support the legislation. some reports have the phrma advertising commitment as high as $150 million, spread out through direct advertising in certain important states and among groups created to sound like they were looking out for patients or tout the economic benefits of obamacare. on on june 11, 2012, "the wall street journal" described the e-mails about the 2009 negotiations. the joint venture was forged in secret in the spring of 2009, ad had been an uneasy mix of menace and opportunism. the drug makers worried that health care reform would revert it the liberal default of price controls and drug reimportation that mr. obama campaigned on but they also understood that a new entitlement could be a windfall as taxpayers bought more of their products. initially, the max baucus asked

for $190 million, 90% for mandatory rebates for the drug benefit like those imposed in medicaid. the drug makers wheeled them down in $0 billion by offsetting cost-sharing for seniors on the one hand medicare and an explicit quid pro quo for protection against such rebates and remueur station. terms were reached in june. lead phrma negotiator brian hall wrote on june is it that "mr. obama knows personally about our deal and is pushing no agenda." but energy and commerce chairman henry waxman then announced that he was pocketing phrma's concessions and deed manning more, including reimportation. he wrote about the double-cross in a july 16, 2009 called "big pharma gets played" noting that mr. tolson's clients and shareholders may soon pay for his attempt to get cozy with

obamacare. mr. hall forwarded the piece with a subject line "this suction." the white house rode to the rescue. in september mr. hal informed that the deputy chief of staff worked on some very explicit language on importation to kill it in health care reform. this has to stay quiet. phrma more than paid for the favor with $150 million advertising campaign coordinated with the white house political shop as one of mr. halls deputies put it earlier in the minutes of a meeting when the deal was being negotiated, the w. when deducted potion would like to define what consensus health care means and when it might include. they definitely want us in the game and on the same side. the drug lobby which spent $75 million on front groups called healthy economy now and americans for stable quality

care in july mr. hall wrote that "rahm asked for hair harry and luis ads through third party. we've already contacted the amendment of" mr. president, my statement goes on and on. it's a case of the worst kind of deal making lined closed doors, nontransparent, getting special interests -- giving special interests their objectives achieved at the expense of the american people. mr. president, the white house owes us an explanation. we need to know why mr. axelro mr. axelrod's old firm was hired to run the ads promoting obamacare. at the time an organization spokesman said that the e-mail suggest otherwise. e-mail off emile referred to four men as the white house team running health care.

one e-mail phrma consultant steve mcmann called these four the white house designated folks. he explains that they are very close to axelrod. they have been put in charge of the campaign to pass health care reform. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to put in the record "the new york times" article june 8, 2012, "wall street journal" article june 11, 2012, and june 21 "wall street journal" editorial and the memos about the e-mails that are assorted with this -- that are associated with this report. officer without objection. mr. mccain: i know my other colleagues are waiting to speak. but last month when we voted down this amendment to allow drug reimportation from pharmacies that are accredited by both the canadian and american government, my statement was, in a normal world, this would probably require a voice vote.

what we're about to see is the incredible influence of the special interests, particularly phrma, here in washington. so what you're about to see as i predicted just before the vote is the reason for the cynicism of the american people have about the way we do business in washington. phrma, one of the most powerful lobbies in washington, will exert its influence again at the expense of average, low-income americans who have again have to choose between medication and eating and in response to the senator from new jersey said in opposition to my amendment, he said, it's not the special interests that have caused the senate countless times to reject this policy. this is about the health and security of the american people. that's why time after time the senate has rejected it. it is why it should be rejected again, and he was correct. it was rejected. the american people rejected in favor of one of the most powerful special interest lobbies in washington, and it is

a shame. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the senate is now having a quorum call? is that right? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the remaining time postcloture be yielded back and the senate adopt the motion to proceed to s. 1940. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number

250, s. 1940, a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i was coming here today to propound a unanimous consent request on this most important piece of legislation dealing with flood insurance. but after having had some discussions with various people, at this time it would not be of any benefit. there's no need for me to stand up and ask unanimous consent when i know it's not going to go anyplace. so we're going to move this forward a little bit and hopefully with this that i'm doing now, we can move toward completing this bill at a very early team. on behalf of senators johnson of south dakota and senator shelby, i have a substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid for mr. johnson and mr. shelby proposes amendment numbered 2468. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that, mr. president.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are now ordered. mr. reid: on behalf of senator pryor, i have a first-degree amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. pryor and mr. hoeven proposes an amendment numbered 2469 to amendment number 2468. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2470 to amendment number 2469. roeufp an amendment -- mr. reid: i have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 2471 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment number 2468. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is

there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays so ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2472 to amendment number 2471. mr. reid: i have a motion to recommit the bill with instructions, which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, phraoufs to re -- moves to recommit sp*t 1940 to the committee on housing, banking and urban affairs with instructions to report back forth with with an amendment. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2474 to the instructions of the motion to recommit s. 1940. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are so ordered. mr. reid: i have a

second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid proposes amendment 2475 to amendment 2474. mr. reid: i now move, mr. president, to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 341, s.2237, a bill to provide temporary income tax credit for increased payroll for an additional year and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in strong support of a bill we'll be taking up very soon to reauthorize and support the national flood

insurance program. nine months ago the senate banking committee passed long-term flood insurance reauthorization with overwhelming bipartisan support. five months ago senator vitter and i along with 39 members of this body wrote our leadership urging that the bill be brought to the floor. mr. president, today this week, we will finally consider this much-needed piece of legislation and i want to thank senator reid for his willingness to bring it to the floor. i want to first and foremost thank chairman johnson, ranking member shelby for their excellent work in drafting this bill, commend them for their efforts to build consensus on this important piece of legislation. and i want to thank my colleague, senator vitter, for his leadership and partnership in working with me to help influence this bill in a way that reflects broad bipartisan support. together we added a number of provisions to improve the initial draft. these provisions include one that addresses a critical issue

in my state. when this bill is passed, the army corps of engineers and fema will finally have to work together to develop common standards that allow existing corps levee inspections to meet fema levee certification criteria. we also lengthened the phase-in period for homeowners who must purchase flood insurance for the first time as a result of being mapped into a floodplain so that as changes to the map occurs folks are not forced mely into high priced premiums. this bill takes important steps to more closely align risks with premiums. it makes changes to protect taxpayers. and it puts the program on a more solid financial ground. the house and senate never produced two flood insurance bills as closely aligned as the bills that we have before us. and i'm not sure that we've ever had the same strong, broad support that we have now from homeowners and realtors,

insurers, state insurance regulators and environmental groups. that is a real testament to my colleagues on the banking committee, and i look forward to finally sending a long-term reauthorization reform bill to the president's desk for his signature. unfortunately, we've seen the consequences of reauthorizing this program on a short-term basis and we've seen the consequences of letting this program lapse. we've been down that road before, and seen how unproductive and destructive lapses can be. past lapses in the program have created uncertainty for homeowners and created significant burdens for those participating in the flood insurance program. when the program lapsed in 2010, about 1,400 home sales were canceled each day during those 53 days that the program lapsed. at a time when the housing market is still fragile, this is something that we cannot afford. for me, mr. president, this is an issue that hits home. the unprecedented flooding in

the missouri river basin last year which affected folks throughout central eastern montana demonstrates the need for reauthorization and reforms to ensure levees are certified properly and efficiently. i also care deeply about this program because in addition to protecting montana homeowners, there are jobs tied directly to the flood insurance program. in kalspell, montana, two of the largest national servicing organizations that employ over 500 people, jobs that could be put in jeopardy without a long-term agreement. mr. president, we must offer americans certainty in the face of risk. now at long last comprehensive, bipartisan, long-term reauthorization of the national flood insurance program is within reach. let's quickly act to provide security and peace of mind to the six million americans who rely on the national flood insurance program. with that, thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the clerk: cloture, we the unsigned -- undersigned senators hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 3187, the nad safety -- f.d.a. safety and innovation act, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate the debate on the motion to concur to the house amendment to s. 3187, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act to revise and

extend the user fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices to establish user fee programs for generic drugs and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the roll. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 89 and the nays are 3. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, let me first thank my friend and colleague from washington state, senator murray, for yielding to me for a moment to make a unanimous consent request regarding the nomination of donna murphy of the district of columbia to be an associate judge on the d.c.

