technical schools for 100,000 unemployed veterans who served prior to september 11. mr. president, i am pleased to say that some provisions of this legislation are very similar to a bipartisan bill that senator scott brown and i introduced i i earlier this year. the priorities this legislation focuses on, they're not democratic priorities and they're not republican priorities. supporting our veteran is and has always been an american priority. and we owe it to them, but we also owe it to our future. and i hope many of you saw the august cover story in "time" magazine that described our veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan as "the next greatest generation." if you haven't read it i high will he encolonel you to do so

many of the author, joe klein, who i met on a military transport plane in afghanistan, spent the past five years visiting with iraq and afghanistan veterans across the country, including two best friends he met from north carolina. these friends, dale beaty and john galina, who i met last year in charlotte, joined the north carolina national guard together, deployed to iraq together, and nearly died together when their humvee was blown up by antitank mine. dale lost both his legs and john suffered a traumatic brain injury. when a local homebuilders association offered to build dale a home, dale and john were both inspired to assist other handicapped veterans. today their nonprofit "purple heart homes" headquartered in statesville, north carolina, helps build and adapt homes for service-disabled veterans.

dale and john represent, as admiral mike mullen said, part of a generation who is flat-out wired to contribute, flat-out wired to serve. and as general david petraeus told "time" magazine, "our veterans had to show incredible flexibility, never knowing whether they're going to be greeted with a hand shake sore a hand grenade. they've been experiences that are totally unique. i believe they are our next great generation of leaders." mr. president, there are many, many more dale beaties and john galinas out there. but we cannot leave our next great generation of leaders in an unemployment line. we must come together and fight for our veterans and families just as hard aces they have fought for our freedoms. we must pass the vow to hire our heroes act. thank you, mr. president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. begich: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. begich: i'd ask this the quorum call be vacated. officer sphe without objection. mr. begich: mr. president, i rise today to express my strong support for the vow to hire heroes act. very simply, it is a bill that will help our returning heroes get good jobs as they transition into civil life. the bill is supported by democrats and republicans alike. i look forward to the passage of this bill tomorrow, perfect timing as our country prepares to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and commitment of our american veterans. as i first walked into these chambers nearly three years ago, it's been a great privilege to serve on the committee of veterans affairs. remain a also proudly serving on the armed -- i'm also proudly serving on the armed services committeement from these positions i've worked on behalf of the 74,000 veterans who call

alaska home and the more than 28,000 active duty and reserve component men and women serving our great country. my state of alaska, for all its unique geography and demographics, has the distinction as the home for the largest proportion of veterans per capita than any other state in our country. alaska has a proud history of defending our country. this poster shows our troops preparing forebattle on alaska soil during world war i i. while many americans still are not aware there was a fierce fight in the aleutians as the japanese launched a diversionary attack in preparation for the battle of midway. one of my most rewarding moments so far as a member of this body was making sure that two dozen brave members of the alaska territory guard, all distinguished native -- alaska aifb elders, finally got the

recognition they earned for their courageous service more than a half a century ago. you can see by this poster again a few of them here. long before alaska was a state and our country was engaged in world war ii, these alaska native heroes answered their nation's call on america's most remote front lines. in 2009, the senate approved an amendment to the national defense authorization act that i sponsored with my colleague, senator murkowski. when president obama signed that bill into law, 25 surviving territorial guardsmen finally received their retirement pay and recognition they earned so many years ago. i've done my level best to support our troops in other wa ways, including expanding services and programs for homeless veterans, including more support for women vets, expanding telehealth services for our rural veterans, supporting the post-9/11 g.i.

bill. this provides tuition assistance for vets and also takes into consideration living expenses so students can better focus on their education. it also allows for service members to pass this entitlement to their immediate family. every time i meet a veteran, i thank him or her for their service to our country. i know they appreciate that. all americans should go out of their way and thank our veterans, not just on veterans day but every day. but "thank you" only goes so far. it doesn't pay the mortgage or buy groceries. what our veterans really need are good jobs. the statistics are shameful. more than one in four veterans under the age of 24 are without jobs. a quarter million post-9/11 veterans are unemployed. as you can see by this chart, that's a 12% unemployment rate and it's simply unacceptable.

the provide our heroes act will create new direct hiring authority so jobs will be waiting for our veterans the day they leave the military. it will provide tax credits for employers who hire veterans and wounded veterans who have been looking for work. it will improve the transition process. as service members leave the battlefield and enter the work force. this legislation also expands education and training opportunities at community colleges and technical schools for 100,000 unemployed veterans who served before september 11. it expands additional montgomery g.i. benefits for older veterans for up to one year. mr. president, let me take a few moments to talk about an additional challenge faced by veterans in my home state. many alaskans or returning warriors come home to the most remote areas of america.

alaska boasts unsurpassed beauty. it can also be a challenging and dangerous place to live. right now as i speak on this floor, the northwest coast of alaska is being struck by winds approaching 100 miles per hour, a storm surge of eight feet or more, waves up to 30 feet, coastal erosion and flooding is truly -- is certainly going to happen. if this were happening today on the east coast of america, this storm would have some name to it and we wouldn't be hearing or reading about it -- anything else but that storm. to give you a concept of how far-reaching this storm is, imagine a storm reaching from mexico along the west coast up to washington state. that's the size of the storm that's occurring right now. so if you think veterans in other parts of the united states face challenges of employment, job training, access to health care -- and there's no doubt they do -- you should see some of our circumstances in alaska.

here are two stories about real alaskans. a disabled army veteran living in kipnok, a small eupic eskimo village on the far western coast of alaska. this vet suffered a spinal cord injury in 2006 that requires yearly evaluation. he must travel to a v.a. hospital in seattle to receive this care. that's a trip of a thousand -- of thousands of miles and thousands of dollars. additionally, for more routine illnesses like flu, he's focused -- he's forced to travel to anchorage, a v.a. clinic there. still, a jet flight away from his home and, again, close to a thousand dollars. or the retired air force veteran who needed to have hardware removed from hi wrist and shoulder following -- from his wrist and shoulder following a failed surgery. the v.a. sent him to a hospital in seattle despite the fact that

several hospitals in anchorage, closer, less costly to get to, could have performed the procedure. there are many, many stories like this that i hear every single day when i travel the state. it doesn't matter where i go. one veteran or ve veteran's famy member will tell me a very similar story. it's why we continue to push for a piece of legislation that i have introduced, the alaska heroes card. it is so simple, when you look at what we're trying to do. if health care services are available closer to home, then any alaskan veteran -- then any alaskan veteran would simply present the card at the tribal health clinic or the federally qualified health clinic, and get the services. it limits the time in the air and traveling away from their families, it lowers the costs to the v.a., it gives them services when they need it and can get them. it's truly a win-win. more importantly, it allows veterans to be with their families. any time -- and i know, mr. president, you've been an

incredible advocate on health care issues, and when you're trying to do health care rehabilitation and services, taking someone from a rural community and then moving them into a large urban community a thousand miles away and away from your family, the odds are the rehabilitation will go slower or the service will not be as effective. so we have to do what we can to ensure that these veterans have the service closer to their home at a lower cost but also to their families. mr. president, as we approach veterans day, i'd like to take the moment to recognize the arctic warriors serving our country. the members of the fourth striker brigade combat team from fort waynewright alaska has been serving with distinction in afghanistan since may of this year. the fourth airborne brigade combat team will deploy to afghanistan at the end of this month for a total of more than 9,000 alaskan-based troops on the ground there. in addition, 550 air men and

soldiers are still in iraq today but will be coming home by end of the year. and our alaska national guard units and members are in both countries, iraq and afghanistan. to our arctic warriors, thank you. thank you for your service and sacrifice to our country, and thank you to the families that are supporting our arctic warriors as they serve this great country. so to honor them and all the brave men and women who have served and are currently serving, let's come together on the floor of this chamber, let's put our differences aside, let's pass the vow to hire our heroes act and help put america -- america's veterans back to work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, what is the status? are we now in morning business?

i ask unanimous consent that i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, with all of the important issues we constantly face in life, none compares to our concern for the health of our children. but the health of our children depends not only on us but on what others might be doing, like poisoning our air with secondhand smoke or deliberately fouling the air that our kids breathe. few would stand by while a smoker puffs away that your children and your child is inhaling. and that's why we work so hard to prohibit smoking in airplan airplanes, to keep someone else's smoke out of our children's lungs.

yet when emissions from a power plant in one state threaten people in a neighboring state, too often nothing is done about it. and make no mistake, pollution doesn't recognize state boundaries. communities across our country are being forced to bear the consequence of another community's polluters, and this is happening in my state in new jersey, where people are suffering because dirty air is blowing into our communities from out-of-state smokestacks. when we look at this horrible picture, anything more threatening would be hard to imagine. the toxins coming out of smokestacks like these don't disappear, they typically wind up polluting playgrounds, schoolyards in new jersey and other eastern states. in fact, a single power plant in

eastern pennsylvania is responsible for more sulfur pollution in new jersey than all in our state power plants combined. this year the environmental protection agency took a major step toward protecting children from out-of-state emissions when it adopted the cross-state air pollution rule. this commonsense safeguard requires polluters to reduce the levels of dangerous soot and smoke that they release into the air. the rule sends a clear message to power plants in upwind states, you can no longer duck your dirty air -- dump your dirty air on states that lie downwind. unfortunately, one of our republican colleagues has proposed an amendment to block the e.p.a.'s efforts.

