or whether the language might change at the last minute, but it would enshrine in our constitution a disciplinary mechanism to reduce the budget deficit. this has been brought before the senate and house before many times. this particular approach requires that in each fiscal year, federal outlays shall not exceed receipts unless two-thirds of each house votes to waive. it caps the outlay unless two-thirds of each house votes to waive. requires a three-fifths vote in each house for raising the debt limit, allows for waiver of the amendment in times of declared war or serious military conflict. prohibits courts from ordering any increase in revenue to enforce the amendment. directs congress to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. takes effect five years after ratification. this is far more extreme than

the clean house balanced budget amendment which failed to pass in that chamber on november 18. the testimony before our subcommittee from experts in the field said that this amendment proposed by senators hatch and mcconnell will require draconian cuts in social security, medicare, medicaid, our military retirement system, and many programs important to working families. it will make republican fiscal policies the constitutional law of the land, giving protection to those in higher income categories from any tax increase forever, without an extraordinary vote in either house. it would delegate the task of resolving budget disputes to our court system. it would make recessions worse by requiring cuts in the countercyclical safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment just at the time when those expenditures are most needed. it would increase the likelihood

of debt limit standoffs each years and lead to increased burdens on our state. during the course of the hearing several people came forward to testify. i'm going to ask consent that their statements be made part of the "congressional record" so my colleagues can have access to them. first was robert green stein president of the center on budget and policy priorities. mr. greenstein, who is recognized and respected on kphreul spoke about the counter-- on capitol hill spoke about the countercyclical aspect and said you won't have the resources you need to provide unemployment and food stamps. i ask consent that mr. greenstein's statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: the other testimony that i thought was extremely compelling came from alan morrison. alan morrison is an accomplished attorney and has argued many

cases before the u.s. supreme court. he's the learner family associate dean for public service at george washington university law school. mr. morrison really asked us to think through what we were doing. in fact, he asked us the most important question: if you put an amendment in the constitution which requires a balanced budget, who will enforce it? who will make it work? who will decide if you have lived up to its terms? he concluded, based on his background in constitutional law arguing before the supreme court, that not the president. the president's not in that position to do it. the president, of course, with his budget has his own favorites when it comes to spending and revenue. he said this case ultimately has to find its way to our court system. but he made it clear that any constitutional balanced budget amendment must expressly give to the federal courts the standing

to decide the question. he raised a question that without that expressed language, he really was doubtful that the courts would take it up. they might view it as just a political question to be resolved by congress itself. senator lee who spoke on the floor earlier has a version of the balanced budget amendment which expressly gives standing to members of congress and others, if i'm not mistaken. but the point made by professor morrison is any balanced budget amendment has to expressly give to our federal court system the power of judicial review. in other words, who is going to call the fouls, the balls and the strikes and the outs? it's going to have to be the court system when it comes to whether the balanced budget amendment is being complied with. that's the first question. but certainly not the last question. professor morrison then went on to say, now put this in the real world. the real world where congress

has passed a budget, appropriations bills and now someone is arguing that what congress did does not comply with the new provision of the constitution requiring a balanced budget. arguing that in fact congress is overspending the amount that it's allowed to spend, for example. then, of course, that case has to find itself -- find its way, rather, from the capitol building to the president who signed the bill and then over to the court system. keep in mind while we are in doubt about the outcome on appropriations bills and the budget, there is a serious question about how we will continue to fund our government, whether we can continue to make important payments to military retirees, social security recipients, medicare recipients. all of it is in doubt while there is a question raised as to whether or not the budget passed by the congress is

unconstitutional. this is the thicket that we're being led into by those who very glibly say all we need to do is mandate in the constitution a balanced budget and it will just flow naturally from that mandate. well, listen to what professor morrison said. "the federal courts will rightly be extremely reluctant to wait until these budget battles and thus will want to be sure there's a likely a violation before agreeing to decide it on its merits. but budgets are inherently uncertain in their impact. depending on factors as such as whether revenue targets are met, whether the demand for enstaoeuplts higher or lower than anticipated, whether discretionary spending is fully realize, whether an existing war winds down or new one starts, each one with great uncertainties accompanying them. it will be far from clear on october 1 of a given fiscal year whether a duly enacted budget will or will not be balanced assuming that the question is

reasonably close and is likely to be in some years. unless congress makes it clear either in the constitutional amendment or perhaps by subsequent legislation that the court should resolve all doubts in favor of finding claims right, the courts are likely to be reluctant to reach the merits even for those persons who are expressly given standing in the amendment." and then, of course, is the question of a remedy. what if congress passes a budget and appropriations bills, the president signs them and they're challenged in court, and the court says yes, in fact, congress has overspent beyond the requirements of the constitution. what's next? what remedy would the courts order? what can the court do? can it order the recipients of salaries, social security benefits, medicare payments, payments under government contracts to pay back a certain percentage? can it order congress to rectify the balance in next year's

budget, which would certainly trigger a new lawsuit? to be sure, the court will not dismiss as moot claims that are capable of repetition. yet, a vague review because the duration of the violation is so limited, the courts cannot decide its legality before it ceased. professor morrison asked us to get beyond the bumper stickers and to think twice before we amend our constitution. madam president, in over 200 years since the enactment of the bill of rights, we have amended this constitution precious few times. we have done it for compelling national reasons. we have done it to extend the right to vote to women. we have done it to make it clear that african-americans treated as slaves would be treated as citizens in the united states. we have done it to deal with questions of presidential disability and succession. these are the things which were

compelling, major national issues which could be resolved in a clear, definitive way by our congress working with the states for ratification. now comes the flavor of the day. in the midst of the deficit crisis debate, there are those who are arguing we shouldn't accept our responsibility in the senate and the house to balance the budget. no. we should just put in the constitution that we're required to do it. and then they go further. if we're going to address it, they say, we're going to draw certain lines that future congresses forever, as long as this constitutional amendment applies, will be bound by, to make it more difficult to raise taxes on anyone in the united states, to make it imperative, if not mandatory, that cuts be made in programs like social security and medicare. these are questions that should be decided by congress and the president on a timely basis. i've been involved in the past two years with a lot of debate about our national budget

deficit both on the simpson-bowles commission and with voluntary effort by six democratic, republican senators. it's not easy. it's very hard. but it can be done if the political will is thr-fplt i think we need to summon the courage, political courage and the will to do it, but we should reject, summarily reject these toefrts amend our constitution. they are -- these efforts to amend our constitution. they are not well thought out. the constitution is too important a document, an historical guidepost for our nation and an inspiration for nations around the world to put in a fatally flawed balanced budget constitutional amendment in the heat of the moment. this is a significant vote. those of us -- and that includes every single member of the senate -- who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution need to take that document very, very seriously. those who want to amend it in quick fashion, changing their amendment language by the day should be dismissed.

if they do not show the reverence for this document that it deserves, if they don't take the time to make certain that their proposals are consistent with the sanctity and importance of this document, they should not be taken seriously. i don't believe any of my colleagues can go home having voted for that amendment and expect wild applause from audiences across america. they will understand that this was just a political reaction to a very important issue. let us not amend the constitution with a balanced budget amendment. madam president, i'd like to make one brief remark. i see the senator from ohio here. to be placed in a separate part of the record, with the consent of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, holiday season is upon us and a lot of us are thinking about our families and we're thinking about being with them as quickly as we can. it's the time of year when it's, has a special significance for so many of us. but what was made clear by president obama yesterday and my

colleagues should take note of, we're not going home for christmas, hopb kau or any -- hanukkah or any holiday season until we've done our job for people across this country. millions of people in illinois and across america are counting on congress to extend the payroll tax cut. what does it mean to my state? average income of $50,000 a year. it's worth more than $1,000 a year to those families. it's worth about $125 to $150 a month to have a payroll tax cut, money that working families struggling from paycheck to paycheck desperately need to fill the gas tank, to pay the utility bills, to provide clothing for the kids, to make sure you can stay in your home. these are the basics. no member of congress is going to be allowed to go home and ignore the imposition of such a new payroll tax on america. president obama met with the democratic leaders of the senate yesterday, and he said point-blank he's tolded first

lady, michelle, and his girls that if necessary they can have their christmas vacation in hawaii which they go to each year by themselves. and he will wait here until this job is done. i hope that doesn't happen for his family or for the sake of any family of any member of congress. but in order to avoid that, we have to do the right and responsible thing. this afternoon there will be a vote, the payroll tax cut offered by senator casey of pennsylvania. it's a payroll tax cut which would help millions of america's working families have more to spend and help the economy to recover. and he pays for it. he doesn't add to the deficit. he pays for it by imposing a surtax -- and listen closely -- the second million dollars earned by a person in a year. not the first million. you don't pay a penny on the first million you earn. on the second million you'll pay a surtax. i think it's 2%, maybe less. the republicans have said absolutely unacceptable.

we will not allow you to impose this onerous tax on these people. people who are already making $20,000 a week, we can't ask them to pay 2% more on the next dollar they make? i don't think it's unreasonable. and if it leads to a payroll tax cut that helps families across this country, if the economy continues to recover even at a faster pace, if we see more business activity and business life and more people working, you know what's going to happen? those same wealthy people will prosper again, as they always do. it's in their best interest for this economy to get well and for our republican friends to fold their arms and say we're just not going to let you touch the wealthiest people in america is an irresponsible position. senator casey has led this effort. it's the second effort we've made. we had one last week. republicans offered their alternative last week. it had 20 votes on the floor of

the senate. 20 out of 43 republican senators, 20 voted for it. they want to bring it up again today. they'll probably get more than 20 votes this time, but it's pretty clear that the republican senators are halfhearted in their support of this republican alternative. one republican senator from maine had the courage to step across the aisle last week and join us. we salute senator collins for doing that. we hope others will do it today. we can bring this challenge to a close the right way by extending the payroll tax cut, paying for it with a tax on the wealthiest people in america. we can do our job and go home and be with our families. if republicans won't come to the table to work with us on a reasonable compromise, i'm afraid the american people will know very clearly who is to blame for cutting the payroll tax on -- i should say, continuing a tax on working

families across america. the facts are that we want working americans to have a good year, get through a difficult time and the economy to recover. we should be doing this on a bipartisan basis. and what the president has is, you know, roll out your christmas trees and blankets here in the senate because you're going to stay here even through the holidays, if necessary. we are not going to go home to celebrate until we can celebrate with american families who are counting on us across america. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i go home every weekend back to northeast ohio, where i live, and and a town cd avon in lorain county. and i want to go home at christmas and i want to be with my three-year-old grandson and my daughters, three daughters and son, but i also think our obligation, as senator durbin said, as the assistant majority leader, is to stay here and get our work done. and get our work done means