superior court. this nomination was favorably reported by the homeland security and governmental affairs committee on june 29, 2011. that's almost one year ago. and for that year, this nomination has been stopped from a vote. i come to the floor today to say it's time for this to stop, in fairness to this able nominee, she deserves an up-or-down vote. she would bring a wealth of talent and experience to the job. donna murphy has been a career attorney in the department of justice in four administrations, two democratic and two republican, and has received strong support from senior officials for whom she worked in each one of those administrations. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement in support

donna murphy be included in the record as if read, and i'd ask that a number of letters and statements of endorsement for ms. murphy to serve on the d.c. super kwror court also be included -- superior court also be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: at this time, therefore, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: calendar number 231; that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 231. the motion to reconsider be considered, made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the

senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: senator demint has some concerns about this phogs, and -- about this nomination, and, therefore, at his request i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lieberman: madam president, i'm going to keep returning to the floor just in fairness on this nomination, because i think this is a deserving the senator from tphaoerbgs and -- deserving nominee and she deserves a vote up or down. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, senator ohio, senator brown be recognized, following his remarks, the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, last february in my office in seattle, i sat down with an iraq and afghanistan war veteran named

steven davis and his wife kim. steven and kim were there to talk to me about their experiences since he returned home and about the invisible wounds of war that they were struggling with together every single day. at the meeting kim did most of the talking. she told me about the nightmares. she told me about the lack of sleep. she talked about confusion and the anxiety that was now a constant in their lives. but it was the way she summed up their experience since steven returned home that struck me hardest. she said her husband still hadn't returned home. she said the husband she had been married to for nearly two decades, although he was sitting directly next to her, was still not back from the war. and you know what? despite the fact that we often refer to these wounds as

invisible, you could see it. when it came time for steven to describe to me his experiences, he shook as he explained how difficult the transition home has been for him, for his wife, and for their family. now, madam president, the davis' family story is no different than what thousands of other families have faced, but their story does have a tragic and frustrating twist. you see, sergeant davis knew when he returned home that he had a problem with posttraumatic stress, and he was courageous enough to reach out for help. he sought care and he was diagnosed with ptsd. but, just a few months later, after a visit to madigan army medical base in my home state of washington he was told something that shocked and appalled him and his wyoming after just a

ten-minute meeting and a written questionnaire, sergeant davis was told he was exaggerating symptoms and he didn't have p-t second p-t -- ptsd. he was told despite serving in two war zones, despite being involved in three separate i.e.d. incidents and despite his repeated deployments he was making it all up. he was then sent home with a diagnosis for adjustment disorder and told his disability rating would be lowered and that the benefits that he and his family would receive would ultimately be diminished. now, madam president, if this sounds like an isolated, shocking incident, here is something that you will find even more shocking. sergeant davis was one of literally hundreds of patients at that army hospital that was told the exact same thing. soldiers who had been diagnosed

with ptsd not just once, but several times, had their diagnoses taken away. in many instances these soldiers were told they were embellishing or even outright lying about their symptoms. in fact, so many soldiers were being accused of making up their symptoms by doctors at that hospital, i began to get letters and phone calls from them to my office. soon after that, documents came to light showing that the doctors diagnosing these soldiers were being encouraged -- encouraged to consider not just the best diagnosis for their patients, but the cost of care. these revelations have led to a series of internal investigations that are still underway today. but even more importantly, they have led to these soldiers now, thankfully, being reevaluated and to date hundreds of these soldiers, including sergeant

davis, have had their proper ptsd diagnosis restored. now, madam president, this too could be viewed as an isolated incident. and in fact when i first raised these concerns, the problems we sought at madigan could be happening at other bases across the country, that is what i was told, it was an isolated incident at one base, at one hospital. but you know what? i knew better. i remember back to this salon article that ran a few years ago. in that article, a doctor from fort carson in colorado talked about he was -- quote -- "under a lot of pressure to not diagnose ptsd." and it went on, to quote a former army sigh psychologist named david red -- and i quote -- "each diagnosis is a

acknowledgement that psychiatric problems are a huge diagnosis of this war. if they change the diagnosis, they can dismiss you at a substantially decreased rate." if they change the diagnosis, they can dismiss you at a substantially decreased rate. madam president, i also had my own staff launch an investigation into how the military and the v.a. were diagnosing mental health conditions at other bases across our country, and i was very troubled by what i found. it became clear that there were other cases where doctors accused soldiers of exaggerating symptoms without any documentation of appropriate interview techniques. they encountered inadequate v.a. medical examinations especially in relation to traumatic brain injury. they found that many v.a. rating

decisions contained errors which in some cases complicated the level of benefits that that veteran should have received. now, madam president, to their credit, the army did not run and hide as the questions about the other bases continued to mount. in fact, they have not taken two important steps. first of all, in april they issued a new policy for diagnosing ptsd that criticizes the methods that were being used at madigan and pointed out to health officials throughout the entire system that it was unlikely that soldiers faked these symptoms. then in may, the army went further and announced they should review all mental health diagnoses across the country dating back to 2001, and that in turn has led secretary panetta to announce just last week that

all branches of the military are now going to undergo a similar review. now, madam president, without question, these are historic steps in our efforts to right a decade of inconsistencies in how the invisible wounds of war have been evaluated. service members, veterans, and their families should never have to wade through an unending bureaucratic process. and because of this outcry from veterans and service members alike, the pentagon now has an extraordinary opportunity to go back and correct the mistakes of the past. but, madam president, we have to make sure these mistakes are never repeated. we still need to fundamentally change a system that secretary panetta admitted to me last week has -- quote -- "huge gaps in it." and that's why i'm here this evening.

madam president, today i am introducing the mental health access act of 2012. it is a bill that seeks to make improvements to make sure that those who have served have access to consistent quality behavioral health care. it is a bill that strengthens oversight of military mental health care and improves the integrated disability evaluation system that we rely on. now, madam president, ask anyone who understands these issues -- as anyone who understands these issues knows well, this is not an easy task. the mental health care, suicide prevention and counseling programs we provide our service members are spread throughout the entire department of defense and the v.a. too often they are entangled in a web of bureaucracy, and, frankly, too often this makes them difficult to address in legislation. so what i did in crafting this bill is i identified critical

changes that need to be made at both the department of defense and the v.a., and i set up a checklist of legislative changes needed to do just that. some provisions in this bill are likely to be addressed in my veterans' committee. others will need to be addressed through defense bills and work with the chairs of those committees. but all of these provisions are critical, and today i want to share with you some of the most important ones. madam president, high atop the list of changes this bill makes is addressing military suicides, which we all know is an epidemic that now outpaces combat deaths in this country. my bill will require the pentagon to create comprehensive standardized suicide prevention programs. it would also require the department to better oversee men tall health -- oversee men tall

health service for service members. secondly, my men will expand eligibility for a variety of v.a. mental health services to our family members so we can help families and spouses like kim who i just spoke about to cope with the stress of deployment and help strengthen the support network that is critical to service members who are returning from deployment. third, my bill will improve training and education for our health care providers. you know, oftentimes our service members seek out help from chaplains or medics or others who may be unprepared to offer counseling. this bill will help them prepare through their continuing education programs. fourth, my bill will create more peer-to-peer counseling opportunity. it would do this by requiring the v.a. to offer peer support services at all medical centers and by supporting opportunities to train vets to provide peer

services. and finally, this bill will require v.a. to establish accurate and reliable measures for mental health services. this will help ensure that the v.a. understands the problems they face so that veterans can get into the care we know that they can provide. madam president, all of these are critical steps at a pivotal time, because the truth is right now, the department of defense and the v.a. are losing the battle against the mental and behavioral wounds of these wars. to see that, you don't need to look any further than the tragic fact that already this year, over 150 active duty service members have taken their own lives. or the fact that one veteran commits suicide in this country

every 80 minutes. and while we all know there are a number of factors that contribute to suicide, repeated deployments, lack of employment security, isolation in their communities and difficulty transitioning back to their families, not having access to quality and timely mental health care is vital. when our veterans cannot get the care they need, they often self-medicate. when they wait endlessly for a proper diagnosis, they lose hope. last year at this time, i held a hearing in my veterans' committee on the mental health disability system that this bill seeks to strengthen, and i heard two stories that illustrate that despair. andrea sawyer, the wife of army sergeant lloyd sawyer, testified about her husband. he's an iraq veteran who spent years searching for care.