this misguided message would put polluters' profits before the health of our families and children and the consequences would be devastating. air pollution can cause asthma, heart attacks, strokes and cancer. long-term exposure can also damage the immune, neurological and reproductive systems. nationally, almost one in ten children now suffers from asthma. that's according to the centers for disease control and prevention. in some parts of new jersey, one out of every four residents has -- has asthma. we should be working to make our skies cleaner for these children, not dirtier. some on the other side say we can't afford to worry about the health of our children and our

communities right now. they claim the new rule will kill jobs. mr. president, this isn't about killing jobs, it's about saving lives, and we should not allow ourselves to be misled. according to e.p.a., the new rule will prevent 40,000 premature deaths and 15,000 heart attacks from taking place. the new standard would also prevent as many as 400,000 asthma attacks, improving life for children, like my own grandson who suffers from asth asthma. my daughter makes sure that she finds an emergency clinic before my son plays ball -- my grandson plays ball or indulges in a sport, in a match, because if he starts to wheeze, he's got

problems. and we know that in my family upfront and personal. my sister who's on the board of education on a city in new york state, she was at a -- a board of education meeting and she began to start to wheeze and in her car she kept a small device, a little respirator. and she ran for the parking lot, didn't make it, collapsed in the parking lot and died three days later. and for those who insist that we cannot have both clean air and a strong economy, i say we can have a strong economy -- we can't have a strong economy without clean air. simply put, if you can't breat breathe, you can't work. mr. president, the fact is, many power plants, factories and other companies are ready to

work with e.p.a. to reduce their impact on the environment, and we take the example of public service electric and gas, which is new jersey's largest utility. pse&g has already invested resources to reduce soot, smog and mercury pollution by more than 90%. in the process, the company has created over 1,600 construction jobs, and that's why pseg supports the e.p.a. rule. ralph izzo, president of the company, said -- and i quote him here -- "our experience shows that it's possible to clean the air, create jobs and power the economy at the same time. the bottom line is this rule will protect the health of our economy, our workers and our children." so i urge my colleagues, reject

this dangerous amendment and protect every american's right to breathe clean air. with that, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, earlier today in the environment and public works committee, the president was at that meeting, something unusual happened. we had a major bill that will extent the highway surface transportation act for two years, passed by a unanimous vote, all the democrats and republicans moving together in order to move forward a bill that will help create jobs. i hope we will find the same spirit of cooperation on the legislation that's now before us. it helps create jobs for our communities, and with the tester amendment, we have really a win-win situation. this first and foremost is about creating jobs, and the tester amendment allows us to create more jobs that will help american families, help our

economy and even help our budget deficit, because when more americans are working, more are paying taxes, less government services are needed. all agree that we need to help our returning veterans, those that have served so well in iraq and afghanistan, defending the principles of our country, defending our basic freedom. on friday, we will celebrate veterans day, and i know all of us will be speaking how much we appreciate the service of our veterans. well, we need to show our appreciation not only by words but also by deeds, and yes, we fight to make sure that our veterans have the health services that they need, we want to make sure that all of our military have the support that they need, we want to make sure that our military families are properly taken care of, but one thing we can do with this legislation is help returning veterans get jobs when they return home. the unemployment rate among our returning veterans is higher than the unemployment rates in

our general community. we need to help our veterans find employment. that's one way we can really show our appreciation for the men and women who have served our nation. the bill before us with the tester amendment will give incentives to employers to hire returning warriors from iraq and afghanistan, it will expand the education and training services so that they have the skills necessary for civilian employment, it will help us deal with a chronic problem we have. those returning veterans under the age of 24, the unemployment rate is 21%. this bill with the tester amendment will allow us to really do something to help our returning veterans and help our economy. but the underlying bills also goes further to help small businesses. small businesses are the growth engine of america. that's where job creation takes place. that's where innovation takes

place. we currently have a requirement that's not yet gone into effect that would require small businesses that have contracts with the government over $10,000 withhold 3% of those funds in order to make sure taxes are paid. we need to repeal that provision, and this bill will repeal that provision. we should go after those who have -- are delinquent in taxes, and we have a provision to make sure we do that, but for small business to tie up that type of capital really affects their ability to compete. it affects their ability to expand job opportunity. repealing that provision is important to help small business help our economy. it also would eliminate an administrative burden for a lot of our local governments. it also will make it more competitive for small businesses. the 3% withholding would affect actually the cost of production. all of that means a stronger economy, more jobs.

this bill is a win-win bill. it helps our veterans with the tester amendment, it helps small businesses by repealing a provision that is extremely burdensome, it is fully paid for so it does not add any at all to the deficit, and it will help us grow our economy. we should by passing this bill not only help our veterans, we help our small businesses and we help our economy. i urge our colleagues to show the same type of cooperation that we did on the surface transportation bill today. mr. president, and our committee. let's use that same spirit of cooperation to get this bill moving with the tester amendment. let us pass it, send it back to the house and hopefully we can get it to the president shortly for signature and help our veterans and help our economy. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i am going to replace you in the chair in a few moments, but before that, i wanted to come over to the floor and talk about our economy and some work that this congress needs to be engaged in if we're going to get things moving on the right track again. today, the stock market plunged 400 points because of concerns that are going on in europe, especially with italy. it's a debt crisis that has been on the front page of every newspaper around the globe for weeks. in some cases, months. and i'm reminded of the discussion that we had over the summer that consumed the congress for an entire summer about the lifting of the debt ceiling. and article after article after

article, saying if the congress couldn't figure out how to work this out in a bipartisan way, make a material difference in the trajectory of our deficit and our debt, that for the first time our credit rating would be downgraded. for the first time in the history of the united states of america, the full faith and credit of the united states would be called into question. that was on the front page of every newspaper for weeks, and in the end, we stumbled across that finish line, and in the end, our debt was downgraded. and i would argue that we're about to face the same thing again and have the chance again to do the right thing, to act in a bipartisan way to create a thoughtful approach to our deficit and our deficit that allows us to continue to invest in our economy.

the families in colorado, like the families in rhode island, are struggling in an economy that has been the worst recession since the great depression. we're coming out of it now, but there are significant structural issues in that economy. mr. president, i have shown this chart before. it's four simple lines. the blue one is the productivity index, which shows that our economy has actually gotten substantially more productive since the early 1990's, substantially more productive during this recession for a variety of reasons. one is that our companies have had to learn to compete in a way that they have not before with the rest of the world so they became more efficient. the benefits that technology has brought has driven this curve up. and unfortunately for our workers, but understandably for our businesses, they have had to figure out how to get through

this recession with fewer people so they could get through to the other side. the second curve is our gross domestic product, the size of our domestic economy, and it's not where it was before the recession but it's headed back there. the other two sides are the unemployment level, which this chart says is 14 million people. i think the number is closer to 25. when you consider who have stopped looking for work and you consider who is underemployed in this economy. and then this line is a tragedy for our families, which is falling median family income. you see on this slide, it's a little hard to read but it's a pretty good depiction of what is happening here. this red line represents the bottom 90% of income earners in this country. think about that, mr. president. we're talking about the bottom 90%. that's everyone, except for 10%. and it shows the share of the income in the united states that

they're earning. it starts out here in the 1920's, and this is today where the bottom 90% are earning roughly 47% of the income. the last time that was true, by the way, was 1928, the year before the great depression and the market crash. the top .1% today earns 10% of the economy. .1%, not 1%, .1%. the last time that was true was 1928. all through the productive times in the 20th century, the 1950's and the 1960's and the 1970's, there wasn't that kind of imbalance in our economy. this group earned -- the 90% earned roughly 70% of the economy, and everybody else earned a fair share, and the economy grew and we were able to build for the future. those are structural issues in the economy we can help with, we can work together to fix, but the thing that we have got to do right now is avert predictable

crises that are within our control so that we don't make matters worse. and sometimes when i travel, people don't know why we need to worry about what's going on in europe, and i just for this afternoon wanted to bring a slide that shows the soaring debt of all these european economies and the united states, we're the blue line here, this is greece up here, and everybody is in tough shape. everybody has made promises that they can't keep, everybody has levered up in a way that isn't sustainable. but the thing that's also true is that we are all interrelated, and if something bad happens in europe, something really bad's going to happen here. just like when the capital markets fell apart at the beginning of the last recession.

this slide shows how dependent our economy is on exports to europe. between 1/5 and 1/6 of the total value of our exports goes to europe. if the european banks fail, the governments can't pay back their debt and the economy comes to a screeching halt in europe, they're not going to buy our exports. those are american jobs that we need to worry about. those are american jobs that we need to defend and protect, and we need to understand this relationship. look at the exposure of our u.s. banks to europe. this red part is the euro area. it's 29% of the total international exposure of our banks. 23% to the u.k. more than half of our foreign exposure of our banks is

european debt, is european debt. now, we were unable to come to a rational conclusion on the debt ceiling, and so the congress punted this decision to a super committee and said please help us make the decision, and my own hope is that the super committee takes a page out of the bipartisan proposals that were reached, the one that was led by bowles and simpson, the one by rivlin and domenici. i think the details are less important, frankly, than the size, that take $4 trillion out over the next ten years, the balance of cuts to revenue of roughly 3-1 that sends a message to the world that the united states is serious about dealing with its fiscal matters. if we don't do that in advance of this european crisis that's on the front page of every newspaper in the country, i can assure you, mr. president, that

the choices we have in front of us will be even tougher than they would have otherwise been. and sometimes i get the feeling that people around here actually don't think the american people are watching this screaming match, are watching the disagreements, are watching the political games, but they are. they know exactly what's going on here, and they understand the seriousness of these issues because they are living through that economy i showed you earlier. that's what they are worrying about. they're making less today than they were ten years ago. they're making the same amount that they were making 20 years ago, and they can't afford to send their kid to college. they can't afford their health care, and they would like us to help straighten that out, but at a minimum, they would like us to prevent matters from getting worse. they would like to see us work together. some people up here think that congress has always been

unpopular, that it's just as an institution an unpopular place. not so. look at this, mr. president. heñ here is congress' approval rating today, 9%. 9%. that's a pretty catastrophic falloff in the last ten years, and i would argue it has an awful lot to do with our inability to address problems the way people in their local communities are doing it. there is not a mayor in colorado who would threaten the credit rating of their community for politics. not one. not a republican mayor, an democratic mayor, not a tea party mayor, not one. would imagine doing it for a second. because people in our communities would know that all that would do would be to drive

up our interest rates, make us spend more money on interest and less on infrastructure, more on interest and less on education, more on interest and less on the health and welfare of our citizens. we know that at the local level, but somehow here we get to color outside the lines. and we're now at 9%. we're almost at the margin of error for zero. we did some research, mr. president, to find out what else is at 9%. and we cooperate find virtually anything in public polls taken all across this country. my goodness, the internal revenue service has a 40% approval rating compared to our 9%. b.p. had a 16% approval rating at the height of the oil spill. and we're at 9%.