eextend this payroll tax cut and extend unemployment benefits. if we don't do that, ruining -- frankly, ruining the holiday season for tens of thousands -- tens and dozens of tens of thousands, if you will, ohio ains and illinoisans and north carolinians. if we don't do that, we don't deserve to be able to go home and be with our families. i'm not trying to be a march fur here but i just think it's shameful if a group of people, in order to protect the highes highest-income taxpayers in this country -- those making over a million dollars a year -- continue to block an extension, continuation, if you will, of this tax cut for -- for working families. in my state, the average tax cut that we will vote for today and continue until it happens is about $100, $110, $120 per family per month, and it's absolutely unconscionable not to

do that. now, senator durbin also talked about the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. i want to recount something i heard earlier today on the senate floor. two of my conservative colleagues from kentucky -- one from kentucky, one from utah, spoke about the importance of a balanced budget amendment. i've supported balanced budget amendments in the past. when i was in the house of representatives, i've actually -- and here. i've actually voted -- it was part of an effort to get us to a balance or a balanced budget in reality in the 1990's so when president bush took office, we had the largest budget surplus. we balanced the budget and then some, had the largest budget surplus in american history. i was part of that. i was proud of that. we accomplished what we set out to do. we accomplished what we said we would and we accomplished something i think very important for our country. it was then in the first years of the last decade, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, that -- that we went to war and didn't -- two

wars, afghanistan and iraq, didn't pay for them. the president pushed through -- president bush in those days pushed through two tax cuts, one in 2001, one in 2003 that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest americans without paying for it, without offset cuts or other taxes, and then president bush also pushed through in a very, very close middle-of-the-night vote in the house of representatives by i believe one vote or two votes medicare privatization bill that basically was a bailout for the drug companies and the insurance companies and didn't pay for that. that's why we got to this situation. situation, unfortunately, where we've had this budget -- this terrible budget problem. now, but what i wanted to address, madam president, is what -- what the solution of a couple of my colleagues seems to be. there -- there -- to their minds there, seem to be sort of a moral equivalence of on the one hand protecting -- on the one

hand asking millionaires, people making a million dollars and up, to pay their fair share and making medicare beneficiaries take -- and social security beneficiaries taking big cuts. so -- and so i heard those -- my two colleagues basically say this, that if the american -- if the democrats were serious about moving towards a balanced budget -- and again, 15 years ago, we did it. we absolutely did it with president clinton, got to a balanced budget, got to a surplus. and they said if the democrats are serious about that, they'll raise the retirement age for social security and they'll raise the eligibility age for medicare. let me tell you why that's a bad thing, madam president. i was in youngstown not too long ago and at a town hall meeting and a 63-year-old woman stood up and said -- 62, 63 years old, she said, i'm a couple -- i just need -- she said, i just need to stay -- i just need to stay healthy and stay alive until i'm 65 so i have health insurance. i need to be able to stay alive for another couple of years so i

can get on medicare and have health insurance. imagine living your life that way, when you're thinking, you know, i just got to stay alive until i'm 65. then i'll have good government medicare health insurance. and so some people here are saying well, tough luck, we're going to have to raise the eligibility age to medicare to 66, 67, 68, whatever my very conservative colleagues are proposing from -- from utah and from kentucky, raise the eligibility age for medicare as if that's going to make them better. and, you know, when you think about it, if -- i want 62-year-olds -- it's one reason we passed the health care bill -- i want 62-year-olds to have health insurance. one, it's good for them. second, it's way better for the country, including taxpayers, that they get health care before they get sicker and sicker and sicker and end up in the emergency room or end up with cobbled together health care that takes -- that's much -- that's much more -- much more expensive, let alone what it

does to this lady and her family. the second thing they proposed is to raise the eligibility age for social security. now, it's easy for people around here, madam president, that dress like this, that for all intents and purposes talk for a living and -- and work hard at what we do but talk for a living and work in offices and, you know, don't do heavy lifting and aren't exposed to the elements and all that. it's easy for to us say, let's raise the social security age to 70 because, you know, god willing, we'll still be here if the voters vote us in and we can keep doing this and we're pretty -- most of us are pretty healthy and don't have -- don't work around asbestos and aren't doing heavy lifting and aren't working in the snow and the rain and the heat. well, you know, when i think about raising the retirement age to 70, here's who i think about. i think about construction workers and i think about women that cut hair and i think about somebody that works in a -- a waitress that works in a diner, or i think about somebody that works in a factory in -- in

brunswick, ohio, and i think about people that walk the floors in retail. and we're going to tell them, we, who dress like this, we who have jobs like this are going to tell those constituents -- and there are millions in my state and tens and tens and tens of millions around the country -- working-class citizens of this country that simply can't work until they're 70. if you're cutting hair, if you're changing sheets in a hotel, i mean, cleaning out bathrooms in a hotel, if you're working -- if you're working as a carpenter or a laborer or a sheet metal worker, if you're working as an auto worker or steelworker or nonunion in a tool and dye or a machine shop, you probably can't work until you're 70. your body just probably won't be able to function in the workplace with the demands, with the physical demands and mental demands, too, now, to work in the workplace until 70. yet people here think it's okay to do that. but people here, i would add, madam president, can retire if they had 20 or 25 years in the

house and senate, can retire at 60 or 62 or whatever and get a full pension. that's why i've introduced legislation, not -- not opposed to their balanced budget amendment, although i think it's got all kinds of ways -- of -- of mechanisms in it that lock in low tax rates for the rich he is people in this country. i won't get into that. senator durbin talked about that. but i've introduced legislation that simply says if we raise the retirement age to 70, then members of congress can't retire until 70 -- can't retire with a pension until 70. why should we -- why should members of congress able to get a pension at 62 or 58 if they've served enough years but a social security beneficiary shouldn't until a decade or so later? so, madam president, it's -- it's important before -- as we talk about balancing the budget, as we talk about our fiscal situation, not to make a moral equivalence between -- between the riche richest people, riche% in this country paying their

fair share in taxes, making that a moral equivalence to social security and medicare beneficiaries pay -- having to endure significant cuts. and when you're -- you know, some people around here call medicare and social security entitlements. that's the way they can be really dismisssive. we've got to fix entitlements. well, you talk to people, you talk to a 72-year-old in dayton or 68-year-old in zanesville or an 81-year-old woman in zenia or springfield, ohio, and they will tell you oftentimes, this really isn't an entitlement, this is an investment. i paid in to social security, i paid in to medicare, i'm deserving of -- i want to make sure the government fulfills the covenant that we made over the last 75 years in the case of social security, 45 years in the case of medicare, the covenant we made between our government and the citizens of this country. that's the importance of that. and we need to think twice -- that's why my legislation was introduced, in part, that

congressmen and women can't receive a pension before the same retirement age as social security beneficiaries. we need to think twice before we're going to tell a carpenter or a barber or a retail worker or a steelworker that we're going to raise the retirement age to 70 and make them work until 70 so they can receive social security benefits. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: itiated and

unanimous consent that i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i'm coming to the floor now because i won't have an opportunity to debate on the payroll tax cut because the vote's going to be at 2:30 and that time is taken. i think it's really important for the american public to look at what's happening in washington right now. there's not a disagreement in washington about whether or not we want people to continue to receive this tax cut. the disagreement is, should it come out of social -- should we continue to undermine social security or should we do it a different way? that's number one. and, number two is if we're going to borrow $117 billion against our children knowing that we have significant waste, fraud, abuse and duplication in the federal government in excess of $350 billion a year, should we not eliminate some of that to pay for this rather than borrow the money?

and so we -- we have the posturing between the two parties based on the election that's coming to create a predicate that some people only care for the rich and some people only care for those that are less fortunate, which is all smoke and mirrors. there's unanimity that we want this to continue. and so what the american people aren't hearing is the real debate. the real debate is should we eliminate some of the waste, some of the stupidity, some of the duplication in the federal government and actually do that to be able to pay for this so that as we do this thing that we all want to do -- in other words, keep this $1,000 to $2,000 per family in the economy now -- that we don't do that by crippling the children of the very people that are in the economy. you know, it's -- you know, it's a zero sum game. somebody's going to pay the bill sometime. and if it's us that refuse to do

the hard work of ferreting out waste, duplication, fraud, then our service will have been in vain. because what we're really doing is transferring the responsibility for us today to our children. and actually it's going to come doublefold. because the way this bill is lined out is we're going to borrow the money in the market to pay for this continued decrease in social security taxes. we've already stolen $2.6 trillion from social security, congresses have, the last 20 years. and when we put -- borrow that money and put it back in, there's no reduction in what's owed, so our kids are going to actually get to pay for it twi twice. they're going to pay for it now with the new debt we're taking and the fact that that new payment wasn't recognized as a reduction in that, they're going to get to pay it again.

so it's really going to cost our children a quarter of a trillion dollars. the lack of honesty in talking plainly with the american peop people, they know we're in trouble. the question is, is will we be honest with them, treat them as adults in terms of how we go about solving the problems? and you hear the mess. the press takes advantage of that. there's not a lot of difference between what the senator just spoke in terms of protecting srchlts but the politics are around and the game playing poorly serves our country. so for all the press that's watching, we're is going to get this done. i know it's the game bloodsport that's happening right now with the politicians saying will it or won't -- the press saying will it or won't. it's going to happen. and we're going to fix unemployment so we have a continuation of that.

and the real question is, will we fix the real things that the country needs fixed? or are we just going to kick the can down the road? and what we're doing is kick the can down the road. because we won't make the tough choices to pay for it. we won't bay for the unemployment benefits -- we won't pay for the unemployment benefits. we're up to 99 weeks. that comes directly from the american taxpayer. it actually comes from the future american taxpayer. what's the game being played in washington by both sirs? trying to get an advantage in the next election as our country drowns in debt. we continue to further mortgage our children's future, and we continue to treat the american people like children rather than the adults they are. everybody knows everyone is going to have to sacrifice. everyone. does that mean we're going to

abandon the social safety net? absolutely not. does that mean the 62-year-old individual trying to get on medicare is not going to get there? no, they are. so the tactics of fear that something is not going to be there as a fiscal conservative -- constitutional conservative, i want us to fulfill the oath when we came here, which is the constitution. thomas jefferson said you should never borrow money for which you have not laid a tax to pay for it. that's the founder -- one of the founders of our country. we would do well to go back and visit the wise and prudent advice of our founders. and you just don't see that or hear that much anymore in the united states congress.