together, they hit barriers, they hit red tape so often that at one point she said he held a knife to his throat in front of both her and her army psychiatrist before being talked out of it. later in that very same hearing, daniel williams, an iraq combat veteran, testified about how his struggle to find care led him to stick a gun in his mouth while his wife begged him to stop, only to see his gun misfire. madam president, those are the stories that define this problem. these are the men and women we must be there for. they are those who have served and they are sacrificed and done everything this country's asked of them. they have left their families, they have left their homes, they have served multiple times and protected our nation's interests at home and abroad. madam president, this bill will

make a difference, but we have got to make these changes now. today i am asking members of the senate from both sides of the aisle please join me in this effort. we owe our veterans a medical evaluation system that treats them fairly, that gives them the proper diagnosis and that provides access to mental health care they have earned and they have deserved. madam president, we need to join together to get this legislation passed, and i ask every member of the senate to help me get this through. it's critical. as thousands of men and women come home today and thousands of them are awaiting for their care. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam

president. i begin by thanking the chair of the senate veterans committee for her incredible leadership on one of the most tragic issues of our time, the suicide rate among active duty personnel and our armed forces and especially among veterans. i just last week spoke to the disabled american veterans in columbus. i hear these same issues all the time, particularly men and women who are sent for the second and third and fourth and fifth deployments. one soldier -- one veteran active in the d.a.v. told me about an ohio soldier who has had a seventh deployment, and that's just not what we should be doing, and her leadership -- and i'm a member of that committee. i'm the first ohioan ever to serve on the veterans committee for a full term, and i'm on that committee because of these problems, and i'm so thankful for the leadership we have on that committee and what senator murray has done. i remember while i was presiding

some years ago, she was talking about her dad on the senate floor as a veteran. i know that's a big part of why she does what she does. so i thank the senator from washington state. i'd like to ask that the senate -- my remarks be placed in a different place in the record from my succeeding remarks, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i rise today, madam president, to discuss the bipartisan transportation jobs bill that has been lingering since march 14. march 14 was pretty early in the construction season, and if the house had moved as quickly as they should have, if the house weren't apparently held hostage by some tea party members who think that transportation should be a state issue and that the federal government shouldn't be involved, they should talk to president eisenhower -- they should think about president eisenhower's legacy when they say such things, but it would have been so many more jobs created, and the presiding officer's state of north

carolina and my state of ohio and elsewhere. the senate passed this job-creating economic development bill more than 100 days ago, but this historically bipartisan highway bill remains stalled. we know investments in infrastructure mean jobs directly. we know investments in infrastructure mean economic development in the future. when president eisenhower and congress established the interstate highway system not too many years after i was born, in the 1950's, a generation of americans set to work carving out freeways, paving new roads, building the bridges and the tunnels across our great country that allowed people and products to travel across the 48 states. we had in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's an infrastructure which was the envy of the world, an infrastructure the likes of which the world had never seen. since then, we have not done quite so well. our nation used our post-war infrastructure boom to become an

economic superpower, similar to how the g.i. bill helps millions of families who take advantage of it, soldiers, veterans and families, then at the same time creates prosperity for the whole country, building infrastructure helps those men and women who are actually doing the construction and doing the work on the highways and bridges and water and sewer systems, it also helps the companies and the workers who are manufacturing the steel and the concrete and the glass that goes into infrastructure, and it also helps the prosperity of the society as a whole. a truck leaving toledo, ohio, could be in miami, florida, in less than a day. a family could drive from one corner of ohio, from the county my wife was born in to north bend on the other end of the state in several hours instead of a whole day. we know that infrastructure investments are forward looking with payoffs that last for decades, yet also benefit our nation, our small businesses,

our workers both today and for generations to come. so it's unacceptable, madam president, that a time with still too-high unemployment, even though the unemployment rate in my state has dropped between 2% and 3% in the last four years, in the last three years, it's still too high. washington politicians for whatever reason continue to block progress on this bill. no one in this congress should be proud of the condition of our roads or the safety of our bridges. no one in this congress should be proud of the fact that the world's newest airports and most modern trainizations are not -- train stations are not in the united states of america as they were in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's. they are being built overseas. no one in this congress should be proud of creating new hurdles to progress, obstruction when the need is so great for us to create new jobs. historically, infrastructure has been a bipartisan issue. there has been no such thing as a democratic or republican bridge. the most recent extension is slated to expire saturday at

midnight. we can't afford to keep passing short-term extensions. we need to think about consequences for businesses that plan for the long term because congress keeps passing inch by inch, month by month extensions. businesses can't plan, workers can't plan, state department of transportation departments can't plan. it hurts the contractor who is unsure whether she will have the funds to buy a new bulldozer. it hurts the crane operator who is unsure of where his next job will be. it hurts the small business owner who sells aggregate to the construction industry. we can't afford to keep passing the buck. these short-term extensions disrupt the ability of businesses to plan for the future. this weekend, i visited el maison, a family restaurant located near the i-75 modernization project in west carrollton in montgomery, ohio, in west ohio near dayton. i spoke with the owner, bill castro. i asked what happened if the bill expires and the project is

delayed? he tells me the construction surrounding the restaurant has already cut into the restaurant's profits. i have eaten at that restaurant three or four times. it's always been crowded. the food is good, the hospitality is great. the owners are friendly and embracing. it's a great place. but because of this construction, which happens from time to time, i understand and should, he has had to scale back his own salary rather than lower his worker wages and reduce the staff. he knows this is a good thing for montgomery county, he knows it's a good thing for dayton and the miami valley, but it's clear that if this project gets delayed, it's going to do serious damage to his restaurant and to the other small businesses in the area. it's clear that business owners in my state are doing their jobs. madam president, it's time that the house of representatives does its job, works with us, passes this highway bill, gets it back to the senate and the house so we can vote on it. we know what's at stake. jobs created by infrastructure investments are almost always good-paying, middle-class jobs.

whether they are the construction jobs or whether they are the manufacturing jobs producing the products that go into the construction. these jobs provide workers typically with health care, retirement benefits, the kind of jobs that our nation needs to create a strong middle class. these jobs enable people to buy a home, to save for their children's college education, to plan for the future. these investments not only create construction jobs, they improve our nation's economic efficiency, obviously creating more prosperity. it's about rebuilding our infrastructure as much as it is about rebuilding our middle class. it's time for congress to pass the highway bill. there is simply too much at stake, madam president, not to. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. may i ask that the pending quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. this is the week, madam president, for the supreme court to release opinions from dozens of cases that it's been considering over the past term. in most of these important cases, the court followed its usual practice of allowing the parties to file detailed legal briefs and to present oral

arguments to make their side of the case before the court reached its decision. in one case, however, it decided an issue vital to the ongoing function of our democracy and it decided that case without even allowing the parties the opportunity to write legal briefs on the merits and to argue their case before the court. in the montana case, american tradition partnership versus bullock, the court's five-man conservative block doubled down on a historic error that they made two years ago in citizens united. citizens united, i am confident, will mark one of the lowest points in the supreme court's history. the case will ultimately stand alongside lockner versus new

york and other such decisions in the supreme court's gallery of horrible decisions. a telltale of these horrible court decisions is that they create rights of the powerful against the powerless, turning the very concept of rights inside out. ordinarily, a right is something that stands against power. that's why it is carved out as a right. it is because it offends against the power structure and yet we value it and we defend it. and our courts have as their very purpose in our system of government the purpose to be the guardians of those rights. the guardians of those rights against whatever the structure of power is in our society. that's why we give judges long or lifetime tenure.