there's an actress who is at 15%. more people support the united states becoming communist -- i don't, for the record -- at 11% than approve of the job that we're doing. i guess we can take some comfort that fidel castro is at 5%. look, we are suffering and when i say "we" i mean families across this country, through the worst recession since the great depression. we can see on the front page of every single newspaper what the stakes are here if we don't act in a comprehensive way on our debt and our deficit. we know that both parties have different approaches to the challenges that we face, but at the end of the day, these challenges are the challenges of

the american people, not the challenges of a bunch of politicians in washington that are worrying about the next election. and so my hope is that the super committee shows leadership here, that it gives the opportunity for every member of this body to express their leadership here and that all of us are able to go home to red parts of our state and blue parts of our state and say to people we saw the problem coming and we led the world. we materially addressed the problem that we faced. we acted in a bipartisan way. we came up with a plan that said you know what? we're all in this together for the benefit of our kids and our grandkids, for the people that are suffering through this economy, there is $2.3 trillion of cash sitting on companies' balance sheets in the united states of america tonight that is not being invested because no one knows what interest rate environment they're going to be

in, because they don't know what washington is going to do. we shattered confidence in this economy this summer. we shouldn't do it again. this is a popular number, this nine these days, you may have noticed, mr. president, on the presidential campaign trail. it's not a popular number for the american people. 9% approval. let's do something right here. and let's drive these numbers back up and let's restore confidence in the american people. with that, mr. president, thank you for your patience and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i rise in support of senate joint resolution 6. over the last two years the federal communications commission has put forward a variety of what are considered net neutrality policies. on september 23 of this year, the f.c.c. published a final rule the federal register which is set to go into effect on november 20 to impose harmful net neutrality regulations on our nation's telecommunications companies. the digital world in which we now live, mr. president, has changed dramatically the way that we retrieve information, communicate with one another and engage in commerce.

technological advances have pushed our economy forward. these advancements in technology and their adoption often depend heavily on access to broadband technologies. while the telecommunications industry has flourished, boosted our economy and made critical investments in broadband deployment across the country, this administration believes that imposing additional regulations is a step in the right direction. in places across the country like my home state of south dakota, there is still work to be done when it comes to unfettered and affordable access to high-speed broadband. with the f.c.c. voting recently to reform the universal service fund to shift to a focus on broadband deployment, it seems to me that simultaneously moving forward with net neutrality regulations will have a chilling effect on this now thriving industry. we learned last week from the department of labor that the unemployment rate still hovers around 9%, mr. president. the american people want to see

federal policies that encourage innovation and spur job growth. not yet another regulatory overreach by an overzealous agency. unfortunately, the f.c.c. net neutrality policy will give considerable authority to unelected bureaucrats to decide what a company's network management should look like. the federal courts have ruled that the f.c.c. lacks the authority under the telecommunications act of 1996 to move forward with net neutrality regulations. still, the democratic appointees of the f.c.c. have persisted without regard 0 the courts to settle the political debt owed by the obama administration to responsibility groups in favor of regulating the internet. the f.c.c. and this administration must be brought into line and abide by the separation of powers. the f.c.c. must only execute the responsibilities given to it by congress and not overreach its regulatory authority. mr. president, freedom of the

internet belongs had the marketplace. not in the hands of federal regulators. the f.c.c. has moved forward to fix a problem that does not exist. mr. president, this is a solution in search of a problem. industry imposed standards and transpapersy have the capability to increase competition while more unnecessary government regulations will almost certainly have the opposite effect. and light regulatory structure, the internet has become vital to commerce in our nation's economy over the past 15 years. the internet has helped digitally shrink the distance that otherwise would inhibit the free flow of ideas, information and business transactions from one part of the world to another. the internet's adaptability and decentralized characteristics are central to that success. this federal regulatory action represents unnecessary government overreach and has the potential to seriously damage an increasingly important sector of our economy. i don't believe that the federal

government can successfully regulate network access and development without negative effects on the consumer or the industry. allowing this unnecessary regulation to move forward has the potential to stifle broadband deployment and competition which would ultimately lead to fewer choices for consumers, higher prices, and discourage innovation. i believe the net neutrality regulations if allowed to move forward will have negative effects on this industry and our economy and by encourage my colleagues, mr. president, tomorrow to support this resolution of disapproval. the economy doesn't need this, our job creators don't need this, and the millions of americans who are benefit doctoring the information revolution that's been brought about by the internet don't need this, either. this is an opportunity for us to send a little bit of a message to industry that we are -- we understand we get what they're saying about overregulation. we get that these piles of

regulations continue to drive up the cost of doing business in this country. and as my colleague, the presiding officer noted in his remarks, the need for economic certainty, businesses need to know what the rules are going to be. it seems to me at least that creating a whole set of new rules and piling new regulations on this very important medium in a way that we which we have grown commerce in this country, opened up markets across the world, created opportunities for consumers in this country to become more productive with their lives, is just -- is the absolute wrong approach at this particular point in time, particularly with the unemployment rate being what it is. we want to make it less expensive, less costly, easier for our job creators to create jobs in this country, not put unnecessary barriers and more obstacles and drive up the cost and make it more difficult for people in this country to create jobs. businesses are looking for economic uncertainty, they're

looking to washington, d.c. for policies that will lessen the impediments and the number of obstacles to job creation in this country. and i also want to mention in that vein, mr. president, that earlier today i introduced a piece of legislation called the access to capital for job creators act. this bill would make it easier for small businesses to better access capital in order to expand and create jobs. if you think about the things that the job creators around the country want and need, in order for them to get that capital off the sidelines, to get out of cash and get invested again in -- and get that money back into our economy and back into creating jobs, they want to see a government that lives within its means. they want to see a government that doesn't spend money it doesn't have. so we've got to be serious about cutting spending here at the federal level and getting back to more of a historic norm when it comes to the cost of our government as a percentage of our entire economy. historically for the past 40

years that's run in the 20% to 21% range. that's what we spend on the federal government as a percentage of our entire g.d.p. now it's up in the 24% to 25% range. that means that the federal government as a percentage of our entire economy is growing relative to our private economy. we want to see the private economy grow and expand and the federal economy, mr. president, get smaller. our job creators also want to see our tax code reformed in a way that is simple, clear, and fair. and that provides the right types of incentives for them to create jobs and doesn't drive investment overseas and create jobs there as opposed to creating those jobs right here at home. so if we can get tax reform that lowers rates on individuals and businesses and broadens the tax base in this country, i think you will see an explosion of economic growth which is ultimately the best solution that we can possibly have to all the challenges, fiscal and economic challenges that our

country faces. our job creators want smart, commonsense regulations, not more and more regulation for regulation's sake which is i think what we see a lot today. we've seen bill after bill pass the house of representatives that is designed to sort of roll back the overregulation, the regulatory overreach that we've seen from this administration. many of those bills have come over here to the senate where they have died, unfortunately, but we need to be looking at these things in a way that will, again, lower the impediments, lower the barriers, lower the hurdles to job creation in this country and that's why i think smart commonsense regulations -- regulation is the way to go and to get away from the regulatory overreach that we're seeing all too much of today. we need affordable energy policies, opening up access to the vast resources that we have in this country. we need to open up markets around the world and look at ways that we can make our small

businesses create theory opportunities for them to export their products to other places around the world. but the legislation that i introduced today, mr. president, addresses yet another issue, which i think small businesses have talked about and that is access to capital. we need to better address the need for capital in order to create jobs and expand our economy. last week the house of representatives passed this very bill. it was introduced by representative kevin mccarthy and on a near unanimous vote in the house of representatives, 413-11, they passed this legislation and sent it this direction. this bill would allow small businesses to better attract capital are investors nationwide under rule 506 of regulation d of the securities act of 1933 by removing the general solicitation provision. now, that sounds like a lot of washington speak and it is. but the very simple translation of that, mr. president, is this will make it easier for small businesses to access the

much-needed capital they need to expand and grow their businesses. this provision is a roadblock in its current form for small businesses that are looking to obtain needed capital because it requires investors to have a pre-existing relationship with an scheuer or intermediary before the potential investor can be notified unregistered securities are available for sale. if you have a small business that's looking for investors unless they have a pre-existing relationship with that investor, they can't -- there's no way for them to get the message out that they are looking for capital to those with whom they don't have that kind of a relationship already in place. the provision as it currently exists severely hampers the opportunity for small businesses to obtain the needed capital from investors and as a result many businesses are limited to only the universe of investors with which they clearly have these preexisting relationships. this legislation would remove that solicitation, prohibition and allow businesses to attract

capital from accredited investors nationwide. mr. president, with unemployment at 9%, we need to pass legislation that will enable our job creators to expand and to create jobs. as i said, this bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the house of representatives. i would hope that we can do the same thing here in the united states senate and address this very fundamental need among our businesses, our small business businesses, in this country to get access to much-needed capital to expand their businesses. that along with using a commonsense approach to regulation, an approach that gets away from this massive 61,000 pages of new regulations that we've seen issued since this administration took office, to -- to tax reform that is simple, that is clear, that is fair, that provides incentives to keep jobs here at home as opposed to shipping them overseas, affordable energy policies, reducing government spending, improving export opportunities for our small

businesses -- those are the types of policies that are job creators have said that they need. we're going to have an opportunity to vote on the rollback of this net neutrality regulation and on some other regulations tomorrow that are making it more difficult, more costly for our businesses, our small businesses, to create jobs in this country. i hope that we'll -- we will see strong bipartisan support in both -- both are respect to the -- both with respect to the regulation -- or the disapproval resolution, i should say, that we're going to be voting on, on net neutrality, as well as the one on cross-state air permitting. so those are both things that i think will do a lot to make it less expensive for small businesses in this country to create jobs, and i would hope as well that we will look at other opportunities in the form of the legislation introduced by senator mccain, senator portman and others that has a whole series of the things that i just mentioned, all of which will create jobs and grow our economy, make this country more

prosperous and stronger and put us on a more sound economic and fiscal footing as we head into the days ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm here this evening to express my unwavering support for the men and women who have answered the call of duty in our military services, our guard and reserve, and for their family members whose love and steady support for them have carried our service members through challenging times and difficult missions. in honor of veterans day coming

up tomorrow and military family month, which we observe all month long this november, we need to reflect on the enormous contributions that military families have made on behalf of all of us. since september 11, the spouses, children and parents of our servicemen and women have been faced with huge demands. they have endured repeated deployments and spent many holidays and birthdays and anniversaries apart from each other. we shalwe should do everything n in our communities to help military families cope with the difficulties and stresses of these multiple deployments. i commend first lady michelle obama and dr. jill biden for their commitment to our troops' families and for their work on initiatives to address the unique challenges that military