and so these are big problems our country is facing. i'm 63 years old, soon to be 64. we have never faced anything close to what we are facing today. and how we react and how we respond is going to make all the difference in the world for our short-term future but also for our long-term future. so i hope the american people that are listening right now understand we're going to do what is necessary to help get the economic process of our country running again in a better and viable way. and i hope you will dismiss the partisan rhetoric, the class warfare rhetoric that we hear all too commonplace today. and if we'll focus on what the problem is rather than the next election, what we'll see is we'll have a great more deal --

a greater deal of success in coming together and forging solutions that the american people can be proud of and actually move our country ahead. with that, i'd notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: madam president, first i want to make one comment on the cordray apappointment that was attempted a little bit ago. i want to bring up more good news on the economy and the economic front, the economy of the united states. but first i was somewhat disappointed the vote 53-45, only garnering one republican from the other side. only one. on an important agency that ensures the protection of consumers in a variety of areas -- and it just seems illogical to me that we would not find compromise in an ability to find someone to run an agency that, this body, a 60-vote margin approved to protect consumers from what happened over the last several

years and glaring problems and challenges had consumers had to ensure the financial institutions of this country as well as other financial folks like pawnshops and payroll check cashers and all of them have firm regulations, consumer opportunity to respond to those that get abused by those programs. i'm a little disappointed. i wasn't intending to come down here to speak on that issue, but i wanted to come down to put my voice on the floor that i was disappointed that appointment could not happen but i believe was raw politics. it had nothing to do with the ability to make this agency run or not. they didn't appoint him because they didn't like the agency, the 45 or so that didn't vote for this. i think it boils down to one simple thing that the consumers are now once again left without someone running an agency that

will help protect consumers against these people who prey on individuals in the financial arena. so, again, madam president, i'm somewhat disappointed. but let me go to the real reason i came down here. i came down yesterday, and i had a lot to say about the economy and where we are and the headlines that i reported on yesterday. you know, just to read them again just to make sure, because just in less than 48 hours, 72 hours, more good-news headlines. this was the headlines i talked about yesterday. jobless rate dips to lowest level in more than two years. "new york times." cnn, dow closes at the largest gain since march 2009. private-sector jobs soar. payroll forecasts rise. and that is reuters. the "wall street journal," "online sales reach record $1.25 billion on cybermonday."

on top of that, we had record sales for thanksgiving weekend, black friday they call it, and small business saturday. again, incredible impact to our economy. what this tells me, even though, you know, we get a lot of criticism from the other side and others who complain that maybe we're not doing our job and frustrated that washington isn't working as well as it could. and i agree, there's a lot of areas of ability we're not exercising. a good example again is that appointment i mentioned a bit ago, we were unable to move forward. but many of the policies over the last few years as we worked through this great recession, we have fought kind of a lonely war to get these policies in place. and once again more good news, and let me just read off a couple of them. this week's "time" magazine has a whole article, "how america

started selling cars again." why is this important? because this is a manufacturing base for our country. it employs not only jobs in the automobile industry but it trickles all the way through the economy of the country. it doesn't matter if they're at a port, for example, i remember meeting recently with folks from the detroit port authority talking about shipments and movement product from the automobile industry across this country. but also manufacturing in other activities throughout the country that support the automobile industry. it's moving forward. it's growing. we took a dramatic step, got a lot of criticism for it. as a matter of fact, no one wants to even mention the words because everyone is so nervous about it, but some call it the auto bailout. and, yes, we did do that. that result is healthy, strong, profitable industry, bringing jobs to america, creating jobs in america. as a matter of fact, there was

an article in the "wall street journal" not long ago talking about how we're importing jobs from japan and china back to the united states to the automobile industry, because it is successful. and oh, by the way, they're paying back all those loans they got from the federal government with interest. taxpayers getting their money back in full. the net result, we helped at the right time to ensure that we are still a player in the automobile industry not tphoepbl this country, but -- not only in this country but in this world market. and the net result is we're bringing jobs back to the united states, to this industry. so those that continue to complain and want to demonize that action, also cash for clunkers, another program that barely passed, again many of us on this side of the aisle took that lonely road because we thought it was the right thing to help move this economy forward.

again, the net result is this industry is profiting more than the last several years. they are producing more jobs not only in their industry directly but indirectly. and the naysayers on the other side rarely bring this up anymore, because in less than three years -- in less than three years, really less than two years -- this industry has turned itself around because american ingenuity and help and support from the united states government. but also all that help and support being paid back with interest and the good-old american way. from my perspective, once again, great story. i commend "time" magazine for talking about the future. let me also tell you another one. this is on cnbc, i like looking at all the business magazines and web sites every morning.

i try to glance through them to see what's happening, what the markets are doing, what the industry stkorbgs who's investing -- is doing, who's investing, what's happening out there. here's this one: "u.s. mortgage applications jumped last week." this is the industry that really fell apart in the beginning of the great recession. the housing industry. a lot of people say that was the main reason the economy collapsed. it was a significant portion of it, no question about it. let me read you this: "the mortgage bankers association said in its the senator seasonad index of mortgage adjustment activity which includes refinancing and home purchases spiked 12.8% in the week of december 2. the mortgage bankers association the senator seasonally adjusted indexes of refinancing also jumped to 15.3

15.3%. while the gauge on loan requests -- those are people who are now saying i'd like to think about buying a home. i want to purchase today. i want to start examining what's out there. home purchase requests up 8.3%. here's what the mortgage banker's vice president said of research and economics. his words: "applications increased significantly -- significantly -- as mortgage rates tkopd -- dropped to their lowest levels in two months. overall, lowest levels in decade. we now measure things by eighth of a point and when you're at 4.25, we're measuring which is lower overall. it's lower the last several decades.

incredible. let me read you another one. this is from "politico," but it's reporting on what bloomberg, bloomberg's global poll, which they started doing in 2009 kind of to see where foreign investors will put their money. where will they invest? where will they take the dollars that they have accumulated over will gather through investors and shareholders and so forth? where are they going to put their money? more than 41% said they expect the u.s. -- the united states -- will have one of the strongest, one of the strongest performing economies in the world in the coming year, the highest percentage the country has seen since they started doing this report. another one, today again, msnbc,

"jobless claims" -- let me repeat that. "jobless claims drop to nine-month low. jobless claims dropped 23,000 to an adjusted -- actually below the magical threshold of 400,000 which people watch. will it be consistently under 400,000? we've received more of these under 400,000 recently than the last three years. that's a good signal that the economy is moving. i know some will say it's not enough. well, you know, when i came here, half a million people were losing their jobs every single month they were losing their job. we've now had 21 consecutively months of job growth in the private sector. that is a great statement for us as an economy. 21 consecutive months of job growth. that is an indication that our economy is moving.

do we want it to move faster? of course we do. that's what america is about. we want these things to happen right now. today. but this is a great recession. we are pulling ourselves out of it. it takes time and it takes good policy. and, yes, it takes some opportunity to take a little risk. and we did some of those here. we made some decisions that were tough. not necessarily very popular at times. i can remember many of the calls that i've gotten on some of these issues. but what's the end result? that's what we have to measure about. leadership is not about waiting for a poll to tell us what's right or what's wrong or waiting for someone to say here's the right move because your constituency will vote for you if you do this thing this way. it's about leadership. sometimes the leadership role is tough. it means getting a few trucks running over you a little bit and some tire tracks on your back. but the end result is what we

look for. today where we have, we have job growth. not as significant as we want but job growth. where were we? 500,000 jobs a month disappearing. let me give you another one because this is a big issue people are concerned about, as a former mayor managing a city, you're always looking at the revenues because the revenues tell you how your local economy, or if it's a state economy, how your state is doing. if you're a member in 2009 and 2008, end of 2009 and beginning of 2010, incredible concern about local governments collapsing under the debt and deficit spending and unable to manage. as a matter of fact, the markets were concerned about municipal and state debt and what that might mean. oddly enough -- and i wish i would have brought that article -- it hasn't panned out like people thought. local governments are doing better than people anticipate. still tough roads, no question about it. we saw firefighters, police

officers, teachers who have been laid off and we tried to pass a bill here to help that out. that didn't happen because too many on the other side opposed it. but local governments, state governments, latest report, state government report by the nelson a. rockefeller institute state government university of new york, overall tax revenue shows strong growth in second quarter. state tax revenues grew by 10.8% in the second quarter of 2011. as a matter of fact, the year ended in june 2011, which is a lot of fiscal years for state governments and local governments. corresponding to almost all the state fiscal years, total state collections increased by $58 billion in that year. 8.4% from the previous year. the strongest annual gain since 2005. 2005. what does that mean? that means local economies,

state governments are starting to recover. still rough road, but starting to recover. good signs. that means there's more economic activity within their communities. it means businesses are replanting and redesigning their opportunities in those communities. people are buying homes, as i mentioned, which means they're paying property taxes, which means they can hire police and fire and paramedics and teachers. again, madam president, i could probably come down here every day and give this kind of good news, because what you always here, like today, the market's down. i forget what it is. 70, 80 points, maybe 100 today. people hear market crashes or market dips significantly. here's the reality. since 2009, march, the market is up even with today's activity,

81%. 81%. that means people's, my son's 529 account is better today than it was three years ago. that's good because that means i can afford my, my wife and i can afford to make sure he can move on and go to college someday. but that also means retirement accounts have more resources in them today than they did two and a half, three years ago. it means that public pension programs that invest in retirement programs, invest in these kind of markets also are doing better. but again, the headline will be that the sky's falling because that's what people like to do. they like to prey on fear rather than opportunity. i think a lot of us on this side believe in the opportunity, the future of this great country three years ago when we sat here and made some tough decisions over the last, really, first 18 months of my term here. tough decisions.