that's why conflicts of interest in the judiciary are so particularly concerning. that's why some decisions we take away from officialdom entirely and give them to a jury of our peers. that is why it is a crime to tamper with a jury. we do all of those things because we want courtrooms insulated from power so that courts can do the essential work of protecting rights against the predations of power. look at the lockner decision for instance, and see how that court turned the whole question of rights inside out. seeking to defend the prevailing economic power structure, the supreme court then held that bakers had a constitutional right under a theory of freedom to contract, a constitutional

right to agree to work whatever hours their employers wanted to make them work. without overtime, without rest. a right on the part of the bakers to enter into a contract where their employers could tell them they could make them work whatever hours they wanted. looking back now, that seems almost silly. but if you were a judge affiliated with an economic structure that saw workers as essentially disposable, this question of workers' rights to work reasonable hours seemed, well, unreasonable. and the lockner decision justifiably lies on the junk pile of judicial history, a broken monument to the prejudice and error of that court. citizens united and now the montana decision join this

gallery of judicial horribles. here the right they turned inside out is the right of free speech. and the power structure served is the vast and unprecedented corporate power structure that exists today. so under citizens united, under this inside-out right that they've created, you now enjoy the free speech right to hear as much corporate speech as they want to bombard you with. if you're a regular human, you're on your own. if you're a c.e.o., you can access your corporate treasury to drown out the voices of all of your workers. if you're a massive multinational corporation or if you're a billionaire or multibillionaire, you now have a right to come nature the paid

media airwaves, and we have the free speech right to have to listen to all of that. at least if you're a billionaire, you are still a human being. if you are a corporation, -- and i don't say this judgmentally, this is a legal fact -- if you are a corporation, you have no soul. you have no conscience. you have no altruism. you have none of the characteristics that are special to humankind. you are a legal fiction. you are a financial mechanism created for the massing and the efficient use of capital. now, in the economic sphere, the value of that corporate structure is immense. there is no doubt about it. it has provided great value to our society. but in the political sphere, it is dangerous.

but for these five justices who constantly support corporate interests, to protect the power that comes from being able to provide or promise or threaten massive, anonymous expenditures on political attack ads, well, that's just how you see the world. one day, the citizens united decision will lie next to lockner on the junk pile of judicial error and prejudice. there is too much wrong with it for it ultimately to survive. but sadly, today is not that day. and the five conservative justices have chosen instead of correcting their error to double down on it. the central and deeply flawed premise of citizens united was the conservative majority's declaration that vast

corporate, independent expenditures -- quote -- "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." they had no record on which to make that decision, none had ever run in an election before, they had no basis for making that decision, but that was the declaration that they issued. well, first, whether independent expenditures by corporations pose dangers of corruption or dangers of the appearance of corruption is a factual question. it is a factual question that depends on the actual workings of the electoral system. supreme courts aren't supposed to make findings of fact. so one of the first errors in the citizens united decision was that they drove off that road of proper judicial procedure across the rumble strip and they went off and started making findings of fact. and they did so in a very

dangerous way. the peculiar way that the conservative justices brought the citizens united question before the court deprived the court of any opportunity to consider a record. ordinarily, the supreme court has a record that comes up to it from the court decisions below. but as my colleagues may recall, the parties in citizens united did not ask the court to consider the constitutionality of limiting corporate independent expenditures. that was not addressed below. what happened is that the conservative supreme court justices took it upon themselves to ask a new question and to answer that question they themselves had asked. in doing things this way, the justices simply declared with no factual basis that massive, independent, corporate expenditures posed no risk of corruption to our elections.

they were wrong, as is obvious to most people. the case the court decided today, american tradition partnership, created an opportunity for the court to have dug itself out from the colossal mistake that it made in citizens united. it's an interesting background and comparison to citizens united because the case came out of montana where there is an extensive record within the state of montana of historical evidence of immense corruption created in that state by corporate influence and corporate campaign money dating all the way back to the copper barons who bought and sold state government in the bad old days. the montana court also found substantial evidence that montana voters believe that corporate election expenditures lead to corruption, and that

this belief has contributed in montana to widespread cynicism and low voter turnout. those were findings of fact based on an actual record, and the montana supreme court carefully reviewed those findings of fact. that's what it's supposed to do. not make findings of fact, but review them. the montana court concluded the state had a compelling with interest justifying the law based on the evidence in the record. so the corporations then came in and asked the u.s. supreme court to overrule the montana supreme court's decision, arguing that it was inconsistent with citizens united. at that point i joined with senator john mccain, who has long been a national leader on campaign finance issues in filing a bipartisan amicus brief with the supreme court. in our brief, senator mccain and i challenged that central premise in citizens united that phony premise about the corrupting pential of outside political expenditures being

nonexistent. the extensive factual record developed in montana and the facts that have developed since citizens united object the -- on the ground nationally provided the court with plenty of evidence, evidence that it lacked because of the way that it had approached citizens united. our brief showed that citizens united stood on a pair of false and flawed factual assumptions about our elections. first, the citizens united decision assumed that outside political -- outside political expenditures were going to be independent, that they were going to be not coordinated with political campaigns. second, the citizens united majority assumed that there would be disclosure of what special interests were paying for the ads. both of these assumptions are

demonstrably wrong. the ongoing presidential and congressional races reveal close coordination between campaigns and these so-called independent expenditures. wealthy donors who have maxed out their contributions to the candidate now can use candidate-specific super pac's has convenient proxies to make the functional aequivalent of excess campaign contributions. campaigns and their super pac's have closely connected staff, they have shared consultants, they openly coordinate on fundraising, they work together on advertising, with super pac's acting actually as the successful surrogates for the candidate in states where the candidate has made few aexperiences -- appearances or spent little money on advertising. indeed, in the republican presidential primary, a candidate-specific super pac for senator santorum spent millions

and won the minnesota primary for senator santorum when the candidate himself had no money to spend. these vast expenditures are not just coordinated closely with candidates and campaigns, they are anonymous. with the special interest behind the ads keeping themselves secret from the american public. as everybody in this chamber and every american who has a television set knows, the decision in citizens united opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest money pouring into our elections. using phony shell corporations, 501-c organizations and super pac's, outside groups can now spend or importantly, they can credibly threaten to spend -- because that can have a big effect in politics -- overwhelming amounts of money in support of or against a candidate without any publicly

disclosed paper trail. although the secretive interests behind the anonymous spending may be hidden from voters, they may be hidden from regulators, from prosecutors, they may be hidden from the media, they will not be hidden from the candidate. when be -- they will be well known to the candidate. that alone allows for an undetectable, quid pro quo corruption, as the wealthy outside interest can reward a candidate with massive anonymous spending. worse than that is a type of corruption i touched on a moment ago when i talked about threats. a corruption made possible by the citizens united decision that went completely unconsidered by the united states supreme court, they never even mentioned it. that is the ability to threaten large and secret expenditures without actually having to make

them. a candidate could be quietly warned that if the d they will d with a large expenditure against them. now, how is that threat under citizens united? before citizens united, if a corporation wanted to threaten a politician, the threat would mean a $5,000 pac contribution to the politician's opponent. it would mean maybe some fundraising and bundling by the corporate executives and by the corporate lobbyists. i suppose that's something that a candidate wouldn't necessarily want, but it's not a very big deal. it happens all the time. and i don't think it throws much weight around here. today, after citizens united, the threat isn't a $5,000 and a couple of fundraisers. the threat is of unlimited anonymous corporate spending against you.