families face in this environment. i especially appreciate the first lady's recent visit to rhode island. it provided a warm and welcome boost to military family members in my state, which has the second highest per capita national guard deployment rate of all the states. as well as a significant active-duty presence at naval station ne newport. with so many men and women leaving home to serve on multitame deployments, the strain on the family can be particularly difficult. last month, i had the privilege of meeting two extraordinary rhode island students, kathleen callahan, who goes by katie, and katelin holly, who presented a powerful and compelling message to school superintendents and educators from across rhode island who came together to

learn about how they can better respond to the particular needs of military families. these two impressive young ladies shared their personal stories and described the challenges their families faced while their parent was deployed. the event was part of a collaborative initiative to help military connected children thrive in school through deployments. i was proud to share in this joint effort with the rhode island national guard, with governor chafee, with our commissioner of education, the commanding officer of naval station newport, our military child education coalition, and my senior senator, jack reed. katie is the daughter of a national guard member. she described how her father's

deployment affected the roles in her family. like most children of deployed service members, katie assumed additional responsibilities in caring for her younger sibling and helping her mother, whom she referred to as a superwoman. together they shouldered the burden of her father's absence and kept the family intact and sound. katie described the feeling of, to use her words, "silent suffering" that can occur when military families feel isolated in civilian communities that may not completely understand what it's like when a loved one is deployed. katelin is the daughter of an active-duty member. she talked about her experience living in eight different states and attending seven different schools. katelin is a highly motivated student and she explained how

she threw herself into her school work during her father's deployment. however, she cautioned that for other students, the opposite can also occur. some students may have a lot of difficulty focusing on their school work when a parent is deployed half a world away. as katelin so well put it, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to coping with the stress of deployments. i am proud of katie and katelin for their courage, their resilience, and their powerful articulation of a message that i hope everyone hears. we owe our military families an enduring debt of gratitude for everything they have done. we should do everything we can to ensure that no family feels isolated or left out or endures

the silent suffering that katie described. i hope every american, as we approach veterans day, will actively support our military families and do what we can to make our communities more welcoming and supportive in accommodating their needs. as veterans day approaches, let's celebrate our military families and recognize their extraordinary contribution. let us thank not only our servicemen and women but also the spouses, children, and other family members that have shared in the sacrifice of military service. and we should also remember the families of our civilian and intelligence service members deployed in danger and away from their families around the world. in concluding, i'd like to also express my strong support for

the bipartisan legislation the senate is considering to boost employment opportunities for veterans. unemployment has been disproportionately high among veterans and we must act now. the last thing our returning servicemen and women need is to have to face an unemployment line. i urge my colleagues to swiftly pass this much-needed legislation which i am very proud to cosponsor. i thank the presiding officer, and i will yield the floor for the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak in support of the vow to hire heroes act of 2011, which has been offered as an amendment by my friend from montana, senator jon tester. this friday is veterans day. on this day every year, americans join together to honor the men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed for our country.

think of the work we do for our veterans. some of it is very small, small to us but not small to them. we have people call our office all the time, mr. president, when there are mess-ups with their benefits, when red tape gets in the way. i'll never forget one last year where one of the patriot guard who stands outside and holds the flag during funerals for our service members, she came to me in tears and said that her son had been badly hurt serving our country. in fact, he had lost his leg. and when he came back, he was at walter reed, he was fit with a prosthetic leg and then he came home. and when he was trying to get his benefits, he was told he couldn't get his benefits for losing his leg -- this is a true story -- because the records had been lost that showed that he lost his leg. he had no leg. we worked on it and within a week we got his benefits. and those stories are all told across the country. there is red tape. we must all help them.

but it just goes show when you see those stories, what our young soldiers are doing every single day. this also means fighting for legislation to fulfill america's promise that we will care for our soldiers when they return. when our soldiers signed up to fight for our country, there wasn't a waiting line. and when they come home to the united states of america and they need a job or they need a home or they need medical care or they need an education, there shouldn't be a waiting line in our country. yet, sadly, when you look at the past decades, too often there is. when i came into the senate, as my friend in rhode island came in, in 2006, we all remember the horror stories with our veterans health care. we remember what had happened at our medical hospitals. we remember the stories of soldiers getting lost in the cracks. and that's why we worked so hard to make sure that they got the health care that they deserve. we provided for historic funding increases to ensure top-quality

health care for america's service members and military retirees. we also passed the post-9/11 g.i. bill to expand educational benefits for veterans who have served in the past decade. but there is month work to be done -- but there is more work to be done to support our veterans. consider two shocking facts, mr. president. the unemployment rate for minnesota veterans who have served since 9/11 is nearly 23%, the third highest in the nation, yet our unemployment rate is one of the lower ones in the nation. our unemployment rate is two points better than the national average. yet for veterans, it's almost double the national average for veterans of the iraq and afghanistan wars and more than three times our state's overall unemployment rate. second fact -- an estimated 700 minimum veterans are homeless on any given night, and during the course of the year, an estimated 4,000 minnesota veterans will experience an episode of homelessness or a crisis that could lead to homelessness.

this is just not right. that's why i'm calling on my colleagues today to vote to support the vow to hire heroes act. this important bill gaze long way in providing -- bill goes a long way in providing our returning veterans the leg up they need in transitioning into the work force. to list just a few important provisions of this bill -- it encourages companies to hire unemployed veterans by offering them tax credits to do so. the bill provides employers a tax credit of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been looking for a job for more than six months, as well as a $2,400 credit for veterans who are unemployed for more than four weeks. the bill also provides employers a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job for more than six months. second, the vow act increases training for returning veterans so that by the time they step out of their uniform, they have the skills and the tools they need to get out there and market

themselves to find a job. the bill does this by making it a requirement for returning troops to participate in the transition assistance program, a job-training boot camp coordinated by the department of defense, labor, and veterans affairs that teaches veterans how to get those jobs, write those resumes, apply their military skills to civilian jobs. third, the vow act expands education benefits for older veterans, people who aren't eligible for the post-9/11 veterans g.i. bill. the bill provides 100,000 unemployed veterans of past eras and wars with additional g.i. benefits to go toward education or training programs at community colleges or technical schools. fourth, the vow act ensures that disabled veterans receive up to one year of additional vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits. and last, the vow act allows

service members to begin the federal employment process prior to separation to help them transition seamlessly into jobs at the v.a., the department of homeland security or the many other federal agencies that could use their skills and their dedication. the fact is that our returning veterans are battle tested, they are valuable to employers that can work in all kinds of fields. helping our veterans turn the skills they learned in the military into good-paying jobs not only honors our promise to support those who have sacrificed for our nation, it also helps strengthen our nation. one of my top priorities in the senate has been to cut through the red tape and streamline credentialing for service members who have achieved certain skill sets through their military training. i'm offering an amendment to the vow act that will streamline credentialing for returning military paramedics. i learned about this one time when i was driving around our state, and i met a number of those who had served in iraq and

afghanistan. they served as paramedics there. they served on the front lines. they learned incredible skills of how to save lives, yet those skills weren't all transferable into becoming paramedics once they came back to the united states, yet at the same time we have an incredible shortage of paramedics in our rural areas. so i am going to introduce this as an amendment that would fix this problem by encouraging states to give paramedics credit for the military medical training that they have received. not only does this help our veterans, it also helps relieve the shortage of emergency medical personnel in the rural areas. with commonsense solutions like these and the commonsense solutions contained in the vow act, i believe we can help our returning veterans transition into the work force, not only fulfilling our commitment to them but also helping to lift our economy. having traveled in the western part of our state in the last few weeks, i cannot tell you the number of job openings right now for welders, for tool and die,

have been at companies that literally have dozens of openings, not only starting jobs, engineers. they want this military personnel. they need to connect with them, and we need to encourage our employers to hire these veterans when they come back from serving our country. our state has always been a state that understands the debt we owe to the men and women who have served and sacrificed for us. we literally wrap our arms around those who have served. i want to end with a story from last veterans day. after doing our statewide event, i headed up to edena, minnesota, which is an area that had been torn apart, a little town, by a tornado, literally a mile ripped up. their school was destroyed, high school bleachers three blocks from where they had been. so on veterans day, they held their annual event but could no longer have it at the high school. the high school was destroyed. they could no longer have it at some of the other places they used to be. they were all in an elementary school. the entire town, all the high school kids, all the veterans

sitting on these old bleachers in that elementary school. and i got to speak there. what i will never forget is that the elementary kids sang a song that i had never heard before but i heard the melody and i remember the ken burns movie from world war ii, and it was a song from that movie, and this is what the lyrics are. they said -- "all we have been given by those who came before, the dream of a nation where freedom would endure. the work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day. what shall be our legacy, what will our children say? let them say of me i was one who believed in sharing the blessings that i received. let me know in my heart when my days are through, america, america, i gave my best to you." and that's what those elementary kids sang after their whole school had been torn apart with those veterans at their side. america, america, i gave my best to you. so i think that's what we have to remember as we approach this

vote on this vow act, this vote that to me is so simple, that we simply give a tax credit so that more employers will hire those who sacrificed for our country who gave their best for our country. that's what this vote is about. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, it seems fairly recently that this summer i came to the floor to commend the environmental protection agency for finalizing what we call the cross-state air pollution rule which limits the out-of-state pollution that one state can dump into the wind currents to drop on other states. my state, rhode island, this is

particularly important to. nearly a decade after the e.p.a. began working to address this problem of interstate air pollution, we finally had a path forward that is sensible and protective of public health. that was then. this is now. today, senator paul of kentucky proposes to halt this progress to undo that rule, put away congressional review act resolution. that resolution would, one, void the cross-state air pollution rule, and, two, bar e.p.a. permanently from ever writing a substantially similar rule. this means that e.p.a. could never use the clean air act to create a cost-effective pollution trading program to

address upwind pollution. mr. president, this hits home in my state of rhode island. rhode island has the sixth highest rate of asthma in the country. more than 11% of the people in my state suffer from this chronic disease, and many of them are children. in 2009, there were 1,750 hospital discharges in rhode island for asthma cases. those hospital stays cost about $8 million in direct medical costs, not to mention the costs of the medication or missed days of work and school. on a clear summer day in rhode island driving along sparkling narragansett bay, commuting into work, you will often hear the