but we believed in what's possible. we believed that this economy will turn around with a little help from the people who live here, work here and see the future. and we also knew we had to do a little bit, we had to do something extraordinary to create the opportunities for the future of this great country. as i mentioned, private-sector job increase, automobile industry better than ever before, home sales doing better than they were 2 1/2 years ago, the market is up by 80%. all good news. but you don't hear a lot of those as the front-page, above-the-fold big, bold headlines because they're not sexy, they're not controversial. but that's what's happening. and if a lot of us around here had more belief in the potential, it would be incredible what can happen. let me end on this note and that is we're in the middle of a debate on continuing tax relief

for the folks who are working every day, the people i just talked about who are buying homes, buying cars, paying taxes. we're saying to them, we want to make sure you continue to receive the dollars in your pocket. in my state, that's $300 million, just in my state, $300 million for the payroll tax deduction that they get to keep for 400,000 alaskans, instead of the i.r.s. taking it. i don't know about you, but i think that's a good thing. now, i know some will say we have no proof this works. well, i just gave you proof. i will give you proof every day, if necessary. yes, you can't say this certain industry came back because of this one little item, but i'm going to tell you, you put $300 million in my state into the hands of 400,000 alaskans -- about $1,000 or so, a little

over $1,000 per person -- the net result is they're going to spend that money in the economy. they're going to buy that car, that washing machine or go on that vacation. they're going to spend that money in this economy. yes, there's no fancy report that says this business succeeded because we gave them special tax break, which we shouldn't do. we gave it to the people of this country, an incredible opportunity to take their money and put it to work. 160 million families will benefit. 160 million families will benefit by this action today. people making $50,000 or less will make about -- pull back about $1,000 into their pocket. again, not in the i.r.s.'s pocket, into the consumers' pocket that they will spend. again, i know i'll hear from the other side how bad, you know, there's no proof this ma, this t work. it is working. they can deny it all they want but i can continue to lay the facts down. it's not me producing a

government document. it's mostly very conservative publications reporting on the good news. i hope, mr. president, that the folks from the other side -- and i know we picked up a republican when we had this before. this is a modified compromised version of what didn't pass last week. say okay, we're trying to compromise here. we're trying to compromise. but we're keeping it simple and trying to do it in a way that ensures that middle-class americans, alaskans that i represent, with more money in their pocket for people who are working every day, making a difference in the economy. not people who are just, you know, on the top end of the cycle. and i know that's great debate and we differ with many -- and i differ with several people on the other side. you know, i do believe that people who make a million dollars or more should pay a little bit more. i don't have any heartburn over that. it's only -- it's 235,000 people

we're talking about versus 16 160 million. that's who i want to put my investment in, because i know those people who are made up of individuals, families, and a significant portion of small business people will continue to grow this economy. in fact, the best growth period, growth pattern right now is small business. they are the ones that are the backbone of this economy. those are the people we need to help. that's what this bill does. i hope we find the magical -- i wish we'd have 50 majority votes here like the rest of this world operates. for the some reason, this place has to have special rules to make it hard and complicated and difficult to get done. but maybe there will be some people who join up that want to support the american people, want to give them tax relief and making sure their lives are better, especially this time the year with christmas around the corner. i'd like to give them a christmas gift. i think all of us would. let's do it. let's do it today.

let's do it for the american people. let's do it for my constituency in alaska, your constituency, mr. president, and all the rest in this room. so again, thank you very much for the opportunity, and i'd -- i'd rest my comments there. but i do have an item from the leadership. let me read this. i ask consent that any time spent during a quorum call between now and 2:30 p.m. be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: again, mr. chairman, i -- mr. president, i yield the floor but i hope -- and i -- you know, if there's one thing i look for, if it -- if it makes a difference for alaska, if it's about alaska, i'm there. this is not only about alaska, it's about this country. it's about the middle class. not only am i there, i'm double there. and i hope we find the opportunity in this chamber to do the right thing. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. today the senate will consider my legislation again to extend

the temporary payroll tax cut. this week the senate has been given another opportunity to do the right thing and provide much-needed relief to the american worker. it shouldn't be news to anyone that americans are desperate for solutions. millions of americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for a job. inbetween looking for a job or paying higher -- or higher-paying employment, americans are busy trying to figure out how to handle high health care costs, looming bankruptcy, and the threat of foreclosure. as a senator from nevada, i understand how difficult it is. perhaps more than any of my other colleagues. my state has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in unemployment, in bankruptcies, and in foreclosures.

i hear from my constituents every day on these issues. nevadans, democrats, independents and republicans, are looking to congress for answers and they are frustrated that they are not getting them. even with economic difficulty, americans across the country are experiencing, congress appears to be prepared to stage a partisan standoff rather than extending a payroll tax cut for hard-working americans. mr. president, i cannot allow this to happen. americans deserve solutions. the plan i have introduced to extend the payroll tax cut is a workable solution that will provide relief for americans responsibly. in fact, the solution i'm proposing today borrows a cost-cutting idea from the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission that can actually pass congress and be signed into

law. my proposal allows american taxpayers to hold on to more of their hard-earned wages while not punishing the nation's job creators like the majority proposes. under my plan, american taxpayers will not see a tax increase. in fact, my plan prevents a tax increase on those already receiving payroll tax credit. today congress can do the right thing by allowing employers to continue to invest their -- in their businesses so that they can plan for the future and, of course, hire more workers. i understand that democrats would prefer to pay for the payroll extension by raising taxes on employers, but treating tax dollars responsibly is absolutely necessary if we're going to see long-term economic growth in this country. in this case we can extend the

payroll tax cut and still pay for it. i also understand that not all republicans support my plan. to be honest, i disagree with some of my colleagues who claim a payroll tax holiday is not necessary. i believe that we should allow more americans to hold on to their hard-earned wages. for those who are already struggling to live within their means, this payroll tax cut will continue some much-needed relief. today i'm asking my republican and democratic colleagues to come together, join me to help continue the payroll tax holiday without raising taxes on businesses near america. this will help preserve -- businesses here in america. this will help preserve long-term job growth in the future. my proposal is a workable solution containing provisions endorsed by both the majority and my colleagues in the house of representatives. this is the only version of the payroll tax cut that has the

potential to pass congress and to be signed into law. my proposal pays for the payroll tax cut by reducing government spending where it's no longer needed and requires the richest americans to pay higher premiums for medicare. this will allow us to strengthen and preserve medicare for those americans who rely on the program the most. this is the same approach encourtcourtsendorsed by americy the richest americans should pay more. americans want solutions. they do not want more partisan bickering. congress this week has another communitopportunity to do the rt thing to help hard-working americans extend the payroll tax cut holiday. i make calls back to my home state every week. in those calls, i ask nevadans if they think their children will have access to a better,

brighter future than their own. and for the first time in history, a majority of americans and a majority of nevadans believe that their children will have less opportunity. by continuing down this path of partisanship, congress is robbing the american people of the dream for their children. this needs to stop. we in this body need to seriously consider the high stakes of the political games that continue to unfold on this senate floor. american workers need solutions and they need relief right now. congress should come together today, put partisanship aside, pass meaningful legislation that will benefit all americans. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i would also ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i rise this afternoon to speak about an issue that we'll be voting on today and we've been discussing and debating now for a number of days. we're into our second week of debate about a cut in the payroll tax. and just by way of review, and so many americans have been nolg following this debate, here's where it basically stands between what we did last year and what we're trying to do this

year. last year, as part of a larger tax bill, we reduced the payroll tax for employees across the country from 6.2% to 4.2%. so that 2% reduction meant that millions of american families were able to have about a thousand dollars in their pocket take-home pay that they wouldn't have had otherwise absent -- absent that action in the tax bill last year. what we're trying to do this year -- and i should start with what i tried to do last week and we got 51 votes for this -- was to say that we should not only continue or extend that cut in the payroll tax but we should expand it. so instead of saying it goes from 6.2% to 4.2%, we take it down to 3.1%. in essence, what we tried to do last week was cut in half the payroll tax as it relates to employees. we wanted to add to that cutting in half the payroll tax for businesses, small businesses,

who would benefit disproportionately. and then thirdly, to add to that a -- a tax credit so that if you're an employer and you hired or you increased your -- your wages for your employees, if you expanded your payroll in more ways of one -- or one of more ways -- one of several ways, i should say, if you did that, you could get a tax credit equal to an elimination of the payroll tax cut. so instead of the usual 6.2%, you'd be down to zero. so the combination of those three would be that you'd be helping employees, cutting their payroll tax in half, helping employers, cutting their payroll contribution in half, and then you had this third element as well for employers that actually added -- hired people or added to their wage base. unfortunately, in the senate, because we needed 60 votes and got 51, we be -- we knew at that

point we couldn't get enough support from the other side of the aisle. so what i did, working with our leadership and working with folks here in the senate, was to refashion the legislation so that we made it smaller, reduced the cost of the overall proposal by some $80 billion, and said that why don't we just concentrate on the -- the element that we worked on last year, which was the employee side. so here's where we are. the debate about cutting the employee payroll tax is down to this. it's down to this question -- should we cut it to 4.2% like we did last year or should we cut it further and reduce it in ha half? i believe we should. i think most americans believe that. but here's what it means to -- to folks out there. instead of saying that we'll continue what we did last year by cutting it in half, that would be about a thousand dollars per worker, in essence,

per family, on average. if we cut it in half, we can get that number up to $1,500. so it's not just putting money in people's pockets and continuing that for another year but it's more money. it would go from roughly $1,000 to approximately $1,500. so that's where we are. and unfortunately we're no not -- we're not yet sure we can get the support we need to do just that. and here's what it means to americans. it means more money in your pocket, more take-home pay, but it also means if we don't exte extend -- at a minimum extend the payroll tax cut from last year, here's what it means in terms of two issues. g.d.p., gross domestic product, and jobs. according to mark zandi of moody's analytics, someone we've quoted often, both sides of the aisle, and have relied upon his analysis and his expertise.

mark zandi says that not extending the payroll tax at least to the 4.2% level would reduce 2012 real g.d.p. in a state like pennsylvania, by way of example, by .52 percentage points. so that means you're talking about gross domestic product or gross state product, in a state like pennsylvania, cutting that in half instead of -- instead of allowing it to grow. so this ha -- so this has a real adverse consequence for pennsylvania and the country if we don't do what we did last year. of course if we do more than we did last year, like i think we should and i think most people do, we could not only not fall behind, but we could move forward dramatically. here's another way to look at it: jobs. according to mark zandi, not extending the payroll tax cut will cost pennsylvania 19,700 payroll jobs in the year,

calendar year 2012. for context, the state of pennsylvania last year, the job creation, the payroll tax job creation number -- payroll, i should say. payroll jobs added last year, 54,500. we've created in the last year in a state like pennsylvania, almost 55,000 jobs. but if we don't extend the payroll tax cut this year, you're talking about losing -- losing -- as many as almost 20,000 jobs. so this is a -- this is a substantial factor in the discussion about our economy. it would have a substantially adverse impact if we don't reduce, don't keep the payroll tax cut in place. as i said before, we should do more than we did last year. we should cut it in half. it would give people across the country peace of mind in two

time periods: the next couple of weeks when they're going out and shopping, enjoys the holidays. we want people to spend as much as they feel they can. if they know they're going to get $1,000 to $1,500, they can spend more in this upcoming holiday season. but especially it's important for 2012. why should taxpayers have to live with a tax increase because washington just didn't get along, and the same old political games were played here in washington. instead of saying let's come together in a bipartisan way and expand and extend. or i should say extend and expand the payroll tax cut from last year? so we've got lots to do in the next couple of days and weeks, but maybe the most important thing we can do in the next few days is to make sure that we cut the payroll tax again. because this is about whether or

not we're going to give people peace of mind as we head into a new year and whether or not we're going to put more money in their pockets in order to jump-start the economy, to give it the, the economy the jolt that we got at the end of last year where we came together, passed a tax bill, and you had average job growth in february of 2011, march and april, those three months average private-sector job growth of just about 240,000 jobs. we need another three-month period like that. in fact, we need another six or seven months or eight months like that. but the only way to get there is to put in place this payroll tax cut. so i would hope that when we vote later today that we would get at least 60 votes for this effort to make sure that we're giving americans peace of mind and more money in their pockets. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note