enough to defeat or elect a candidate. and if this threat succeeds, the real danger is that there is no record whatsoever of the corrupt deal for regulators, prosecutors, and media outlets to track. sherlock holmes talked in one of his decisions about the dog that didn't bark. in political corruption, we need to be concerned about the ad that didn't run, the ad that didn't run because the politician obediently did what he or she was told. the brief that senator mccain and i authored laid all of this before the court. we documented the close coordination between campaigns and the so-called independent spending. we detailed the tangled web of corporate 501-c and super pac relationships that allow wealthy interests, special interests to hide their spending from the public. and we explained the various ways that these forms of

coordinated identity laundering by special interests create the real threat of quid pro quo corruption. as we said in our brief, the campaign finance system assumed by citizens united is no longer a reality, if it ever was. and, frankly, i don't think it ever was. confronted with the actual facts on the ground in montana and nationally, the supreme court's conservatives decided that they were going to ignore the evidence. there's a blindfold on lady justice, madam president, but the blindfold on lady justice, as she holds her scales aloft is supposed to be blindness to the parties who are before her, supposed to be blindness to what the interests are. it is not supposed to be a considered and deliberate blindness to the evidence and

the facts. but in this case that is the blindness that the supreme court has deliberately imposed on itself or at least the five conservative judges have. this conservative bloc has decided to perpetuate the error of citizens united without even considering the facts. montana won't have an opportunity to file briefs on the merits, explaining the importance of its law to protect against the corruption that is its historic experience. the attorney general of montana won't have an opportunity to stand before the justices to defend his state's law. once again the court has kept from itself any relevant record that might present uncomfortable facts. in citizens united, the conservative justices asked themselves to decide a major constitutional case without any lower court record. and now that they have a fully developed he lower court record

to proceed on that happens to show how wrong they were, they have no interest in even looking at that record. we need to act now to fix our broken campaign finance system. the supreme court had the chance to correct its error. these five conservative justices refused to correct their error. they have doubled down on their error. they ignored the evidence of their error that we all see around them, so we can't wait. we know why they're doing it. we know what's going on. we know it's not going to happen, not from this supreme court, not from those five judges. so we need to fix this on our own. americans of all political stripes, whether you're an occupyer or tea partyer, they are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous corporate cash pouring into our elections. and by campaigns that succeed or that fail, spending on how many billionaires support the

candidate. more and more people in my home state of rhode island and around the country feel that their government responds only to wealthy special interests. they see jobs disappear and wages stagnate and bailouts and special deals for the big guys, and they lose faith that elected officials here in washington are listening to them. well, for now we're left with one weapon in the fight against the overwhelming tide of secret special interest money, and that one weapon is disclosure. let the sun shine in, at least let the american public know who is behind these massive expenditures. earlier this year i introduced the disclose act of 2012. i had immense help from the presiding officer, senator merkley, in doing that work. we call it disclose 2.0. this legislation will shine a

bright light on all of this spending by these powerful special interests. with this legislation, which now has 44 senators cosponsoring it, every citizen will now who is spending these great sums of money to get their candidates elected and to influence our elections. passing this law would begin to remove the dark cloud of unlimited secret money that the supreme court has cast over our american elections. the disclose act includes a narrow and reasonable set of provisions. we've trimmed it down so that it should have wide support from democrats and republicans. a great number of my republican colleagues in this body are on record that disclosure and transparency are essential in campaign finance. so we've made every effort to craft an effective and a fair

proposal while imposing the least possible burden on the covered organizations. as trevor potter, a republican former chairman of the federal election commission, said in a statement submitted to the rules committee, disclose 2.0 is appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional, and desperately needed. the same cannot be said for the conservative majority's holding in citizens united. echoed again today in american tradition partnership. the conservative justices desire to maintain their error and to keep the corporate money flowing, represents a sad, sad day in the history of the court. it will, as i said earlier, one day be corrected. one day citizens united will lie next to lockner vs. new york and

other decisions that disgraced the court in the past on the junk heap of judicial history. but until that day it is up to all of us to work together to restore control of our elections, to restore control of our democracy, to put it back in the hands of the american people, to assure that we continue to -- a government of the people, by the people and for a people, not a government of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations. i thank the presiding officer. i yield the floor. i'll take a moment to go through the closing script and in doing so ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period

of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to senate resolution 507 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. whitehouse: 503. the clerk: senate resolution 503 designating june 2012 as national aphasia awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 504 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 504 expressing support for the international olympic committee to recognize with a minute of silence at the 2012 olympics opening ceremony, the agent thraoets and others killed at

the -- athletes and others killed at the 1972 munich olympics. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 26, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the first hour of debate be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half, and that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. further that at 2:15 p.m. there be six hours and 15 minutes of debate remaining postcloture on

the motion to concur in the house message to accompany s. 3187, the f.d.a. bill, with two hours under the control of senator harkin, four hours under the control of senator burr and 15 minutes under the control of senator paul. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow and vote on confirmation of the rosenbaum nomination at noon. we hope to complete action on the f.d.a. bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the supreme court issued a number of decisions today, though it did not announce its ruling on the health care law. that decision is expected thursday, the courts last day of the term. today the court struck down much of arizona's immigration law, allowing one particular forward that requires police check the status of someone they stop for another reason and who they suspect is in the country illegally. and in another ruling today the justices overturned fontanez law that limited corporate spending on political campaigns. and we heard about the arizona law earlier today on the senate floor from senate majority leader harry reid. of the mean-spirited arizona law. that's of course the immigration

law. while i agree with the court's provision to eliminate three troubling provisions of arizona's flawed law, there were actually four provision provisie they were held unconstitutional. one was hundred held. i am concerned about the section they upheld that i'm surprised they did, but they did. they just upheld a measure to hold pay from checks if they success expect. keep its papers place and system of immigration checks by racial profiling. it gives arizona officials free rein -- anyone they suspect of being in arizona without documentation. as long as this provision remains, innocent american citizens are in danger of being detained by frills they carry immigration papers with them at all times. it is reassuring that the court

left the door open. i just say to you, mr. president, and anyone within the sound of my voice, someone with my skin color or yours, i don't think you're going to be carrying your immigration papers with you every place you go. but if you're in arizona and you speak with a little bit of an accent our your skin color is brown, you better have your papers with you. that's unfortunate. it's reassuring that the court, though, left the door hope to further court challenges of this very unsound provision. i'm optimistic that once that portion of the law is implemented, it will be discarded. laws that legalize discrimination are not compatible with laws and traditions of equal rights. so it is disturbing, mr. president, that mitt romney has called the constitution of the arizona law -- sorry,

mr. president. so it is disturbing that mitt romney that is called the unconstitutional arizona law a model for immigration reform. anyone who thinks such an unconstitutional law should serve as a model, their national reform is clearly outside the mainstream and the united states supreme court agreed with that today. today's partial victory affirms the obama administration ras right to challenge this law. and it is a radio minder that the fix rests with congress. instead of allowing 50 states to have 50 different enforcement mechanisms, we need a national solution that continues to secure the border, punishes unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrants and undercut american wages, and requires 11 million people who are undocumented register with the government, pay fines and taxes, learn english, work, pay taxes,

stay out of trouble and about to the end of the line to legalize their status. democrats are ready for that challenge and we have been willing to craft a commonsense legal solution to this for a long time, one that's fair, tough, and practical. as i've indicated, mr. president, we have been ready do this for years. we have tried on a few occasions. the problem now and has been republicans won't vote for immigration reform. simple as that. we've tried. the first step would be to pass the dream act, which would create a pathway to citizen hispanic for children brought to the country through no fault of their own. if upstanding young people stay oust trouble and work hard in high school, they should have the chance to serve their country in the military go to college and work toward citizenship. unfortunately, mitt romney said he would veto that. that's the dream act. president obama took decisive

action. his directive will protect 800,000 young people and focus law enforcement resources where they belong -- on deporting criminals. as we all know, it is not a permanent solution. but president obama's decision was necessary, precisely because republicans have so far refused to work with democrats on a solution. congress must consider a long-term resolution to protect the dreamers and tackle complex immigration reform that addresses all 11 million undocumented people living in this country. but that will take cooperation but that will take cooperation senator reid from earlier today. you can let us know what you think about the supreme court's 5-3 decision on the immigration law. go to our facebook page to share your thoughts and share your opinion with others at

facebook.com/c-span. 's been out a look at the impact of the bush era tax cuts on states and congressional districts and the heritage foundation's recent report from today's "washington journal." >> host: ray ray heydemann heritage foundation for drug or

of data analysis thank you for being here. guess my. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: did i promote you? thanks for coming in and talking about this reported the heritage foundation and your sense of your data analysis. how does the cost impact by state and congressional districts? first of all review for us what thing is you are calling tax may get an? >> guest: it's an important cataclysmic occurrence we have seven different groups of tax hikes that are scheduled to take effect january 1. the reason these tax hikes are taking effect is we have so many different pieces of tax policy that all have the same expiration date for new tax hikes such as those in the health care bill are all scheduled to take effect. the result is basically almost $500 billion of scheduled tax increases in one year which is why we call it tax to get in is why people call it the fiscal cliff is wearing people because we don't know how congress will deal with the problem.