warning on drive time radio, today is a bad air day in rhode island. infants, seniors, people with breathing difficulties should stay indoors today. on those days, people in those categories are forced to stay at home, missing work, missing school, missing other important activities. others even in good health are urged to avoid strenuous activities on these bad air days. these are real costs. these are costs paid in lives and reduced quality of life, in medical bills, in public services strained responding to health risks and missed days of work and school, all from pollution in our air. now, we don't know everything about the causes and cures of

asthma, but we do know one thing and that is that air pollution triggers asthma attacks, and we know that air pollution is a preventable problem. rhode island has worked hard and made great strides to reduce air pollution. we passed laws to prohibit cars and buses from idling with their engines on and to retrofit all state school buss with diesel pollution controls. we require heavy-duty vehicles used in federally funded construction projects to install diesel pollution controls, adhere to our antiidling -- anti-idling law and use only low-sulfur diesel. our transit agency voluntarily retrofitted half its bus fleet with diesel pollution control equipment. but rhode island can't solve its air pollution problem on its own. in fact, doug mcveigh who is acting as chief of rhode island's office of air resources

told me that all of rhode island's major sources of air pollution, not just power plants but any source that holds a -- quote -- major title 5 permit, all of them emit less than 3,000 tons a year of nitrogen oxide, also called nox, and sulfur dioxide, also called sox. let me repeat that. all major sources in rhode island taken together emit annually less than 3,000 tons of these two pollutants. polluters that will be subject to the cross-state air pollution rule in other states have single units that emit more than that. some of the larger coal-fired boilers may emit 10,000 to 12,000 tons of these pollutants every year, nearly four times

the pollution emitted by all rhode island major sources combined. in rhode island, we are willing to pull our weight in achieving air pollution reductions. indeed, we have done more than pull our own weight. we are pulling above our weight. but we need all states to be pulling their weight, too, to make the air safe to breathe in america from coast to coast. this year, at my request, the g.a.o. completed a report about tall smokestacks at coal power plants. the report found that in 1970, the year the clean air act was enacted, there were two what they called tall stacks, smokestacks over 500 feet in the united states, two. by 1985, there were more than 180 tall stacks. as of 2010, 284 tall smokestacks

were operating at 172 coal power plants, representing 64% of the coal-generating capacity in our country. the industry literally smokestacked its way into compliance with the clean air act. what do i mean by that? well, in the early days of the clean air act, some states allowed sources of pollution to build tall smokestacks instead of installing pollution controls. the concept was back then that pollution sent high enough into the atmosphere would be sent far away from the source and would not contribute to air pollution problems, at least in that state. well, it turns out this air pollution causes problems downwind in other states. as the g.a.o. report put it,

tall stacks generally disperse pollutants over a greater distances than shorter stacks and provide pollutants greater time to react in the atmosphere to form ozone and particulate matter. for this antiquated practice, rhode island pays the price. smokestacking instead of scrubbing is what is behind a lot of the ozone in rhode island that gives rise to those bad air days. the g.a.o. found that more than half of the boilers attached to tall stacks at coal power plants do not have a scrubber to control sulfur dioxide emissions. more than half no scrubber, just a tall smokestack to pump it out to the downwind state. nearly two-thirds of boilers connected to tall stacks do not

have post-combustion controls for nitrogen oxide. so how does it get to rhode island? as the g.a.o. concluded, in the mid-atlantic united states, the wind generally blows from west to east. ozone can travel hundreds of miles with the help of high-speed winds known as the low-level jet. this phenomenon typically occurs at night due to the ground cooling quicker than the upper atmosphere, which can allow the low-level jet to form and transport ozone and particulate matter with its high winds. this wind map shows that condition. these are all the midwestern power plants, and this is the wind that carries them down here to, among other states, rhode island. five states on this map --

ohio, pennsylvania, west virginia, illinois, and north carolina -- have been identified by e.p.a. as contributing significantly to rhode island pollution. this electricity that comes from uncontrolled power plants tied to these tall smokestacks, it might seem cheaper to consumers than a well-controlled power plant, a power plant that's scrubbed instead of smokestacking its pollution. but that is really not so. there are costs. the cost just got shifted. the lungs of children and seniors in rhode island and other downwind states pay for that cheap electricity. and frankly, truth be told, the lungs of children and seniors in many of the upwind

states are paying as well. the states upwind of rhode island are downwind of someone else. ohio and pennsylvania are upwind of rhode island, but they're downwind of other states. that's why e.p.a. is -- e.p.a.'s regulatory impact analysis determined that upstate and upwind pollution reductions from this rule will save approximately 2,309 lives in ohio, and 2,911 lives in pennsylvania every year by 2014. and prevent hundreds of heart attacks, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in those states. this rule proposed by senator paul will even -- opposed by senator paul, will even save an

estimated 1,705 lives in his home state of kentucky. every year by 2014. and it's not just lives saved. e.p.a. estimates by 2014 that the benefits from this rule will range between $110 billion and $280 billion. at the same time e.p.a. estimates that the rule will cost utilities $4.1 billion to comply in 2012, and another $.8 billion through 2014. a grand total of, what, $4.9 billion against $110 billion to $280 billion in quantifiable benefits. at the lower end of the range,

this rule generates a 22-1 ratio of benefits over costs. for every dollar in costs to the polluters who are creating this pollution to clean it up, there is $22 in benefit to the rest of the country. that's a pretty good investment and that's at the low end. at the high end, if it's $280 billion, we're talking about a 56-1 ratio of benefits over costs. we have people from polluting states to save a buck for their polluters who are running it up smokestacks instead of scrubbing their pollution, to save the buck in putting the scrubber and quit smokestacking their pollution and dumping it on rhode island and other states, they're willing to blow $56 in benefits to americans across the country, even in their states.

it doesn't make any sense. this rule, the cross-air rule, is good for public health, it is fair, there is no other way that rhode island can affect these states. we've done everything we can to clean our air. we could stop everything and we would still be a nonattainment clean air quality state because of what gets bombed this on us from other states. if we don't have e.p.a. defending us, we have no defense at all from states that choose to export their pollution rather than clean it up. and it's very, very cost-effective. better than 51 by the highest estimates. so that is why i'll be voting against senator paul's resolution to void this rule. i urge my colleagues to do the same, and i yield the floor.

i would -- withdraw and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i rise this evening to join my colleague from rhode island and those who have been to the floor throughout the day today to join

them in strong opposition to the efforts by senator paul to nullify the environmental protection agency's cross-state air pollution rule. as we've heard on the floor, his resolution would strip the e.p.a. of its authority to protect our air from certain kinds of air pollution emitted by power plants. that rule was put in place specifically to protect downwind states like new hampshire and those of us in the northeast and on the east coast from air pollution that originates from outside our borders. i am particularly concerned by the attempts to stop these protections because in new hampshire, we've been fighting for them for over a decade, and they are long overdue. clean air is a bipartisan matter for us in new hampshire. as my friend and colleague senator ayotte noted on the floor last night, in new

hampshire, we have a long bipartisan tradition of working to advance commonsense, balanced environmental protections. i couldn't agree with her more. she and i know that even if we eliminated all local sources of air pollution from within new hampshire's borders, we would still have counties in the state with unaccept -- unacceptably high levels of pollution. that's because of the overwhelming pollution that comes into new hampshire and the northeast on air currents from the midwest. in the northeast, we're considered the tailpipe for the rest of the country. that's why in 1997 when i was governor, new hampshire joined with seven other northeast states to demand that the e.p.a. begin cracking down on this transported air pollution. when new hampshire joined that effort in 1997, this is what i said about it. "when you climb mount washington

in new hampshire, and see smog that's blown in from the midwest, it's clearly time for a national crackdown on air pollution. it's time to address the major sources of pollution that are fouling our air and affecting the health of our people. we've done our part in new hampshire to cut down on emissions and it's time for the e.p.a. to get tough on major polluters upwind." i have here a picture of the white mountains, which is where mount washington is. that's the highest point in new hampshire, and actually in the whole northeast. what this picture shows very clearly is the impact of this air pollution that's coming in from upwind. so we can see these are the white mountains on a clear day, you can see beautiful blue sky, green trees, beautiful

landscape. on a hazy day, this is the impact of that smog. it looks like somebody to go a gray paint brush and painted over the white mountains in new hampshire. it's really unbelievable to me that we're here 14 years later after this action was brought in 1997 still debating transported air pollution. the time for debate is over. the quality -- the air quality improvements from this rule will benefit over 289,000 children who are at risk for asthma in new hampshire. new hampshire has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. in my state alone, air pollution is estimated to cost businesses more than 17,000 lost days of work annually due to health problems, and yet we're still hearing the same old

arguments that forcing polluters to clean up will hurt the economy. will hurt our businesses. in fact, we've got lots of research that shows that that's not true. talking points about job-killing regulations ignore the fact that in a recent economic analysis by the political economy research institute, they found that the e.p.a.'s cross-state air pollution rule and the proposed mercury rule will create 290,000 jobs per year over the next five years, in important sectors of our economy like construction, craft labor, and industrial manufacturing, and companies like thermo fisher scientific which has a plant in newington, new hampshire is the leading manufacturer of environmental monitoring commitment and a great example that good policy creates jobs right here in the united states.

by reducing air pollution, these protections are estimated to provide about $640 million in benefits to the new hampshire economy alone. nationwide, the health and environmental benefits are estimated at $120 billion to $280 billion each year. that's because when air pollution comes across our state borders, it's our new hampshire companies who are forced to make up the difference. without these rules, we have an unfair system where the burden of keeping our air clean falls disproportionately on downwind states like new hampshire. higher air pollution costs our businesses through the loss of worker productivity and greater medical expenses, and it also affects our critical tourism industry in new hampshire, which depends on the clean air of the white mountains and the health of our beautiful lakes and forests and streams.