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

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. bloom bloom i asmr. blumenthal:e

quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: and i ask to speak despite the majority's time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i begin by thanking my colleagues, many of whom served in the last congress. i thank them for extending the payroll tax cut at that time, providing a payroll tax cut from 6.2% to 4.2%. i thank them on behalf of myself. i was not a member of this body at that time. i thank them on behalf of the american people. they are due that thanks and appreciation for that vision and courage in extending that

measure, in cutting the payroll tax, so as to avoid recession. we have only to listen to the unquestioned, virtually unanimous opinion of economists to the effect that we saved the nation. this body saved the nation. -- this body saved the nation from recession. now i ask my colleagues to undertake a similar mission to accomplish the same goal, to once again save the nation from a recession. the recovery of this nation's economy has been fragile and slow, and many economists -- notably mark zandi, who has been quoted by my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania -- say that a failure to extend it will mean a new recession.

we're talking here about average americans, ordinary people who are hurting and struggling. they are hurting economically and struggling to find jobs. they are struggling to stay in their homes and keep their families together at a time of year when joy and satisfaction ought to be the quality of their lives. and they deserve this measure of peace of mind, as my colleague from pennsylvania, bob casey, has referred to it. but all of us, the entire nation deserves the economic security which is a matter of national security. rescuing this country from the continuing debt and deficit means returning to full employment. 25% of our deficit can be eliminated by going back to

lower rates of employment. economic recovery is a means to countering and curtailing what the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff called "a national crisis" and "a security threat." economic recovery depends on securitconsumer demand. as i go around the state of connecticut, business people tell me what they need most is consumer demand. and their confidence and certainty about the future of the economy, their willingness to invest depends on consumer demand. that kind of factor, that need is what ought to motivate all of my colleagues, every member of this body, to vote for this measure, not only extending that

payroll tax cut but also enlarging it to 3.1%. we're talking about anywhere from $1,400 to $1,500 or more in the pockets of people around the country, people around the state of connecticut. the average middle-class family in concoarnls $ connecticut wou6 hundred payroll tax. the average middle-class family in connecticut, $83,797 per ye year. back in their pockets, $1,676 in taxes under the current payroll

tax cut as proposed in this measure. now, we're talking here about a compromise. our side of the aisle has moidified thimodified this billt about one-third smaller in size and cost. and this legislation will no longer give employers a tax break. we have pulled back on the magnitude of this measure, but it will still affect 160 million families and workers who will receive nearly $1,500 in take-home pay. this bill will be paid for by measures that were coming from the deficit-reduction proposals contained in a number of the supercommittee's ideas. it is paid for by fees charged

to fannie mae and freddie mac, by proposals suggested by my colleague, the republican leader, the cost savings reform suggested by him would make millionairemillionaires ineligir unemployment and food stamps and this also levies a surcharge -- temporary ten-year surcharge on the one hand the highest earners in american society who can well-afford it when their own interest would be extraordinarily well-served. by the consumer demand and economic recovery that would be generated. i know that many of my colleagues, including the president -- the presiding officer -- are certained about the effect on social security, and so am i. the social security trust fund is a trust, a sacred trust, that we are honorbound to protect.

and i would not vote for this measure if i thought that it created a threat, a real threat, to the viability of that fund. but i believe that the assurance that we have received from the administrator of that fund -- and it is contained in a letter to secretary geithner and to jacob lew, who was inserted in the congressional record yesterday by senator casey -- and it assures that the effect would be negligible. in fact, it says that the trust funds would be unaffected. it uses that word, and i will quote directly from the letter. "we estimate that the projected level of o.s.i. and d.i. trust

funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision." that letter comes from the administrator of the trust fund, and i am prepared to rely on that assurance and to say that i believe that this kind of measure is the responsible thing to do at this point in our economic history to make sure that our recovery is continuing. the effects of failing to do so ... economists differ whether the rate of growth will suffer by .5%, which is mark zandi, or .66%, goldma goldman sachs, or ,

michael ponn. whatever the specific percentage, we know it will be grave and serious in the damage to our economy, if we fail to extend and enlarge the social security tax cut. so i urge my colleagues to heed the voices that they are hearing back home, as i am hearing from ordinary citizens, middle-class families, and we are talking here about a middle-class famiy measure that will benefit people like marilyn in bloomfield, who writes to me, "i believe these cuts need to remain in effect in order to avoid the deepening -- avoid deepening the recession we are in. i urge you to support the president's jobs plan and pass as much of it as you can in the

upcoming legislative session for the benefit of struggling families." she writes and she says shall "to urge you to vote in favor of extending the payroll tax cut for workers beyond december 31." and listen to people like jenny. they are in every one of our states. jenny, who is from south port, connecticut: "i know you will do the right thing when the payroll tax cut and increasing the taxes of only the second million and above of wealthy americans comes up for a vote. i have faith in you. with the economy still struggling to recover and millions of americans still struggling to put food on the table this holiday season, we cannot afford to raise taxes on working americans." those voices from middle-class families are reaching this body every day. we've heard them before. this body heeded them last year

in enacting this tax cut. i thank every member who voted for it. it was a bipartisan vote. i hope this one will be as well. and i will be proud to join members from both sides of the aisle. and i hope this measure will have support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in showing the american people that we can come together, bridge our differences and compromise. this measure reflects a compromise on both sides. and i hope that it will be passed later in the day. i thank the president, and i yield the floor and suggest 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 rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: you may. without objection. under the p -- previous order, the question occurs on the motion to proceed to s. 1944, which is subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 48. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion, the motion is not agreed to. the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: madam president, i move to proceed to s. 1931. mr. reid: madam president. the majority floor leader. the majority leader. mr. reid: this will be the last vote this week. we'll have a couple votes monday night. i will announce before we are out today as much of the schedule as i am able to do. right now, i can't do that, but i will before the day is out. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. casey: madam president, thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. casey is about -- is. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well.

mr. casey: madam president, what is about to happen is we are taking a vote on a measure that got 20 votes last week. the same vote, and i don't know what the vote will be, obviously, but this is an exercise in futility to vote on this again. what we should do is cut the payroll tax in half for american workers. that's what we've been trying to do. we should continue to work together but we should move beyond this measure that got 20 votes last week, cut the payroll tax in half for 160 million american workers. we should do that, give people peace of mind and dollars in their pocket that they won't have otherwise. but i'd urge a no vote on this amendment and i hope we can continue to work together to support this american worker. the presiding officer: who yields time? time is yielded back. under the previous order the question occurs on the motion to proceed to s. 1931 which is

subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold. the yeas and nays? is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 22, the nays are 76. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent we proceed now to a peer of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each until 6:00 this afternoon -- this evening. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: thank you, madam president. madam

madamadam president, i am offerg today an amendment to modify the u.s. constitution. i do not do this lightly nor have i ever done something like this before. the u.s. constitution is an extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200 years, and in my view it should not be amended often. but, in light of the disastrous supreme court's 5-4 decision in the citizens united case, i see no alternative but a constitutional amendment. i should add that a similar resolution has been offered in the house by congressman ted deutsche of florida. this constitutional amendment is supported by such grass-roots organizations as public citizens, people for the american way, and the center for media and democracy. madam president, let me go on

record as strongly as i can and as clearly as i can in stating that i strongly disagree with the supreme court's citizens united decision. in my view, a corporation is not a person. in my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure on a political campaign. in my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries, spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections. i do not believe that is what american democracy is supposed to be about.

i do not believe that that is what the bravest of the brave from our country fighting for democracy fought and died to preserve. madam president, almost two years ago in its now infamous citizens united decision, the united states supreme court up-ended over a precedent, taking a somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of corporate spending on campaign ads that has just begun. make no mistake, the citizens united ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. further tilting the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in

this country have never had it so good. in my view, history will record that the supreme court's citizens united decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a supreme court in the history of our country. while there is no way of knowing for sure, since there are no disclosure requirements in place to track what was spent, it is no secret that already in the 2010 mid-term elections -- midterm elections, corporations and some very, very wealthy individuals spent a huge and unprecedented amount of money to further their political goals, and there is no question that this is just the beginning. -- the beginning of their efforts. at a time when corporations have over $2 trillion in cash in

their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the american people should be concerned when the supreme court says that these corporations have a constitutionally protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy, if we do not end this citizens uinto thed decision and its impact on our -- this citizens united decision and its impact on our nation. all of us in the senate share one common characteristic. we all run for elections. we all live in the real political world. and let me just speak for a

moment -- but i think many of my colleagues in their heart of hearts know this to be true. and that is that while the campaign finance system we had before citizens united was, in my view, a disaster, there is no question that a disastrous situation where candidates, members of the senate spend huge amounts of time having to raise money -- and i know that is distasteful not just for democrats; it is distasteful to republicans; it is distaste l for an independent -- that's what we do. and now, as a result of citizens united, that bad situation has become much worse because infinitely more money is going to come into the political process through nondisclosed donations suddenly appearing on tv screens in our states.

according to an october 10, 2011, article in ""politico"" -- quote -- "the billionaire industrialist brothers david and charles koch plan to steer more than $200 million potentially much more to conservative groups ahead of election day 2012." what do we think? do we think that american democracy is about a couple of wealthy billionaires putting hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns without disclosure? is that really the democracy that americans fought and died for in war after war? i think not. and it clearly is not just republicans. there will be democrats doing the same. so more and more money comes into the system. we don't know where it comes from, and in order to defend

ourselves, candidates are going to have to raise more and more money, become more and more dependent on big-money interests. does anybody really believe that that is what american democracy is supposed to be about? and let's talk about the practical impacts. what happens here on the floor of the senate madam president, the six largest banks on wall street have assets equal to over 65% of our g.d.p., over $9 trillion, six banks. that when an issue comes up that impacts wall street, some of us, for example, think it might be a good idea to break up these huge banks. and members walk up to the desk up there, they have to decide am i going to vote for this? am i going to vote against it? with full knowledge that if they vote against the interests of wall street that two weeks later

there may be ads coming down into their state attacking them. every member of the senate, every member of the house in the back of their minds will be thinking, skwraoerbgs if i cast a -- gee, if i cast a vote this way, if i take on some big money interest, am i going to be punished for that? will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state? everybody here understands that that's true. it's not just taking on wall street. maybe it's taking on the drug companies. maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. maybe it's taking on the military industrial complex. but whatever powerful and wealthy special interests you are prepared to take on on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country, when you walk up to that desk and you cast that vote, you know in the back of your mind that you may be unleashing a tsunami of money coming in to your state, and you're going to think twice