>> host: the tax increases in congress, the national total is $494 billion. talk to us about what that means for families. >> guest: 494 billion is a big number that people have a hard time processing so we want to take a look and say what this is mean for the average american or a family defining the joint filers with at least one dependent. does have a tax hike from $4200. that is because a lot of things we are taking for granted, the child tax credit would expand in 2001 the creation of 10% tax bracket is really going to hit families hard and that is going to basically double a family's grocery bill for the entire year. host of. >> host: the heritage foundation looked at types of filers, tax filers so you looked at families, the impact on families as you mentioned over $4100 you broke down into baby

boomers, millennials and low income workers. who gets edgardo? >> guest: the people to get the hard hit the hardest are baby boomers. they are most likely to have children and closest to their peak earning years and because of the reduction in the tax rate they will be the most adversely affected. we also want to look at people like millennials to starting off in their working years. the millennials will be affected by $1200 largely because payroll tax increase on the 10% bracket and the few others did actions. >> host: the cost of taxaggedon impacted by stating congressional districts so what part of the the country d.c. is getting hit the hardest? >> the hardest hit district and the districts least affected in the same city, new york so the new the new that new york has a great area of high income tax filers, people have a lot of investment income who have a lot of children. it was hit by $14,000 in new taxes across the river coming

over and the harlem area gearhead districts least affected. that's only $1200 because of the expiration of the payroll tax. the state most affected his connecticut home of more affluent americans compared to west virginia which is the least affected that the states are least affected are looking at is tax increase of 45% of the families and comes the basically a racing wage game. >> host: talk about the impact of tax increase on stating congressional districts and the analysis by the heritage foundation. here's the number to call republicans 20273002 and independent callers to (202)628-0205. we have a democrat from san diego. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? thank you for taking my call, suzanne. i want to ask the gentlemen your guests regarding their

assessment. my question to the gentleman is, why should we believe anything that he is saying at this time since the heritage foundation are the persons who were responsible for the obamacare health care plan in regards to the mandate. that is my first question to him. why should we believe or trust anything from this coming out of the heritage foundation? since they obviously don't seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to mandate. that was their idea. >> host: why we have you on the phone before we have to get some for your question would you think about the tax cuts and their possible expiration? are you worried about what that can mean for your taxes? >> caller: no i'm not worried about what it could mean for my taxes. my concern regarding taxes in general is grover norquist and his power over the republican party. >> host: we will leave it there and get a response. >> guest: first of all i wish we had enough power to impact

obamacare but it's interesting she is not worried about it because orange county and the areas around los angeles are one of the top 10 congressional districts that will be affected in terms of overall taxes. you are looking at a $7000 tax increase for the average family and their retirees will be affected by almost $1000 in these types of districts because they will be losing income. to tax dividends is scheduled to triple for example but we know it will have an impact on a lot of areas in california. >> host: we are looking at the state of california and this is the total for the state. a big number there. >> guest: absolutely. california number is driven by tax filers and some of the tax filers are little bit more from affluent. a lot of tax filers have children so they will lose, take advantage of the tax credit. california has so many people you are looking at almost a $200 billion tax increase affecting that one state alone. this data is all from the irs

and publicly filed data that takes a look to be able to see how many tax filers are affected in the state and break that down. >> host: steven, come independent caller from gainesville florida. >> caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. i have two really quick questions. the first one as i was wondering if you can kind explain to the american people why it was in 2001 that the bush tax cuts which are the ones looking to expire are not a permanent tax cut and why it was the congressman said didn't approve for a permanent tax cut and my second quick question is, as an independent i'm looking for my politicians to make a kind of meat in the middle on some issues. now, i'm looking at your data and the majority is for people like myself am a regular everyday working-class people. i'm not a baby boomer but i'm almost there. however i would like to see my politicians meet in the middle so the heritage foundation and i

know your answer is going to be no but why is it maybe that your organization when it asks first and everyone to meet in the middle, will actually do something and impact the extension for the tax cuts for those making under let's say $250,000? >> the first answer to your question, the first part of your question was the bush tax cuts are basically about one third of the whole impact of the fiscal cliff and the reason it is basically because the rules of congress. they have passed the byrd ruled where the tax cut was scheduled to expire at the end of 10 years. the tenure period expired two years ago and since then they have rolled over and incremental packages. i think a large part of the bush tax cuts are good policy and they should be made permanent if congress can get together and agree on the different rules. the problem here about, talking about why can't we agree on defending the tax cuts some of the tax cuts are the fact that

the tax on dividends is scheduled to triple from 15 to 45%. the tax on capital capital gains for example almost increased by 75%, from 15 to 24%. we have pernicious and business -- given the economic situation business assessment is already very weak so the last thing we want to be able to do is discourage businesses from going out there and expanding in being able to put americans back to work and that is something surprisingly enough every economist agreed on that you may not agree on supply-side tax cuts or keynesian expansion of modeling but everybody agrees we need to try to delay these taxes otherwise we have returning the economy to recession. >> host: rea hederman at the heritage foundation. the country was doing fine before the bush tax cuts and will to find after. >> guest: interestingly enough

remember the economy is just starting a recession in 2001 before the bush tax cuts took effect. take a look at business investment. business investment has fallen off the cliff. in 2000 when we have the nasdaq stock rocket crash and the period fun employment so we know the economy was not doing fine before the tax cuts took effect. after the 2003 pro-growth tax cuts we had pretty good economic growth that took us back to 2008 and brought the employment rate down below 5%. we had a period of unemployment and the know with one of the reasons right now we are not going as fast as possible is because of the uncertainty these tax cuts expiring. the federal reserve board and the federal reserve bank goes out measures economic activity. it's writing policy because one of the reasons there is slow business expansion. if you are a businessman how we be affected if you are staring down the gun barrel of 100 billion-dollar tax increase?

>> that will delay economic activity. >> host: tom and ridgeway pennsylvania, on the democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you folks doing? i just had a little joke before i get going here because i've been thinking on -- i am 65 and i remember when there were no phonecalls -- and in my estimation you know, the heritage foundation and always are defending the rich. what i was like to know is i worked on my life and i was a vietnam veteran. if i worked really hard the most i could ever make was $40,000. that was working saturdays and sundays. when they take 26% of my taxes out and i get benefits now, i think it's a good deal. i am left with $28,000. if you make $100 million you pay 23%, which they don't even do,

they get away with not paying their share, you've still got 27 or whatever billion last. what is the difference? those poor or rich people have to live on $27 million or billion? i don't see any sense at all. the majority of us americans are out here working hard. it's been proven since mr. reagan we have only gone up hardly no percent on their income. you guys, the rich have gone up 400%. now i think it's time for us great americans that are making all this money to really start chipping in. the other thing is, this whole thing was caused by taking the restrictions off of big banks and letting them get into derivatives and all that. it's the truth. these guys keep trying to put the blame on the poor, the unions. the unions are only 5% of all the working people in this

country. i can't believe americans, i don't care whether you call yourself republican, democrats or whatever, can't believe what's going on and be willing to go back to the republicans and bush in that. ..