in new hampshire, this tourism industry and the outdoor recreation economy, much like in colorado where the president's from, supports 53,000 jobs, it generates $260 million per year in sales taxes and it accounts for 8% of our state's gross domestic product. transported air pollution has a direct impact on this industry as we can see so clearly in this photograph. and on the quality of life of new hampshire's 1.3 million citizens. it's time for the e.p.a. to move forward with their cross-state air pollution rule. i urge all of my colleagues in the senate to reject this resolution by senator paul and to protect the health and welfare of all of the citizens in this country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennett: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennett: thank you, mr. president. i want to take a few minutes to talk about veterans day, an -- and important work already going on in colorado to support our returning service members and their families. this friday, veterans day, holds special significance. america's part in the war in iraq is coming to a close this year, and we have started drawing down combat troops in afghanistan. in colorado, that's going to mean about 400 fort carson soldiers come home from iraq in december lien. many of the bravest 1% of americans who should 100% -- shoulder -- shoulder 100% of the keeping our country safe

will be coming home all across the country. as they return to their families an transition to civilian life we need to make sure we're ready to make good on the promises that we've made. i ask leaders from the colorado veterans community to make recommendations for how to make colorado the best state for veterans and mill stare families to live -- military families to live and work. after months of thoughtful conversation that produced a comprehensive report called "better serving those who have served" that offers solutions on how to address the challenges facing america's veterans. a key part of this report is a new proposal to create a national veterans foundation modeled after work being done in colorado springs that enables public and private agencies to better collaborate to support veterans and military families. this week i will introduce a bill to bring that colorado-based innovation to the rest of the country. the bill would create a congressionally chartered national veterans foundation to

support communities attempting to work on a blueprint model like colorado springs. the foundation would help fill gaps in services to veterans by helping communities align and leverage their resources. i've also joined senator tester, and the presiding officer and cosponsored the vow to hire heroes act. the vow to hire heroes act does much to help veterans find good-paying jobs including providing tax incentives to businesses that hire veterans. the senate will likely be voting on this important legislation tomorrow and i urge colleagues to support its passage. and before i sit down, mr. president, i wanted to mention that two weeks ago i was down in colorado springs -- i think it was two, maybe three weeks ago, visiting fort carson. mr. bennet: and i went to see an elementary school on the post. and as a former school superintendent, i've spent a lot of times over the years in schools and tend to want to be

there when the children are there so that i can actually get a sense whether there's any learning going on. this meeting was different because it was a meeting after school, after the children had gone home. 90% of them live on the post. their entire lives have been defined by these two wars in iraq and in afghanistan. their entire lives have been defined by the deployment of one parent, in some cases two parents who've served two or three or four tours of duty on behalf of this country in iraq and afghanistan. thousands of our troops are going to be coming home over the next year and i think we need to be asking ourselves whether we really are ready to honor the commitments and promises that

we've made. as others have said tonight, when you're coming out of what is the worst economic calamity that we've faced since the great depression, we need to make sure that we're doing absolutely everything that we can for these veterans but for these people that are moms and dads of the children in elementary schools just like the one i visited all across the country. the children in this school, according to the teachers with whom i met, have faced extraordinary challenges at home as a result of all this. it's another example of the work that we should be doing together here in a bipartisan way as we ask people to serve their country in these foreign wars. and i continue to hope that at some point there's going to be a breakthrough here and we're going to get passed the partisan cartoon that we've confronted for the entire time that i've

been in the united states sena senate, get back to the work of the american people and get back to the work that will support the children in that elementary school at fort carson. and i wanted to say on this floor and for this record how grateful i am to their teachers for teaching but also for giving their senator an insight into the lives of the young people that they're serving. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from come come. come -- from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate

proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2447 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2447, an act to grant the congressional gold medal to monford point marines. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 318, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. res. 318, to authorize the printing of a revised edition of the senate rules and manual. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. bennet: mr. president, i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 319, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 319, honoring the life and legacy of joe frazier. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous

consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, november 10, 2011. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. and that following morning business, the senate proceed to the consideration of the motion to proceed to s. j. res. 27 under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: there will be two roll call votes around 12:00 noon tomorrow on motions to proceed to the joint resolution of disapproval regarding net neutrality and cross-border air pollution. there will be an additional four roll call votes around 2:30 p.m. in relation to h.r. 647, the 3%

withholding repeal act, with the veterans jobs amendment and the motion to proceed to h.r. 2354, the energy and water appropriations bill. senators should be aware that we may get consent to begin the second series of votes earlier. and, mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> josh myth as a reporter for "national journal" daily. whitest supporters say this is necessary? >> well the fcc net neutrality or open internet rules breaks down on two issues, one they say that the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate the internet in this way. and two they say these regulations are burdensome and try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, the kind of problem that if it did exist

would be handled by market forces. >> who supports keeping the fcc rules in place? >> it's largely in congress generally democrats. outside of congress a lot of public interest groups have called for both these rules and in effect stronger rules to be enacted. one is the fcc attempting to regulate with its net neutrality role and why do they contend regulations are needed? >> basically there is a concern that companies will come especially as they start to handle more and more different kinds of content on line, that they will begin to block or kind of throttle access to competitors services or other web sites. the fcc says these regulations are needed to preserve the traditionally open nature of the internet while opponents say that you know, this isn't going on right now and that this will only serve as or government

control of the internet. >> had there have been any reactions from the white house on this? >> yes. a similar resolution almost identical pass the house earlier this year. the white house at that time threatened to veto it and just earlier this week the white house also said that if this resolution passes the senate, the president obama would likely veto it as well. >> border brunt band network service provider saying about their practice? >> right now in general they denied that any kind of anti-competitive behavior is taking place and that such rules are needed. >> what are the chances this measure will advance in the senate? >> it comes down to simple math. republican backers only need a simple majority but to do that they would need to win over nine democrats are so. i talked to the senate commerce chairman jay rockefeller

yesterday who was against the resolution and he said he is hopeful that all democrats will oppose the resolution. >> again what are the chances that it will advance? >> at this point not very good. >> josh smith reports for "national journal" daily. we want to thank you for your help. >> thank you. >> here's a look at our primetime schedule in the c-span networks. >> extremism in the defense of

liberty is no vice. and let remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1954 presidential election to lyndon johnson but barry goldwater's ideas galvanized the conservative movement. the five term senator is featured this week on c-span series the contenders. from the goldwater institute in phoenix life friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

earlier today texas senator kay bailey hutchison took the floor to discuss a resolution regarding the fcc's stance on net neutrality. she offered a resolution that expresses senate disapproval of sec rules which the senate expect it to vote on tomorrow. we will also here from west virginia senator jay rockefeller. both senators are the leaders on the commerce science and transportation committee. this is 40 minutes. the >> mr. president today's debate concerns the senate joint resolution j number six. and a larger context, though, we really have been having this debate for 34 months and the theme is that the obama administration'sth relentlessim imposition of new and destructive regulations have really note help desk get into e

recoveryco and in fact i think e freezing our economy.he we have seen it with the environmental protection agency when ito tried to regulate carbs emissions and greenhouse gases the clean air act a the clean air act a purpose for which congress never intended the law to be used. we have seen it with the national mediation board when it overturned newly rulemaking toto allow unions to be formed more easily but harder to be certified. we have seen up at the nationalt relations board when it took thk shocking step of challengingion boeing's decision to create newg jobs by building a new factory in south carolina, simply because south carolina is a right-to-work state. today's issue involves bureaucratic overreach into a

symbol of american innovation and creativity.the the internet. - because the federal communications commission has now decided to regulate the internet.inteet last. december, three fcc commissioners on a partyline vote voted to impose rules that restrict how internet service providers offer broadbandnd services to consumers. these rules known as neton neutrality, impose 19th century style monopoly regulations on the mostnd competitive and important job creating engines arein the 21st century, the internet.ing this marks a reversal from the hands-off approach to the internet that federal policymakers have taken for more than a decade.ast 20 during the last 20 years, the internet has grown andnd flourished without burdensome regulations imposed by washington.tren powered by the strength of

free-market forces the internetn has run an open platform for innovation, spurring business m development and much-needed job creation. the former democratic fcc chairman, william kennard, dated in 1999, the fertile fields of innovation across theio communications are and around the country are blooming because, from the get-go, we have taken a deep regulatory competitive o approach to our communications structure, especially the internet. now, the present fcc inhat ha reversing a policys that has ben successful beyond our expectations. broadband internet network has powered the information and communications industries which in 2009 accounted for more than 3.5 million high-paying jobs ant about $1 trillion in economic and david the.

this industry has been an engine for major economic growth, even during these difficult times. yet, the fcc's role could severely jeopardize this industries vast potential. net neutrality is limiting how internet service providers develop and operate their product and networks. o the net neutrality order allowso the fcc to tell broadband providers what kind of business practices are reasonable and n unreasonable. the fcc however did not bother clearly defined the rules reasonable. this point is vital to understand. we are such an arbitrary butco poorly definedmp standard, companies will be forced to air on err on the side of caution. rather than risk possible punishment from the fcc, many companies will simply decide,id,

maybe we won't invest right nown in new technology. maybe it is too risky to develop and deploy new services. at the very least, it will delay such investments. this kind of regulatory uncertainty will be crippling for companies and particularly small providers. we have heard exactly that fromr a small wireless internet provider in wyoming. this is a provider that is serving remote areas and trying to expand to other unserved areas. lariat testified before congress that these fcc regulations are already harming its ability to attract investors, grow its business, hire more workers and serve new customers. forcing broadband companies to ask the government for mov permission before moving forward is exactly what we should try to avoid when reviving our economyt

this fcc regime will lead to ine stagnation and internet innovation inno the united stat, placing a us at a disadvantage against overseas competitors who are not burdened to similar rules. or over internet providerswi wil end up spending resources on lawyers r and lobbyists in order to comply with the fcc's rules dollars in interdiction. small companies will find it nag even moreat expensive to navigae washington d.c.. w't this certainly won't help consumers, particularly in. [roll call] areas and will only increase th cost they have to bear. before forced on american r businesses, it's the governments responsibility to clearly show one, there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed.ddred that should be for. most. wi with the fcc taking such a large departure from the fcc's previous light touch approach,

one might think the fcc could point to a long list of net prom neutrality violations and problems that need to beo fixe. that is not the case here. in a 134 page regulatory order, the fcc spent only three paragraphs attempting to catalogue alleged instances of misconduct. w and within those three shortit paragraphs, every alleged problem was addressed. under the fcc's existing rules. , if not it was fixed by the provider under pressure from the public or in a competitive marketplace, where it should her fixed.miss as formerr fcc commissioner meredith baker noted in heratem statement dissenting from the fcc's net neutrality order, the commission she said was unable to identify a single ongoing