about how you cast that vote. madam president, i am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to citizens united and begin to get a handle on the problem. and i'd like took knowledge them investigative briefly. one is the disclose act sponsored by senator schumer, which would force corporations spending money on campaign ads to disclose their identity, just as candidates have to do. that is a good thing. i support it. another is the fair elections now act sponsored by senator durbin which would move us finally to publicly finance elections. i think that is a very good idea. i support that. the third piece of legislation is a recent resolution for a campaign finance constitutional amendment introduced by senator tom udall of new mexico that would make it clear that congress and the states have the authority to write laws to regulate campaign spending across the country and make sure our state and federal elections are about what's right for our

democracy. and i support senator udall's resolution. but even these excellent pieces of legislation are not enough. madam president, the constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200 years. but when the supreme court says that for purposes of the first amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that even attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger. something more needs to be done. something more fundamental and indisputable. something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-4 supreme court decision. we have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and

straightforwardly, what everyone except five members of the united states supreme court seem to understand, and that is corporations are not people. bank of america is not a person. exxonmobil is not a person. madam president, the resolution i am offering today calls for an amendment to be sent to the states that would do just that. it would make perfectly clear, one, corporations are not persons with equal constitutional rights as real-life flesh and blood human beings. two, corporations are subject to regulation by the people. three, corporations may not make campaign contributions which has been the law of the land for the last century. and, four, congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finance, as senator udall's amendment would also say. madam president, this amendment is cosponsored by senator begich

of alaska, and i would urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment which in fact does what its title suggests: saves american democracy. thank you very much, madam president. mr. nelson: madam president? sproeup the senator -- the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i want to thank the senator from tennessee for his graciousness to let me make just a very few remarks. i wanted to call to the attention of the senate that there are some good thepbgz that are -- some good things that are happening in medicare. madam president, there are in the health care bill which was a very complicated piece of legislation, there are a lot of good things. there were some things that are implemented over time that if the mistakes have been made, we

can correct those mistakes as they are starting to be implemented. but i want to point out some of the salutary things that are happening under the new health reform bill with regard to medicaid. it was just this week that the agency that runs medicare, the centers for medicare and medicaid services, c.m.s., announced that more seniors and people with disabilities on medicare are seeing significantly lower cost for important health care because of this new law. what we're seeing, for example, is for the first time millions of americans are now -- that are on medicare are now getting free physical exams as part of

preventive medicine. and because of the doughnut hole, which is that complicated black hole that senior citizens would fall into when they were getting assistance for their prescription drugs, well, lo and behold, that doughnut hole is being filled by the federal government assisting them in paying pore -- paying for those drugs. and, therefore, they're getting a lot more of their drugs without having to pay for them. for example, nationwide it's over two and a half million people on medicare have saved more than $1.5 billion in their prescriptions. and if you boil that down to my state of florida, you've got 172,000 medicare recipients that saved $96 million, which is an average for the senior citizen in florida of $563 per person

per year. in the case of the physical exams, you have over 24 million people in the country that now have already taken advantage of having one of these free physical exams in order to help with the preventive health care aspects that the bill was aimed at. and in my state, with a lot of senior citizens, that's close to two million senior citizens have taken advantage of those physical exams. and then remember how when we were discussing this, all was doom and gloom about medicare advantage? well, what's happened to medicare advantage? we had to change it because medicare advantage before, under the previous law, had a 14% bump over and above medicare fee for

service. and the federal government was going to go broke if we didn't do something about that. and where was that money going? it was going to the insurance company because medicare advantage is a fancy term for medicare given through an insurance company and h.m.o. and so what has happened? if you look all across the country, in medicare advantage, enrollments are up and the premiums that senior citizens pay are down. look at the state of florida, in this last year enrollment was up by 6%. premiums decreased by about 10%. what's happening now, in 2012? enrollments are up almost 20%, and the premiums are going down by a whopping 26%. so that means more seniors are

going to have access to higher-quality care while paying less. and it's a win-win-win-win. it's a win for clearly the country that we are leaning out all of that excess bumps. it's clearly a win to the senior citizen. and in the process, the insurance companies are giving better quality care. madam president, i wanted to bring this to the attention of the senate. and i do thank my colleague from tennessee for the generosity of him allowing me to make these comments prior to his. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander:, madam president. and i thank the senator from florida. we hear a lot about tax breaks, tax loopholes around the united states senate.

i want to talk about tax loophole today, big one on its way out. a $23 billion tax loophole. and it's not a loophole in the tax code of washington, d.c. it's a loophole in virtually every state in the country. it's a loophole that prefers some taxpayers over other taxpayers. it subsidizes some businesses over other businesses. and it's a loophole that because of that, cause tax rates in states to be higher, and it causes states to have less money to fund the universities or the state parks or the schools or the other expenses that are legitimate in the operation of a state. i say it's a tax loophole that's on its way out because after 20 years, senator enzi of wyoming and senator durbin of illinois have combined with a piece of legislation that is rare in washington, d.c. it is only ten pages long. it is very simple. it's a states' rights piece of

legislation that gives each state the right to decide for itself whether or not to collect its state sales tax from everybody who owes it. whether that person buys a pair of cowboy boots in nashville or whether it buys a pair of cowboy boots from amazon online. senator enzi and senator durbin introduced the marketplace fairness act four weeks ago. it had four -- well, five total republican sponsors and five total democratic sponsors. i am one of those sponsors. this is the bill that solves the problem of the online sales tax loophole, the one i described a little earlier. i mentioned cowboy boots. let me describe what i'm talking about in practical terms. i called the owner of the nashville boot company a couple of weeks ago. his name is frank harwell.

he sold boots online, and he sells them to people who walk into his store there in west nashville. when he started the company, almost all of his boots were sold online. here's what he says is happening to him today. people come in to the cowboy boot company in nashville, they try on cowboy boots. and they find a pair they like, and then they go home and buy the cowboy boots online in order to save the state sales tax. now they owe a sales tax. many people don't know they owe it, but they owe the sales tax just as much if they had bought the boots at the bookstore -- at the cowboy bookstore there in nashville. but they don't pay it, and why is that? it's because under the state law, when frank harwell sells a pair of cowboy boots at his store in nashville, he collects the sales tax and sends it to the state. under the law the supreme court said years ago in the state of tennessee, the state of missouri, the state of

washington, any other state couldn't require amazon or an out-of-state seller to collect the same sales tax. they had a reason for doing so and it was a good reason. they said it was so complicated to do it that it put a burden on interstate commerce. but at the same time the supreme court invited the united states congress to fix the problem. and by fixing the problem, that means the congress could act in order to create a fair way for states to require retailers who are out of state to collect the same sales tax that retailers on main street collect. over that 20 years, the online sales tax loophole got to be a big loophole. it subsidizes some businesses at the expense of others. as i said earlier, prefers some taxpayers at the expense of others. last week the hudson institute, a generally conservative organization, released a new

report that explains how the subsidizing of out-of-state sellers works and how the federal government, those of us in washington, are keeping states from closing this loophole. they conclude, hudson does, that this online sales tax loophole is distorting the marketplace, and i urge my colleagues to take a serious look at the hudson institute report. governors and legislators are up in arms because they are being deprived of the right to enforce their own sales tax law. this is a little different loophole, actually a little worse one. usually loopholes are written into the law. those are the kind we're trying to change in our tax reform proposals in washington. this is a tax that's already owed. this is a tax that's already

owed the governors and legislators want to collect, and they are used to pay for the things that states need to pay for or to reduce a tax or in the state of tennessee which has a very high sales tax. if the state was allowed to collect sales tax from everybody who owes it, well, then we might postpone the day of a state income tax, which are probably the three most hated words in tax vocabulary in tennessee. i said when senator enzi and senator durbin introduced their bill that i believed they had solved the problem, and that if i were an out of state retailer or an online retailer, i would begin to make plans to collect that sales tax just as main street collectors collect it today, and many have. for example, amazon, which had opposed for a long time this kind of legislation because in their view it was too uncomplicated for them to figure out what the tax might be,

change their mind and said that the enzi-durbin bill is a good bill and amazon supports it. that's not all. mississippi governor haley barbour, chairman of the republican governors association, wrote a letter on november 29, and i'd like to quote it. -- quote -- "in the early days of the internet, the complexities of collecting state sales taxes across thousands of state and local sales tax jurisdictions were major obstacles. the technology simply didn't exist to expect start-ups to comply with the various tax compliance rules in every part of the country, but today e-commerce has grown and there is simply no longer a compelling reason for government to continue giving online retailers special treatment over small businesses who reside on main streets in mississippi and the country." governor barbour continues -- "the time to level the playing

field is now as there are no effective barriers to complying with state sales tax laws." here is what governor barbour is saying. 20 years ago, we didn't have the kind of software and information we do today, but if i want to know what the weather is in maryville, tennessee, where i live, i just without in weather and my zip code, 37786. under this new bill and under the technology that exists today, states will be required to give to out of state retailers or online retailers the software that will permit them to do the same thing. if i order a pair of cowboy boots, they can put in my name, the cost of the boots, the zip code and the software will compute the tax and even find a way to send it on to the state. it will be just as easy or maybe even easier for the out-of-state retailers to collect the sales tax that's owed as it will be for cowboy -- a cowboy boot store selling it out of the front door in nashville. the national governors' association sent a letter last

week saying that the enzi-durbin bill represents a -- quote -- "commonsense approach that will allow states to collect taxes they are owed, help businesses comply with different state tax laws and provide fair competition between retailers that will benefit consumers." unquote. last week, the judiciary committee in the house of representatives held an oversight hearing to discuss all three bills that have been introduced to address this issue, and there was a lot of good discussion. i want to share a few things that were said, and i hope we can have a similar hearing in the senate soon. mike pence of indiana, one of the leading conservatives in congress, a fellow who knows a tax when he sees one, said -- quote -- "i don't think congress should be in the business of picking winners and losers. congressman pence continued, inaction by congress today results in a system that does pick winners and losers."