and to you consider the impact of the expiration of the rich tax cut? so as you mentioned, there are different tax cuts we are talking about that range based on income. these factors into your calculation. >> guest: absolutely. we haven't been able to break out because we are not sure they haven't extended kind of like last year. are we going to see a grab back approach they like this part of the tax code, they want to keep this part and you can see for example like for a low-income

they might keep the reduction but they left the 10% bracket expire. so all those together kind of form the impact. so it's hard to pick and choose because there are so many different provisions that affect so many different americans. again, the 2001 tax cuts aimed at everything from education to low-income to parents that look at the expiring payroll tax, for example, the probability of the amt will be taxed but we don't know until that time. we don't know the tax burden is going to be until we figure out who wins and loses if congress doesn't extend the whole thing. >> host: the analysis at the heritage foundation. right along the lines we are talking about how am i supposed to plan for my tax return if we don't know if the congress will actually do some work this year? >> guest: that is exactly the question. it's one that is in the business and economic community because the past couple of months you've seen a lot more kind of people

the world's largest bond is talking about this. been bernanke has been talking about this, the chairman of the congressional budget office forecasting a probable recession if it is not repealed and the problem is the longer we wait the more uncertainty we have. last year congress waited so long that irs was trying to prepare to different tax reforms saying the tax cuts expired and the problem is when people try to sit there and make decisions when they are going to invest people sit there and say because now it makes a lot more money to hold onto my finance because we have a lot of problems over in europe. we can't do anything in europe but we can do something about the tax armageddon. >> host: let's listen to ben bernanke readjustment and. he spoke at an event last week in washington and addressed the issue. estimate on the fiscal cliff the

way the programs were set up, the dollar and not associated with the expiration, a tax cut expiration including the payroll tax cut and so on is larger than the spending cuts as high understand. but i'm not making any judgment about individual programs. the point is putting all these things together you have a very substantial withdrawal of income from the economy that will affect spending and will affect the ability of the economy to recover in the short run. again, making decisions about how to modify those automatic changes, congress obviously has to look at the long run. what's the most efficient tax structure, what's the best way to spend the limited resources those are tough decisions congress has to make, but in terms of the fiscal clef in terms of what's going to happen in january, it's the total of both spending cuts and tax

increases which has the impact which not only we but others like the commercial budget office has been defined as being of concern. we will still be able to do open market operations with our securities, even if the short term debt is very low. and indeed of course overtime, the -- as the securities come close to maturation we will have other securities that are of short duration. >> host: federal reserve in manteca ben bernanke speaking last week react to what he had to say? >> guest: he basically said this will not affect people's spending it's the tax increases are going to hit people hard. they have a couple hundred dollars less than being able to go and close and to people to buy food and think about buying a new car and this means the whole economy is going to run a lot slower and he mentioned the

congressional office and the forecast what's going to be in the economic activity last year and unfortunately a lot of the mongols right now are saying we are going to have a new recession starting in 2013 of the tax armageddon comes to pass because you can't stop the economy with a 500-dollar, 490 million-dollar tax increase and expect economic activity to be normal. >> host: we're talking about heritage foundation's center for data analysis look at the impact of tax increases on states and congressional districts. >> let's hear from the elisabeth in maryland. >> caller: high and good morning, mr. hederman. u.s said the business investment if the bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, then the business investments will fall off the cliff receiving for the last ten years all of my perspective is business investment in china the business investments in india.

so more accurate to say that the business investment in america have fallen off a cliff because the business investment are going into china and india. i want to understand the hypothesis of what you are trying to convey to the american people. thank you. i will hang up and listen to your call. >> guest: thank you. to focus on the domestic u.s. economic activity what we can control. we can't control what other countries do. so what you are going to see you're absolutely right how we drive up the tax on the capitol in this country you will see capital going abroad. we know right now that the taxation on capital is a big driver on where the companies expand and build their operations. the oecd economist of the top 30 industrial nations say the corporate tax nation and tax on capitalism is the most harmful tax increase you could have and

unfortunately with taxmageddon is a double whammy in 2001 expiration so it's going to raise the tax on capital dividends and second, you have the tax hike on obamacare so therefore you're going to have capital gain exposed to the medicare tax for 3.8% and from dividends. the attacks on dividends will go from 15% to about 44% on january january 1st, and that's why businesses and corporations and everything are going to be worried about continuing to invest in the united states. we've always been a detractor of the overall capital and one of the reasons for economic success but if we punish capital and business we can't be surprised if other people might look beyond the border to do business. >> host: according to the heritage center for data analysis the average tax increase for the return ranges from $1,900 west virginia to $5,100 in connecticut. in looking at congressional

districts, their debt mentions the biggest break in to biggest new york districts. the 16th district, $1,200 in the 14th district, $13,000. walter, independent color in baltimore. good morning. >> caller: thank you. and thank you c-span. i'm not buying the crop that is coming out of your guests mouth. it was earlier said it's not just the heritage but there are also extremist groups on the left that are ridiculous and in particular we are going to deal with his. to continue a fraud which is job creation and uncertainty. it's by greedy people sponsoring of the heritage foundation, sponsored by the chamber of commerce. these fools drive on the same

roads i'm preparing to drive on the not necessarily drive, the of the chauffeur who drive them but my question is simple besides the crap -- >> host: let's not name call the destiny more what is the question? >> caller: it is the joke and this uncertainty which is a lie i want to know where in the hell is the revenue supposed to come from to support america as a lady just said it's in china, not america. >> caller: let me address the point. the federal reserve board that goes out in economic activity is pointing out that rising uncertainty is restricting employment gains and economic opportunity as two different factors, manufacturing. we also the standard economist who created the uncertainty index fell that they were reaching new highs.

others will uncertainty whether you would hit the debt limit and have an economic impact so the fact the greater uncertainty in the economy restricted garnik growth by the federal reserve then to the other point where they come from i think it is a great question. we are not calling it to say look don't have anybody we are saying keep taxes where they are today, don't raise taxes engineer for the especially now we have the huge economic growth. i think we should be able to start thinking about how we are going to get out of this mess. the heritage foundation we have a plan called saving the american dream. we go through and see what we did about taxes what will we do about on entitlement because we think we have a spending problem in the country we are spending about over a quarter gdp at the close historically high level a little below the historical average because of the economic slowness.

but it's taxes that return to the historical average and unfortunately that's why we are concentrating on government spending as opposed to simply raising taxes. >> host: rea hederman the center for data analysis at the heritage foundation. he served as the assistant director. he's also a research fellow and a family member of the center for data analysis which heritage created back in 1997 to provide the public policy community with modeling data base production and research assistance. matt asks whether the heritage foundation supports ending the bush tax cuts ever. is there a time when the economy will be strong enough that there will be called for? he said if so, when, after the recession is over? >> guest: we have our big tax plan and perfect tax plan is basically changing the tax cuts around because we think we need fundamental tax reform. the idea part of the problem is we of so many different tax

extenders, tax criticism from dishwashers of energy efficiency to tax houses, the schoolteacher deductions some of these are good policies but the ideas we have a tax code right now that takes longer to compile everything that drives a huge amount of activity because people were lobbying for certain tax breaks. that's why we want to see the taxes prevented and put everything on the table. ideally we say let's have lower rates and get rid of a lot of the exemptions so the tax code isn't as complex or dirty. the tax code needs better economic process. >> host: alabama, democrats. >> caller: you got the talking points down. you very conveniently left out how much more the up and one per cent gets paid three you are trying to scare the american

people you're going to have to pay more taxes. then i would like to go to this you talk about the corporate tax rate 35%. exxonmobil made 16 billion profit, paid no taxes, about 6 million-dollar refund. on your way of thinking do you want to give something like ten or 12 million-dollar refund with all that profit? caterpillar paid no taxes, why do you want to put the tax rate on the wealthy? >> host: we will get the guest to answer that in just a moment but let's hear from you will little bit more. what do you think would happen to your taxes if the bush tax cuts that expire? >> guest: >> caller: the united states is in a position we have to get more tax money, we have to have

more money coming into the government. you can't balance the budget on the backs of the poor people. the rich people have got to pay their fair share. >> host: years with the center has to say alabama would see their taxes go up average per tax return in dollars is 2400. that is for tax filers in the state of alabama on average. >> guest: the sycophant tax increase. was remember the united states tax system is still progressing. the top 1% about 40% of income taxes, the top half of the tax payers pay almost 100% of all federal income taxes. the question is how much more progressive you can get and then the corporate income tax makes a great. some companies are not paying the top rate and again, the reason is the top rate 45% highest corporate tax rate in the world now. most of the rest of europe has been slashing the corporate tax

rates. so that's why you see a lot of the text extenders that are part of the tax armageddon because you got the tax credits for businesses because the congressman know that corporations depend 35% tax rate is not good economic policy because they will sit there and go to the areas of lower taxes and so the question is how can we keep the companies in the united states maximize income growth and one of the way is reforming the corporate tax code by stripping out a lot of the special exemptions for certain companies to the overall rate so we are no longer the highest corporate tax rate in the industrial republican collar shreveport louisiana. welcome. >> caller: am i in? >> guest: you are. >> caller: this guy, rea, at the heritage foundation i think they are a very good organization. they come up with very good

plans and in 2000 when they had this dot com bartleman plant was going up and taxes were coming in and yet already retired in 96 but decided to go back to work. i worked in all of 2001 and in 2002 and february i got my w-2 form and i'm one of those wealthy people that got this tax break. $55,000 i was $9,600 because i worked 26,000 all those of my retirement plan not for these tax cuts by and for staying in place. entirely too much money it's been trillions and trillions of dollars without one republican vote then raising the tax to pay for it.