practice of a single broadband provider that it finds problematic upon which to base this action. sim to put it simply, the fcc has issued new rules without evenntn demonstrating the interdiction is actually necessary. despite protests to they contrary, these net neutralitys regulations on broadband providers clearly established the fcc as the internetgate gatekeeperke, a role for which e government is not suited. innovation does not work on a government timetable nor doesoet drive through a maze of of roadblocks. ironically, supporters of net neutrality insist that providers are the ones who may become gatekeepers of the internet.of these people say the openness of the internet is far too important to be left unprotected

by the government. pmi this is a false premise. in fact, the internet has been an open platform for innovation since its inception and it has not needed any sort of net neutrality rules from bureaucrats at the fcc.atters and to make matters worse, congress has never given the fcc the explicit authority to regulate how internet providers manage their networks. that is why the new rules represent an unprecedented powem grab by the unelected commissioners that the fcc.urre in fact, current law states and i quote, it is the policy of the united states to preserve the vibrant and competitive free pse marketnt that presently exists r the internet and other interactivtee computer servicesf unfettered by federal or state

regulations. that is the law today. the fcc has long fight in the. court. last lester the d.c. court of appeals struck down the fcc'sose 2008 attempt to impose net neutrality's in the comcast versus fcc case. th ce court ruled that the fcc h acting beyond the reach of its congressionally provided authority.autied and cautioned that regulations should the imposed only with explicit congressional delegation. this delegation that regulatory agencies cannot make policy without congressional directionw rather than back down however, . the fcc double down. the current fcc ordered tries and even more expansiveaw tha interpretation of the law than was used in the comcast case.f..

fcc commissioners and exclusively claimed the agency can impose under 706 of the telecommunicationson act. this was a section of the law that was intended to remove regulatory barriers to broadbant investments, not to raise them. at the sec's legal theory is left unchallenged the fcc will have nearly unbounded authoritye to regulate almost anything on e the internet. it is congress's role, not the fcc's to determine the proper policy framework for the internet. over time, and aided by the adm current administration, regulators throughout the government have gradually tried to take can -- increasingse control over so many facets of americanma life.

it is time for the senate to ora stop this over reach. we write the laws of this not country, not unelectedaucr bureaucrats. that is why we are here today.hr thanks to senate majority leader harry reid, former senator don nichols and of late senator tom stevens one of the rules congress has is to stop rogue agencies is the congressional rule act. review actongres allows congress to review a rule to nullify that rule if congress finds that it is c inappropriat, or if it overreaches, or if congress itself hasn't delegated this power to it agency. as senators reid nicholson stevens said at the time bill's review gives the public theal opportunity to call theof attention of politicallycountabe

accountable elected officials to if these concerns are sufficiently serious, congress can stop the rule. we believe the concerns about n the fcc's net neutrality rules are sufficiently serious to warrant the consideration of senate joint resolution 6 that gives approval resolution to senator mcconnell and i introduced to nullify. f the.c fcc's net neutrality order under the congressional review s act. we need only the senators to send this bill to the president's desk. even a net neutrality supporterw senator olympia snowe,ho who had authored net neutrality legislation asnd a co-sponsor ad supporter of our resolution today. don

while senator snowe and i don't agree on the need for net neutralityre laws, we are in complete agreement, and she stated beautifully that congress, not the fcc, should determine what the propergu regulatory framework is for thee internet. if the senate does not start nol these resolutions, they will go into effect on november 20 further jeopardize the jobs inou this fragile economy. i guess you could say that it will allow more lawyers to be hired but more innovators? probably not. mix that is not the mix we need to wish her that our economy will get a contract in this country. studies indicate that net neutrality rules couldsign significantly affect our economy.uces if net neutrality reduces capital investment in broadbandn infrastructure by even 10%, it

could cost our country hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade. we must reserve the openness oft the internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth. we must keep a competitive advantage that we have in this country for innovation.o b the last thing we have to beons doing is putting restrictions on our providers, when manyes countries who are also advancing in this area are not doing the same thing. so, when they go to global competitiveness, we are putting our companies at a a disadvanta. why would we do that? we must stop. the job-killing regulatory interference by our government m anday in so many areas and we can start right here, right now, but keeping the internet free,

voting for this resolution of disapproval and saying to the regulatory bodies in this town, congress must authorize a delegation authority for your agency to pass rules and for especially when congress is in disagreement with those rules. this is a key policy decision for ourol body. we need to step up for the responsibility that congress has. you know, our constitutionween t divided the powers between the three branches of government. if congress doesn't stand up for its one third of the powers ofon this government andt let unelected eurocrats run over our prerogatives, we will become a n our governmentome will become weaker for it. we need to have three equal

branches of government and that means each branch of government must fulfill its responsibilities under the constitution. mt congress must delegate its authority explicitly for a ruleh to be made. that is the way the constitution intended for congress to fulfill its job as the elected representative of the people of our country. the house has passed this. resolution. i hope the senate will tomorroww i hope that people the people will speakil and say, even if yu disagree on the basic issue of net neutrality, that it is notf their bride of the fcc to pass such sweeping regulations thatec will affect the economy of thisx

countryic without explicit authority from congress which it does not have. thank you mr. president and i would like to just ask my colleagues to come to the floors if they want to speak onpe this amendment or this resolution. there are four hours equally te divided and theis time is nowsou running,ld so i would say to my republican colleagues, we have quite a list of those who want to speak. they must know that the time will run out in about 3.5 hoursk now, so i asked them to contact speak. yie tsh to thank you mr. president and i yield thehe floor. gre >> the senior senator from the great state of west virginia. >> mr. president i rise today te oppose the senate jointluti n resolution number six, theht uer resolution brought under the congressional review act about

which i would like to talk, tohe disapprove the federal communications fcc's open.c.' internet rules, such as they o are. americans want the internet to be free and open and they want to go where they they want to see what they want. to see and they want to do what they want to do on the internett they don't want to have somebody blocking them. they don't want to have to be a gatekeepers. they wanted to be a nice, opende forum for them.yhe they care about the internet. everybody uses the internet.o they want to be able to develop new businesses. they want to read. they want to watch video. they want to reach out to friends and family and the community.unity. they want to do it on line.ey w and they want to do all of these things on the internet. without having to ask permission from their broadband provider. the fcc has promulgated balanced

rules that let americans do all of these things, and keep the internet open and which keep the internet free. so let us be clear from the outset, no matter how s.j. res m six is dressed up in language will promote open and freedom it will not do that.ill prom it will not do that. the resolution is misguided. it will add uncertainty in fact into the economy. itl will hinder small businesses dependent on theirai broadband access or otherwise they might be put in a slower lane. a they don't want to be in the slower lane. they want to be in the fast wan lane. they want to deal to compete with otherla parts of the counth it will in fact undermine innovation, this resolution. it will hamper investment in thi digital congress -- commerce and imperiled the freedom that has been the hallmark of the

internet from the very start. the fcc's rules were a product of very hard work and consensus and compromise.nsus the agency had extensive input from stakeholdersnd from all age quarters thanct they opened up t said no. send in your comments. in fact they had written more than 100,000 commentators of. about 90% of those filings whoin did that supported best supported adoption of open internet rules, open internet rules.f on top of this the rules are on based on widely accepted openpri internet principles which were first articulated during the bush administration, the second bush administration. these rules to three basic things mr. president. first they impose a transparency obligation on per and internet service. this meansse that all broadband

providers are required to disclose to accurate information regarding the network management practices. second, the rules prohibit fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, from blocking applications andnd services and devices. this means m conservators and innovators will continue to send and receive lawful internet with mobile broadband service providers subjected to a morea e limited set of prohibitions and i will speak about that and a moment. third, the rules aim to ensureai that the internet remains a levelns playing field by prohibiting fixed broadband from providers from unreasonably discriminating and transmitting lawful network traffic which they have done.fi finally, the rules are meant to

apply with a complementary principle of reasonable network management. which provides broadband providers the flexibility to address congestion or traffic that is harmful to the network. th these arese the principles i believe everyone can support. i see nothing wrong with that. t they reared reasonable somehowtc doesn't scare me. maybe may be issued but it just doesn't so i ask my colleagues what is wrong with transparency? what's wrong with that?at why would we want to promote internet walking or discrimination? why would we want to have someat people on the fast line and some people in the slope and depending on whether you pay your internet provider are not enough money? unrsos unreasonable about reasonable network management? i believe the fcc's effort along with the ongoing oversight enforcement will protect consumers and i believe will wil provide companies with the certainty that they need to make

investments in our growing l economy.ha many champions of the open internet would have preferred a strict your decision. ie am one of them. i myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband.e i think the fcc's decision was nevertheless a meaningful step forward and in a moment i will talk about other people who feek the same. supporters of the joint resolution they'll do it dollars that the fcc's open internet f rules have received overwhelming support r from broadband internt service providers consumers and public groups labored unions as well as high-techon companies. c a tnt ceo randall stephenson stated earlier this year thatst while he wanted in fact no regulations, the fcc's open internet order he said and didae add a place where we have a line

of sight and we know and can time warner cable said that the time of the orders release that the rules adopted and they said about that, they appear to reflect a workable balance between protecting consumer interest in preservingte incentivesre for investment and innovation by broadband internet service providers. p numerous analyst for major investment banks have found that the open internet orders tothey remove what they regulatory overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on on investment. f google, facebook, twitter, skype ebay, skype and other leaders of innovation all urged the fcc to adopt common sense baselinene rules were there words. critical to ensuring that the

internet reminds a key engine of economic growth innovation and global competitiveness. thereom are more than 150 organizations who wrote congress to oppose this joint resolution. i hate doing this. i hate reading list. but i'm going to do it anyway. the communication workers of america, the afl-cio afl-cio the naacp the united states congress of catholic bishops the americao library session, the leadershipn conference on civil and human rights, the league of united t latin american citizens, the national organization for women and technet. a lot of folks from technet.leer mr. president i have their letters here and i would ask that they be added to theo the congressional record at theobjeo appropriate place. >> without objection. >> to be sure there are those th who disagree with the fcc's open