congressman pence also talked about something i want to make sure my colleagues understand. the enzi-durbin bill is not talking about taxing the internet. it's not talking about creating a new tax. as far as the internet access tax goes, the senate debated that a few years ago. i was in the middle of that debate, and i was in the middle of the solution that imposed a moratorium on the internet access tax. that law is still there. we're not talking about an internet access tax. neither are we talking about a new tax. we're talking about the plain old state sales tax that already exists. it's very hard to imagine how anyone can say collecting a tax that's already owed is a new tax. governor barbour and congressman pence are correct. 20 years ago, the technology didn't exist. today it does. about the only ones complaining

are the taxpayers and businesses that enjoy being subsidized by other taxpayers and other businesses, and that, in our opinion, is not correct tax policy. as republicans, i believe our party should oppose government policies that prefer some taxpayers over others or some businesses over others. as republicans, i believe we should support states' rights, and our bill does that by giving the state the right to make this decision about how to collect taxes. do you want to collect taxes from everybody who owes the tax or do you not want to? do you want to prefer some out-of-state businesses over in-state businesses or do you not want to? do you want to collect the tax and reduce tax rates or spend the money on services? that's up to the states. these sentiments are also shared by the late william f. buckley, and al cardonice, chairman of

the conservative union. 10 years ago, william f. buckley wrote in "the national review," the mattress maker in connecticut is willing to compete with the company in massachusetts but doesn't like it. if the out-of-state businesses are in practical terms subsidized, and that's what the nontax amounts to, local concerns are complaining about traffic in mattresses and books and records and computer equipment which ordered through the internet come in, so to speak, duty free. that's william f. buckley. and the chairman of the american conservative union, a distinguished florida citizen, the head of an outfit that's arguably as strong and influential as any conservative organization in washington, said in his recent essay -- quote -- "there is no more glaring example of misguided government power than when taxes and

regulations affect two similar businesses completely differently." madam president, as i have said many times before, i believe that the enzi-durbin legislation solves the problem. i believe it's going to happen. i hope that out-of-state sellers and online sellers will move ahead to work with states to make voluntary agreements. as, for example, amazon has in tennessee, and begin to allow states to enforce their tax policy properly. our bill is a remarkable feat in washington, d.c. i have mentioned it before. i'd like to emphasize it again. it is only ten pages long. it is only about allowing states to make a decision about whether they want to close a loophole, a tax loophole. it's about stopping the subsidization of some taxpayers over others. it's about stopping the subsidization of some businesses over others. i'm glad others are starting to share this view, and as more

senators learn about the marketplace fairness act and look at the options it gives each state, i hope and i believe we'll have more cosponsors. 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, the bills that were introduced weren't adequate to solve the problem. fortunately, today, senator enzi and senator durbin have solved the problem. i agree, democratic senators agree, the chairman of the american conservative union agrees, the chairman of the republican governors association agrees, congressman mike pence agrees. it is a matter of marketplace fairness. mr. president -- madam president, i ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record the letter to which i referred from mississippi governor barbour, a letter from the national governors' association and the national journal article published last week regarding the house judiciary committee hearing on this subject.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: madam president, it's been ten years since i introduced the dream act, legislation that would allow a select group of immigration students with great potential to contribute to america. the dream act would give these students a chance to become legal in america. they came to the united states as children. they have to be long-term residents of our country. they have good moral character, graduate from high school, and fleet two years of college or -- complete two years of college or military service in good standing. those are the basic standards which we apply and i think if we enacted the dream act, as i've required to for many years, it would make america a stronger country, giving these talented young immigrants a chance to serve in our military and make

us a stronger nation. tens of thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people would enlist in the armed forces if the dream act becomes law. we have the support of the department of defense and the president. they understand that these young people could make us a stronger and safer nation serving in our military. and they are willing, many of them are willing to risk their lives for this country. studies have also found that these dream act participants could literally build our economy in years to come with their talent. remember, these students we're talking about were brought to america as children and as infants. they grew up here believing they were americans. they went to class every day, pledged allegiance to the only flag they knew and sang the only "national anthem" they'd ever heard. they are american in their hearts and they shouldn't be

punished because their parents made a decision to bring them here. these young people are tomorrow's doctors, engineers, soldiers, teachers. they're the people who we can build an america on and with. we shouldn't squander their talent by deporting them to countries that they may not remember at all. last year republican senator richard lugar of indiana joined me in asking the department of homeland security to suspend the deportation of these dream act students. now, for the record, is there is any evidence of wrongdoing by these students, they're completely disqualified from this conversation. we're talking about students of good moral character who are in the united states basically without a country. earlier this year, senator lugar and i were joined in our can request by 20 other senators, including majority leader harry

reid, judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy and senator bob menendez asking that these dream act students be given an opportunity to stay and not be deported. in response to our letters, john morton, the director of immigration and customs enforcement, issued a memo in june of this year establishing new priorities for deportation. the morton memo says it's a high priority to deport those who have committed serious crime or those who are a threat to public safety. while it is a low priority to deport individuals who've been in the united states since childhood, like those who are eligible for the dream act. during hearing this summer on the dream act, homeland security secretary janet paten napolitand me and my subcommittee that the department of homeland security would establish a process to implement the morton mem moment under this new -- memo. under this new memo, high-priority cases will be expedited. low-priority cases will be closed, in many instances. now, recently, the department of homeland security announced the next step in the process.

immigration and customs enforcement officers and attorneys will receive comprehensive training on the new deportation policy. by january, all i.c.e. officers and throarnz have the training that -- attorneys will have the training that they need. i.c.e. attorneys will review all new cases to identify low-priority cases that should not be placed in the immigration court. a review of the cases currently in immigration court is also underway. department of homeland security attorneys will review pending deportations cases in baltimore and denver to identify low-priority cases that should be removed from the docket.thisd pending cases will be completed by mid-january and then expanded nationwide. let me commend the president and his administration for these thoughtful and humane steps to implement this new deportation policy. today there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states.

it would take billions and billions of dollars to deport all of them. and it would likely lead to the collapse of many parts of our economy. you can't go to a hotel or restaurant in the city of chicago -- and i've been told this by restaurant owners -- and not find at least someplace in that establishment an undocumented person doing tough, hard work that immigrants do. so d.h.s. has to set priorities about which people to deport and not deport using limited resources. now, some of my republican colleagues have claimed that this is a kind of backdoor amnesty. that couldn't be further from the truth. this is simply a temporary decision not to use limited government resources to deport low-priority individuals who are no threat to the united states of america. individuals whose cases are closed will not receive any permanent legal status. so there's no amnesty involved in this.

ironically, some republican critics of the administration's new policy called on the clinton administration to establish deportation guidelines, exactly what the obama administration has done here. in response to this request from some republicans in congress, the clinton administration established a policy on prosecutorial discretion. the bush administration kept the policy in force from the clinton years and issued several follow-up memos without any criticism from any republicans in congress. the bush administration also stopped the deportation of a number of dream act students, again without any criticism from any republican members. so let's be clear. what the obama administration has done in establishing this new process for prioritizing deportations is perfectly appropriate and legal. throughout our history, our government has had to decide who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. based on law enforcement

priorities and available resources. i strongly support the administration's new deportation policy, but more needs to be done to complement this policy and it needs to be -- to implement this policy and it needs stob done quickly. many young a people who would be eligible for the dream act are still facing deportation proceedings. almost every day my office is contacted by dream act students who are at risk of being deported in a matter of hours or days. today let me ste tell you the sy of two of these young people. this is menaz k this. an. 18 years ago in 1992menaz's parents brought limb to the united states from bangladesh. at the time he was four years old. today he's 22. 18 years later he's overcome amazing obstacles to complete his education. in 2009, menaz graduated from

the university of california riverside with a batch lores degree in neuroscience. menaz sent me a letter and here's what he said about his future. "my dream is to make several contributions to science and become a physician's assistant as a career and eventually a teacher as well. i have great aspirations, but i do not dream of big houses or tons of cars. i want normality, stability, and liberty." today menaz lives in palo alto, california, with his wife, who is an american citizen. menaz's wife has filed and application for her husband to become a u.s. citizen, but under our broken immigration laws, menaz has been placed instead in deportation proceedings. 18 years in the united states, a bachelor's degree in neuroscience, aspiring to become a researcher or teacher, married to an american citizen. this man is under threat of being deported.

what threat is he to america? the threat is losing a person of his talent who can make such a difference in the lives of so many people. menaz was scheduled to be deported last month. under president obama's new policy, the department of homeland security put his deportation on hold for three months so his application for legal status could be considered. i think that was the right thing to do. menaz grew up in america. he's married to an american. he wants to make america a better nation. in his letter to me,menaz spoke about what it would mean to him if the dream act became law. here's what he said. "imagine the countless numbers of individuals ready to contribute to our society as law-abiding, successful individual whose live life with a sense of strength and morality. abraham lincoln once said, i've always found that mercy bears richer fruits that strict

justice. and this is more true now than ever. i have a great amount of hope and optimism and belief in this country that one day we'll see the dream act enacted into law." madam president, let me introduce to you another dream dreamer. sth's josthis is jose lebro, 16o hoe assist parents brought him from the philippines to the united states. shortly after they arrived here, his parents filed an application to stay in this country, as legal, permanent residents. for more than 15 years their immigration application has been stuck in court. 15 years. in the meantime, jose grew up in america. he graduated from san francisco state university with a bachelor's degree in biology. as a member of alphaify omega national service fraternity, he volunteers extensively working with elderly and young asian-americans, among other people. jose has been authorized to work

while his immigration case is pending. for more more than 10 years he s work the as a dental laboratory technician. the dentist who employs jose was so impressed by his work that he filed papers to sponsor jose for legal, permanent residency in the united states. the employer's petition was approved but because of our broken immigration laws, jose has been placed in deportation proceedings. all of these years in america, 16 years in america, a bachelor's degree in biology, a man who is currently working in the health field in dentistry, who's done such such a good job that his employer wants to have him here permanently is now facing the prospect of being deported to a country he cannot even remember. jose was scheduled to be deported last month, three days before thanksgiving. but the department of homeland security put his deportation on hold so we'll have a chance --

he'll have a chance to apply for legal status and continue working. he sent me a letter. and here's what jose said. "i followed the laws of our system, that but the longjam in the courts have put me in this predicament. i have lived in the united states for 16 years and i consider this country my home. er i've always felt lying an american. i want to stay, live my descreems, build my own family here in the u.s. i hope that someday the dream act becomes a reality 10 that i may continue making contributions to the country i call home." madam president, i ask my colleagues who are critical of the administration's deportation policy, would america be better off if we deported menaz or jose become to bangladesh and the philippines? i don't think so. these two young men were brought to the united states as infants and children. they grew up in our country. they've overcome great odds and achieved great academic success without the support of federal

assistance. they didn't equal file for it. they have no problems in moral character, pose no threat to america. they would make us a better country if we gave them a chance. menas a understand jose are not isolated examples. there are thousands just like them. we have the power in the united states senate to give them a chance to let them prove what they can do for america. i want to commend the administration for its deportation policy and i urge the department of homeland security to move forward on expedited basis. as long as young people like menaz and jose are facing deportation, there's work still to be done. it's also clear that this new policy is only temporary. deportations of many dream act students are only temporarily suspended. ultimately it lies -- the responsibility lies with congress and with us to fix these broken immigration laws and give these good, young people a chance. i ask my colleagues to support the dream afnlgt it's the right

thing to do. it will make america a stronger nation. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask it spheek as if in morning business. for five minutes. i first want to thank my

colleague, senator enzi, for giving me these five minutes to speak. he was supposed to be next. i truly appreciate it and thank you, mr. president, for presiding. i rise today to discuss the collapse of m.n. gloafnlt while its demise hasn't triggered the sort of economic turmoil we saw in 2008, let me assure you it is having a devastating impact on the livelihoods and savings many in my state. sadly, the story of m.f. global is all too familiar. it is a story of another overleveraged financial firm that took on too much risk and did too little to disclose its bets. once again the folks whom the system was supposed to protect have been left holding the short end of the stick. three years after the u.s. financial system was nearly toppled by this sort of reckless in it seems little has changed. today, mr. corzine appeared before the house agriculture committee to testify on events that led to the bankruptcy of m.f. global, the firm he led, as well as the whereabouts of

roughly $1.2 billion that has gone missing. while taking responsibility for the collapse of the firm in his testimony today, mr. corzine chose to use much of his testimony defending the strategy that ultimately led to the firm's demise, that left many in my state with their life savings on the line. in regards to the missing customer funds, he responded that as c.e.o. of m.f. global, he wasn't really in the position to know what happened. if executives at m.f. global, mr. president, were willing to steer their ship into dangerous waters, they should be able to account for the safety of their customers' funds held in segregated accounts, something considered sacred within these markets. if anyone still doubts that wall street has not learned from its mistakes, i would have you talk to the farmers in my state that can't access their life savings and aren't sure when or how much of it they will ever get back.