let me tell you if they would take the money and put it in the roads and bridges instead of giving all these mass transit consternation they would have enough money to build the road. they spend the money on everything else. >> host: let's get a response from rea hederman. >> guest: you're exactly right on the tax cuts everyone is focusing. there's so many pieces of the proposal both directly aimed at working people like yourself, the idea we are going to get rid of the marriage penalty because the marriage deduction for standards for joint filers was less than that of the two single filers that was changed. the extended the second tax bracket to help couples and created the second tax bracket so i'm not surprised this was able to help you because it directly aimed at helping working americans to put people back to work.

in hindsight the 2001 recession was considered pretty small but it was significant in the fact there were big changes because the stock bubble and then we had the 9/11 attacks shortly thereafter and there is no doubt in my mind in the 2001 tax cut it is shorter and shallower than the average recession. >> host: what's your in texas on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. this is the same story you get from almost everyone in washington. the upper 1% pay 40% of the texas. that seems fair to me but nobody else. either we can lower taxes, everybody wants to lower the taxes. no one wants to get rid of the government spending and anybody that lives in washington on a believes is brainwashed to where they want to spend and spend and spend. if you look at some of the stuff

that they've come out with that we could cut spending, it makes sense but nobody talks about that. i'm an independent. george bush had the two wars we didn't pay for coming and he entered to the medicare pharmaceuticals come and obama is just compounded that. so doesn't make any sense whether you are a democrat or republican, you want to spend more money into the american people don't want to pay more taxes to pay for it. we are going to be increase's position one of these days. thank you. >> guest: he's exactly right. one of my favorite expressions is a more tolerant of the government program because you see a lot of temporary spending programs created in the emergency they never disappear because you have people involved in those the congressman a setting for sponsoring this program than ever continue to go down. so that is one of the reasons we sit there and very grand bargain

ideas putting everything on the table because somehow it all turns out you have the tax increases first and the spending level never really goes down. and you are absolutely right. it's a bipartisan problem leading to greater spending. president bush, second president bush is not a small government conservative, did not reduce spending. we are obviously not reducing spending now with the stimulus bill and health care bill and if we don't get spending under control, we know that we are going to be facing the same problem about the decade that some of the european countries are going to face because our growth privately-held national that is when to exceed 100% of gdp. we know that has a significant impact and the interest rates are eventually going to go up about 4%. by the end of the decade. that is going to have some very significant problems because it is going to start squeezing out the government programs we do want like maintaining some recommendations to some of the citizens to carry on things the government can do and should do we are going to be have to use

that money to pay the interest on the debt. >> host: let's take a look again at with the heritage foundation's center for an analysis showed as the ten hardest hit districts increases that could happen if the bush tax cuts do not get extended. the top when we mentioned before that on manhattan's east side and western queens. $13,000 we look at los angeles suburban district, from 30, $10,000. connecticut's fourth district and greenwich and stamford, that's also 10,000. coming down from there, some of those districts that are in this topic area are democratically held. how are you hearing from democrats and republicans on this issue? we have carolyn maloney, a representative from new york's 14th come henry waxman for the 40th. >> guest: it's interesting because we take a look of the most fluid district in the nation held by the democratic members from somebody that sometimes isn't always in favor of cutting taxes for the well-off americans.

but, you know, at the same time you have democrats that recognize the good tax policy, for example senator chuck schumer is always nervous about raising taxes too much. the financial industry's on capital gains because it will have a major impact on new york city. it's went be very interesting to see how the members come out and what they decide to do when some of the constituents are going to be so adversely affected. >> host: there is the argument some people as expressed on tour as well as the callers that the wealthiest americans should contribute more. the reason why they are asked to do more is because they do have the money and the resources, and this time would be the debt looming. should they just -- >> guest: it's one of those things where the wealthy, as i said, they are paying the most taxes. obviously a lot of americans feel they should be paying that much. the question is what point do you raise taxes so much you can have the adverse affect people say we are not going to play this game anymore.

you have seen it from europe and other countries you phrased the tax rate so much that they have moved over here, for example, or people have moved to other types of low tax countries. the event been able to shift their investments. so the worry is that it gets so top-heavy and we see this in the state of california. that wonderful little income for the wealthy people fall on the recession all of a sudden the country's finances or state finances fall because it is a small group of taxpayers that they start making the level of income you are in big trouble. >> host: let's hear from mark, democratic color. florida. hello there. >> caller: how are you? >> host: go ahead. >> caller: will have to excuse me. i've got a cold. rea, an educated person got better and of the marines 11 years and i worked at nuclear power plants as a union carpenter, and i actually sacrificed my body for overall welfare of producing electricity. it's not a safe business, but i

do believe and nuclear power. if we create 100,000 jobs in the american economy, what percentage does that reduce the unemployment? >> guest: sure -- >> host: to clarify, it's rea. >> guest: the unemployment rate is about 8.2% come samore moly we need about 120, 140,000 new jobs basically to be able to lower the unemployment rate. so, right now what we are seeing is a lot of people have left the labour force and they have not moved back in. so the unemployment rate is lower than probably where it should be. the question is as we bring all of these people back into the market to be able to find jobs. if we read about 100,000 jobs a month that is pretty good but we need to be reading about 200,000 to make a significant dent in the rate. >> host: - become a republican joining us now. >> host: >> caller: good morning. i'm a responsible republican voter and i feel that the bush

tax cuts need to expire because the clinton administration tax stuff and we have the redistribution of wealth, and you have an nisha, rea, because guess what, during the eisenhower's administration, he taxed the top 2% of 51%, and we got the u.s. highway system. the republicans and the house need to move their butt and get this going on behind the system and get the infrastructure build. no excuses but i'm sick and tired of them and i hope everyone of them are replaced in november. >> guest: i am not an expert on the highway bill. the transportation questions -- let's think about, you know, how the world has changed since the eisenhower administration. for better or worse, the united states is the only industrial country in the world. there's no competition because europe was rebuilding from world war ii and obviously the soviet union, eastern europe and even china were under massive communist dictatorship control. as a consequence now, 60, 70

years later we have a richer world but a more competitive world. the policies that were good in the 1950's quite simply don't hold as well now because the world is a lot more competitive. so in order for us to remain as competitive as possible and maintain our leadership in the world and maintain a was bought we need to have a different set of tax policies. that means not taxing people over 50%. britain tried that last year. sometimes they are getting less than they expected because the most influential and the best and brightest have left the country. so we want to avoid this type of tax policies to ensure it is as a vibrant the country as possible. >> host: michigan, barry. independent line. >> caller: good morning. yeah, i would like to make a comment. i'm almost sure that the foundation supports this but we spent 25, 30 years selling and trading jobs all over this world than having them leave this country. from lenders and 50,000 corporations have left this

country since 2008. you guys have supported these programs that have brought the companies to leave and now you're complaining about the people that were left behind. it's time something changes along the line here. thank you. >> guest: i'm not sure six ackley how many corporations have left. let's remember the new corporations and businesses appear all the time and the idea is to create an environment where we create innovative cutting its businesses that can be super productive and the idea is how we do that as a country. one of the ways is having a good tax policy, not as many deductions, so everybody is playing by the same rule. we also know that the free trade at the end is a benefit for the country because it brings in cheaper goods. we are able to get businesses and do business that used to be closed. retreat has created more jobs and wealth for american

citizens. that is a good policy because the presidents of both parties has signed a free trade legislation trying to put americans back to work. >> host: final tweet the seventh hardest hit in the nation at $7,600 profile. that is according to the heritage study. if the viewers and listeners want to see how their area might vary according to research how can they find out more? >> guest: if they go to www.heritage.org they can look up taxmageddon. we will have all of the research telling you exactly what are the provisions that expired, and again, how was the congressional district affected. >> host: rea hederman, thank you for being here. the assistant director for the center of data analysis.