internet rules, and there is an avenue for these complaints. that is called the judicialsing system. some are using it. two companies have filed lawsuits claiming the fcc went r too far. several public-interest groupssg have filed lawsuits claiming the fcc did not go far enough.thei well it is their legal right to go to the courts and when theyca choose to do that they can do'sk that. so a let's think for a minute wt a world would look like without a free and open internet. in a world without free and open internet consumers and entrepreneurs would have no transparency as to how their h broadband provider manages itsly network. to no ability to make informed decisions about theirfo broad aa provider. in a world without a free and open internet there would be nothing to prevent youroa broadband provider from steering you only to his preferred web

sites and services, limiting their choice as a consumer. a if you are a rural american, broadband internet access has the powerwe to erase distances d allows you to have the same accesso to shopping, educationt matters and opportunities as those living in urban areas. that is a time honored visible around here. sitth but, not if the web site you seek to access is blocked by your broadband provider. consumers, entrepreneurs and small businesses need the certainty that they can access web sites of their choice when they want, period. in a world without a free andt,e open internet, there would bebad nothing to stop broadband providersin from blocking accesr to web sites that offer products that compete with those of itstt affiliates. a world

that happens mr. president. in a world without a free and open internet, companies could pay internet providers to guarantee their web sites openha more quickly than their competitors. a now, in a world without free and open internet, companies could i payde to make sure their on line sales are processed more quickly than their competitors with lower prices. well, that is not the americanpl way and it is particularly disturbing in tough times like these.ut a f in a world without a free and open internet, there would besev nothing to prevenet internet service providers from charging users a premium in order to o oi guaranteone operation in the "ft lane.ou'rtr if you are trying to start aglin small business, struggling toano make ends meet and cannot afford to pay the toll, you run the b risk of being left in the slown.

lane. that's not good. within the year your internettht service, that's not rightmpet either. unable to compete with larger companies. that is very wrong. and if you are an innovator or a startup company and you have the next big idea? com with broadband the next big idea does not have suburban garage or the silicon a valley.it can i c can come from rural eric. it can come from anywhere. a free and open internet is all that is required to give that big idea eight global reach. in a world without a free and a open internet, thebi ability of the next revolutionary idea to reach others, to make it to the greater marketplace would be entirely dependent on a handfult ofre broadband gatekeepers and toll collectors. now i am not totally opposed to

the congressional review act but i have got to say mr. president- it's extraordinarily blunt instruments. it means that all of the rules adopted by the fcc must be overturned at once.e. this would even mean tossing in commonsense provisions about transparency. do our opponents know this? a it would divide the agency the power to protect consumers. do our opponents know this?n all what is the sense in all of that? i don't get it. and there is another part that, if they take out what you are doing through s. res. six wereve to pass and they just took these rules out, you couldn't kind ofu cut fat and later just had the fcc put them in.e to you'd have to go through a whole legislative process to reinsert them into the public law, which means many of them would never end up there. t

i also want to address the argument of supporters of the joint resolution that the fcc's open rules was sometimes stifle innovation in the internet economy. w that is just so wrong i don'tovr know what to say. 1 over the past 15 years, it isneh the internet that has been thegt greatest engine for the u.s. economy are good leaves everything in his dust. more than 3 million jobs as aopu senator from texasnt indicator. the open internet rules will help sustainin this growth. rul people have to want to know what the rules of the road are. they want to know what the world is bringing for them and if they decide that they don't like what is coming, they are going to tell youu and they are not going to invest.y very simple. hil according to consultancy open internet at echo system which led to the creation of 1.8 million jobs related to applications in e-commerce ander is as well 1.2 million jobs

related to infrastructure. reinvestment innovation hasnued continued to increase its adoption atsi the fcc's open.c.s internet rules. not decrease, as the supporters of thiors resolution will tell you. the facts show that in b broadband, the investment in broadband networks increase in the first halfed of 2011. in fact investment in networks that support broadband was more than 10% higher in the first half of 2011 than in the first half of 2010. i more of that investment in internet companies surged in 2011. this is after they sort of adjusted and had taken into account what they saw coming in the way of the rules. there was a $2.3 billionstme

investment going into 275 companies in the second quarter. all of this internet type. that is the most invested in internet come pennies in a decade.plusho plus certainly after the frame markers adopted america's leading wireless providers announced they were accelerating their deployment of their 4g networks. it seems that the new open internet rules are giving broadband providers announced her burners the certainty thatnv they need to invest in to create jobs. certainty is the key. i they're not going to investnv in what they don't know. that we see that in so many other areas. they don't know what is going to happens they don't invest. people have all this cash. here they have certainty andthe they understand that certainty and understand what is coming and they like it and they are investing like never before. the fcc's open internet rules

also protect small businesses. as estimated, about 20,000 small businesses operate on the internet. more than 600,000 americans have part or full-time businesses ons ebay alone. that. f.c.'are ofin the fcc's open internet rules sa mean that small entrepreneurs will noteu have to seek permissi from broadband providers to reach new markets and consumers with innovative products and services. a this is a very important point. it means that small businesses can be located anywhere in this, country, including rural america and threw open broadband having the opportunity for their idease and products and services to have a global reach. that's the point of all of this and as we all know smallly business is responsible for 65% of new jobs over the last 15re years.

far from preventing investment the fcc's open internet rules will foster small businesses because they see it, they see what moody's is saying about it. they see what the wall street investment bankers are sayingar about it. i they t see it is encouraging investment. inv they like that.eshat,he they trust that in so they take risks that they might otherwise not take because they trust. bau it's not the baseless federal it bureaucrat. is something that is down oncrat paper and they. understand ander theyst have seen it and probably commented on it for maybe some of them didn't like it as muchsu as they should have. somebody should have been stronger in some but it should be weaker. such is life in america. so anyway, i think what they conclude is what is going on is supporting what they are doing.i finally, i want to know that when it comes to education and privacy and intellectual property, global intranet

governance or network security, the government has long provided and necessarily so reasonable rules of the road to make possible consumer protection, fair trade and open markets. the fcc's open and rules are no different. they take as has been quoted b y many a light touch approach. i like that phrase. and keep the playing field faira they keep the internet open and free for consumers, for businesses and everyone in this country who wants access toerne. broadband internet.sident so that is why mr. president i a support the fcc open internet rules and i encouraged my colleagues to vote yes on the joint resolution.

>> extremism in the defense of liberty is no why is. and let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

>> are we still as the united states government or defense department are we still doing business with these people? >> the part that we have in purchasing as part of this ongoing investigation are rare, hard hard to find and obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons

systems. the internet purchasing platforms demonstrate that contractors or subcontractors that are in need of these hard-to-find, rare obsolete parts have an outlet through the purchasing platforms to acquire these parts. a concern though is that the intent to deceive certainly exists. >> are we still purchasing sir? i just asked a very simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from these counterfeiters who are putting out inferior products? >> the internet trading platforms and 40 million to 60 million line items and parts purchased on a regular basis, you sir.

president obama today aims to cut waste and promote more efficient spending across the federal government. overall spending in the areas covered by the executive order will be reduced by 20%. this is five minutes. >> from the day i took office, one of this commitments that i made to the american people was that we would do a better job here in washington in brooding out wasteful spending at a time when families have had to cut that and have had to make tough decisions about getting rid of things that they don't use in order to make the investments that they do, we thought it was entirely appropriate for our government and our agencies to try to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way. obviously, this is even more important given the deficits we

have inherited and that have grown as a consequence of this recession. this makes these efforts even more imperative. now this doesn't mean making some tough choices. it means cutting some programs that i think are worthy but we may not be able to afford right now. a lot of the action that is in congress and legislative and budget. i know the joint committee on trying to reduce our deficits are engaged in a very difficult conversation right now and we want to encourage them to complete their work. but in the meantime, we don't need to wait for congress in order to do something about wasteful spending that's out there. cutting waste, making government more efficient is something that leaders in both parties have worked don, from senator tom coburn, a republican to democrat claire mccaskill. we haven't seen as much action

of congress as we'd like and that is why be launched our initiative the campaign to cut waste. not just to cut spending but to make government work debtor for the mac and people. for example we have identified thousands of government told things that we don't need. some have said empty for years. so were getting rid of those properties and that is going to save the mac and people billions of dollars. as part of this campaign i've also asked federal employees to do their part in share their ideas on making government more efficient and more effective in two of them are here today. i want to introduce them. roger road smack works at the department of commerce. raise your hand, roger. he found a way to save the department almost $2 million a year on its cell phone bills and i'm sure that there probably are some consumers out there that would like to talk him out of it. celeste steele is here. celeste, raise your hand. celeste works at the department of homeland security and she is

helping to save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by changing the way the department vies goods and services. so we received nearly 20,000 suggestions from federal employees. i just completed a videoconference with the four finalists of our annual save award. 20,000 submissions of ideas from federal employees about how we can reduce waste, eliminate duplication, redundancy paperwork, and these four finalists have some terrific ideas, putting books that had been ordered every year on line instead of continuing to encourage the shipping costs, to having a tool library over at nasa so that instead of buying very specialized tools over and over again were different projects, we actually keep an inventory of those tools. in addition to soliciting ideas from federal employees i've also

asked vice president biden to work with the secretaries of all of our agencies to identify some systemic areas of attentional improvement, travel, transportation, i.t. services, all of which we know can save us potentially billions of dollars. in september joe convened the cabinet and has really pushed them hard and finding the savings across all our agencies. so today i'm signing an executive order that olds on their good work. directs agencies to/spending in these areas, travel, printing, i.t., because we believe that we can get debtor results for less using technology. and overall spending in the area covered by this executive order will shrink by 20%. members of my cabinet will keep reporting on their progress to

joe biden, and ultimately to me. we are going to hold them accountable for meeting this 20% reduction goal. these are important steps they can save taxpayers billions of dollars over the next several years. it doesn't replace the importance of the work that congress needs to do in coming up with a talents, bold plan to reduce our deficit, but it indicates once again that there are things that we can do right now that will actually deliver better government more efficiently, more consumer friendly for less money. and were going to keep on finding every possible way that we can do that even if congress is not acting. so with that i'm going to sign the bill and i want to thank all the officials who are behind me here today for taking this project so seriously. there you go. thank you very