dean coughland from laverne, minnesota, a town of 4,600 people, his family grows corn, soybeans and raises pig on their farm, he currently has over $200,000 in what was supposed to be a segregated m.f. global account which he cannot access and which he may never fully recover. he isn't a speculator. he invested to reduce his risk, locking in prices ahead of the growing season so he is protected from price fluctuations that can eat into his profits. or talk to dennis magnuson, a pork producer from austin, minnesota. he had a substantial amount of money with m.f. global that he used to stablize the cost to feed for his pigs. with both senators in this chamber with livestock now the cost of feed has been escalating. that's why he invest. he knows the risks, price swings, poor crops, bad weather. sthees are all part of farming. but his account at m.f. global

was supposed to help manage those risks, not become one. and it isn't just individual farmers. the effects of m.f. global's collapse are rippling through the whole agricultural communi community. "i am the general manager of wheaton elevator in wheaton, minuteman. located on the western edge of minnesota by the north dakota/south dakota border, our co-op has approximately 1,200 active members. so the m.f. global situation affects a great number of people here. we employ about 115 people and we are easily the largest nongovernment employer in all of the communities in which we operate. our business uses the chicago mercantile exchange and the minneapolis grain exchange to hedge purchases and seasms we do not speculate. we have always relied on the implied fiduciary responsibility of the commodity future trading commission and the chicago mercantile exchange to safeguard

our segregated funds. the impact to our business has been huge. we have been forced to double-margin the missing funds. this has increased our interest expenses and increased our ability to buy and sell grain. simply putting we cannot afford to lose any money on this deal. on a local level, the very future of our business is at stake. on a larger level, if segregated funds are lost market participants will leave the market, open interest will decline and market liquidity will fall. everyone loses. sadly, phillip deale is correct. the failure of m.f. global cost millions in investor losses and left many in my state confused and angry. and they should be angry. just three years after the 2008 financial collapse and what has changed? how can ordinary folks trust a system? who can they trust to protect them? two weeks after the collapse of m.f. global, it was announced that the commodity futures trading commission which is

leadinged investigation into the missing funds will receive only two-thirds of their budget request for 2012 potentially limbing the -- limiting the agency's ability to do its job. this is not acceptable. we need to make sure our regulator agencies aren't allowing wall street bankers to go down the street in their tprarrys while those standing up for the middle class, those that the agencies are supposed to regulate them are not following behind in a model-t ford. we don't know with certainty what the ongoing investigation noose m.f. global will find but there is little doubt congress has work to do. already the cftc after our hearing in the senate agriculture last week has come up with changes that they are proposing to how these funds can be invested. i think more needs to be done. there are also rules of disclosure that are being considered and were discussed today at the house hearing as well as in our senate agricultural hearing that need

to be changed. these changes were made to the cftc rules in 2000 and in 2005. that's when they loosened the rules and expanded things. they need to go back to where they once were when they protected investor savings. investor trust in segregated accounts is vital to market confidence and is a corner stone of customer protection in the commodities future market. this trust has been breached. i urge my colleagues to join me in demanding those responsible for the m.f. global failure be held accountable for their actions and steps are taken to prevent this from ever happening again. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as though in morning business for whatever time i might consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you. i wanted to take this opportunity to share with you what's been keeping me awake.

and shaoeurpl that if i -- and i'm sure that if i explain it well enough, it will keep you awake as well. misery loves company. this is misery that's going to affect your future. the senate has to make some changes to have a future for this country. for 14 years i was the only accountant in the united states senate. i've been joined by senator johnson from wisconsin, who is an accountant. these kind of numbers always bother us a little bit. now, i've done a couple of pie charts here. this one on the left represents the spending that we're doing. the one on the right represents the revenue that we're getting to do the spending that we're doing. now, these are proportionately correct. this is the spending. this is the revenue to do the spending with.

dramatically different. dramatically lower. now, there are a number of pieces of this that i think probably even show more. the spending incidentally is $3.456 billion. actually that's $3.456 trillion. it is $3.456 trillion we're spending. how much are we taking? $1.2 trillion less than we're spending. it's a third more that we're spending than what we're taking in. how long can you do that? there's no end in sight. what's that made up of? well, one of the things that we worry about is medicare, medicaid, social security. and i've got the revenues represented here for social

security and the social insurances. we're taking in $865 billion a year. this piece of the pie is what we're having to put out for that same thing. we're having to put out $1,4994,000,000,000. $865 billion versus $194 billion. when we say we're going broke, i think it's pretty evident. if you don't make any changes this, kind of spending will eliminate a program that seniors rely on. i used to say that when we're doing some of these things, we're stealing from our grandkids. we spend so much that it's no longer our grandkids that we're stealing from. it's our kids. and in a matter of months the

bill could come due. europe's having some difficult financial times, and they're changing the money that's going to be available to secure the bonds that allow us to do this kind of spending. we took social security money, and we put it in a trust fund. i would say don't trust the trust funds. what we did was put i.o.u.'s in a drawer and we spent the money. we're spending some of the money twice. how long can you spend the money twice? well, let's take a look at some of the other parts of this pie, because we always talk about the defense and the nondiscretionary spending which would be the, kind of the voluntary spending. well, our discretionary

spending, which includes defense and all of the rest of the things that we fund, we're spending $1,349,000,000,000. and the income? not near that much. individual income tax is paid, $889 billion. corporate income tax pays $191 billion. i bet you people thought there was a lot more corporate tax than that. part of reason for that is that a lot of people have single proprietorships or they have partnerships or they have small business corporations. if they're in those three categories, the money that their company makes goes straight to their tax line, even though hardly anybody in business can take all of the money out that they make. if they don't reinvest that

money in the business, the business would go broke. so they don't get to take the money out, but they have to count the money. that goes in this $899 billion of individual income as opposed to the corporate tax of $191 billion. there's a tax of $67 billion and other of $140 billion. but that has to fund $1,349,000,000,000 of spending. we have discretionary spending of $660 billion, military spending of $689 billion. i mentioned the social security and medicare and the medicaid. besides that we have some other mandatory spending of $416 billion. that's other things that we said will definitely be paid no matter what kind of shape the federal government's in. it's a whole range of programs. and then of course this little yellow sliver here, very

important one. that's the interest that we have to pay. that's mandatory as well. we don't have an option on whether we're going to pay the interest on the bonds that we owe. it comes to $197 billion a year. but, that's at the lowest interest rate in the history of the united states. what happens when that goes up? and as the european countries have more trouble and try to sell their bonds, they're going to have to pay a higher rate to be able to sell those bonds. when they have to pay a higher rate, we're going to have to pay a higher rate. we're all competing for the same dollars, and there aren't enough dollars out there to fund this kind of discretion, this kind of increase in spending each and every year. how do we make up the $1.2 trillion more that we are spending than we are taking in?

huge difference. i hope people can grasp the difference between spending and revenues. if you do that with your own personal budget, the spending better be smaller than the revenues or at least no greater than the revenues. but we haven't grasped that concept here yet. we did eliminate earmarks for the most part, and that helps. it was a rather small amount. but we are still adding programs. adding programs. now sometimes we do that as a demonstration project. a group of senators get together, and they say our five states could really do something with this new program that we've devised. so we'll put a little money in the budget and it will just be for those five states. we'll draw the criteria up so just those five states can get it. and the purpose of it will be to see whether the program was good or not.

in my 14 years here, i've never seen one that wasn't good. i suppose there's some that i never heard reported on but i never saw any that weren't good, which means that the following year the same group comes back and they say we just had this revelation, this marvelous experiment that happened in our state. it was just spectacular and it really ought to be expanded to every state in the nation. if it's that good, it probably ought to be expanded to every state in the nation. but with whose money? with what money? we're already spending more than we're taking in. we can't do the demonstration programs on new ideas unless we can eliminate some of the old ideas. oh, yeah, that's another problem. another thing that we do around here is we say, okay, we're going to eliminate this program. over ten years it will bring in the $5 billion that i need for my new program. well, that's over ten years.

but the money's going to be spent over one year or two years at the most. that's pretty bad accounting. thats' how you get to a situation where you've got this much spending versus this much revenue. creative accounting. say, over ten years we're going to have the money to pay for that program. you can't bind a future congress, so there's no assurance that that method of getting the revenue will stay around. there's also no assurance that we won't use that same pot of revenue two or three times. now, we'll probably be told that we're doing that, but i've seen some revenue around here that's been spent more than once. one of our problems is we have too many spending decisions to make. there isn't a business in the world that spends $3,46 billion in a year.

one year. there isn't anything that comes close to that and they have a bevy of accountants trying to figure out how to make their expenditures, make the cuts, make everything come out all year. we do an appropriations process. we've broken that down into 12 pieces to make it more manageable. 12 pieces doesn't cut it, folks. you can't get into the the detail for spending the billions. one of those is $689 billion. how long would it take you to go through the expenditures on $689 billion? well, you have to trust some of the past spending and some of the past obligations. i don't think you can really get into it that much. so what do we do about it? well, we do omnibus bills. that's where we say this is what we spent last year. let's just jam this all into one package and hurry up and pass it so government can continue to operate.

well, before that happens, we do continuing resolutions. we say we can't shut down government because there's so many things that people need that we've already approved to the tune of $3,046,000,000,000. we've got to keep government operating. what we'll do is a continuing resolution. a continuing resolution allows a government agency to spend 1/12th of what they had the previous year each month until we get the thing solved. in 2008, we had 27% less spending than we've got right now. so, i think a lot of the agencies will be delighted to keep continuing 1/12th of their last year's allotted spending each month this year. that's pretty much what they're doing. i really think there ought to be a penalty for us whic w