suit is one of six presidential appointees to the 2012 west point board of visitors. she served on active duty for five years as a signal corps officer. her tours in germany included platoon leader, staff officer, and company commander. after leaving the army, sue worked in brand management at procter & gamble, and church & dwight. she also took two years to work in parish renewal programs for the archdiocese of new york. she currently serves as the executive director of knights out, and the communications director of outserve. our second panelist is captain matthew phelps, united states marine corps. he most recently served as the commanding officer receiving

company, support battalion, recruit training regiment marine corps recruiting station san diego. it is a mouthful, i know. [laughter] and i say most recently, sir, because we pulled him out of there just after his change of command that took place late last week. he is headed down the road to quantico where he will start the expeditionary warfare school shortly. he is a prior enlisted marine. are after earning a bachelor degrees in music in rochester university in 2001, he enlisted in the marine corps. he was promoted to the rank of sergeant while a member of the marine corps air ground combat center banned. at that time, he applied for and was accepted into the enlisted commissioning program. he earned his gold second lieutenant bars pack in august of 2005. he has held a variety of assignments since earning his

commission, including a combat deployment to iraq to first battalion, 11th marine regiment in support of operation iraqi freedom. our third panelist is gordon o. tanner. a career civil servant and an air force veteran, a member of the senior executive service, mr. tanner is the principal deputy general counsel of the air force, and works here in the pentagon. he provides oversight, guidance, direction and guidance regarding legal advice on all matters arising within the air force. mr. tanner earned his bachelor's degree from the university of alabama, and is juris doctorate from vanderbilt university. he was commissioned in the air force judge advocate general corps, and served on active duty for four years. while spending some time at private practice, mr. tanner continued his military service in the air force reserves,

ultimately retiring as a colonel. now while i'm not a lawyer and i definitely won't make any lawyer jokes because i know there's more than a few of you in this room -- [laughter] i do want to point out that it's significant to note that mr. dent is a member of u.s. supreme court bar, the d.c., tennessee and alabama bars. and i'm not going to pressure him too much, but it's important to point out that our event here was designed for the pentagon workforce, and a workforce of military and civilian personnel. and they do want to look to him to provide that civilian prospectus, even if it might have a hint of air force blue. [laughter] with their introductions complete, i'd like to begin this discussion. i'm going to ask each of our panel members to tell their own personal story, and then i'll come back to them to see if there are any other points that i think that you might find

interesting. so now, without further ado, i'd like to turn it over to sue fulton. [applause] >> thank you. this is an extraordinary special day. standing room only in the pentagon auditorium. but not because lgbt people are special, but because the service, the sacrifices of gay and lesbian service members are being recognized as equal to the sacrifices that straight soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen make every day. [applause] >> you know, a lot of people seemed surprised that "don't ask, don't tell" repeal went so smoothly. and for a moment i was one of them. but i think back to when i arrived at my first duty station in 1980, many, many years ago, you can all do the math, as a

fresh, you know, wet behind the ears butter bar with my shiny air force wings, hoping that would get me through, one of the first people i met was our battalion pack nco, personnel nco, and forget the stereotype, but he was about six-foot four, and he was the most fiercest, most that is, you know, take no prisoners, flamboyant, gay men i have ever seen. [laughter] and yet, all of the captains and majors and colonels deferred to him because he could play the piano. he knew his job inside and out. he knew it better than anybody else. and there was widespread respect for him. when he would pass me in the hall and say how you doing? [laughter] [applause] the other folks would say, well, that's just riley. and i think so many of this new ride is out there, whether it

was the female motor sergeant who could fix anything, and by the way, lifted a tire by herself, or the training nco who had a snappy one-liner for everything. the notion that, and certainly, the vast majority of gays and lesbian folks in the military are not stereotypical, but so many of us knew both gay and lesbian soldiers. and we knew it at the end of the day that this wouldn't be hard. i in fact, when i was a company commander on the little base in germany, actually, there were actually for gay commanders on that base at the same time. and we were all successful, but none of us stayed in the army. because it was too hard. even before "don't ask, don't tell" we were told, we knew, there were things we couldn't talk about. don't tell anyone about that first date.

don't tell anyone about your crazy, fun weekend. don't tell anyone about your bad break up the dough to anyone about who is waiting for you at home when you get back from deployment. the army redacted our lives. and i think at the end of the day one of the things that those of us working on this realized, and when i say those of us working on it, i mean all of the military folks, gay and straight, is that being gay isn't about sex. it's about life. it's about buying a house, bickering over george. sorry, that's my partner over their. [laughter] it's about deciding whether to have kids. it's about moving to a new place and figuring everything out. it's about life. and i do want to say that thanks to the leadership of this administration and the pentagon, and so many unit leaders at every level, we can have those lives now and still serve the country we love. thank you so much for having me

here, here. [applause] >> captain phelps? >> you know, as i listened to the biographies of this distinguished panel, the first question that comes to my mind, why the heck am i here? [laughter] i enlisted in 2002 because, after the events of 9/11, i just could not imagine anything else that i could do with my life than to serve my country. and as i was sort of bound and focused on that idea, i thought there was no better way to do that than as a marine. the interesting thing, the complicating factor at the time was i did come out as gay to my parents when i was 18. and here i was, 25 years old faced with the feelings so deep

within me that there was absolutely no denying it, that i had to be a burning. and i enlisted in the marine corps and i listened to my recruiter stumbled his way through, explain the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was in effect at that time, at the time in 2002 there was no chance of it going away. and as he stumbled to the policy and he asked me well, are you gay? because if you're not then this doesn't matter. okay fine, then i will sign the paper, and let's do it. and i realized at that point that the problem, the problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was that it passed us to lie when nobody even realized that we were going to nobody even realized they were asking us to live. that's what we had to do though. it really hit home for me though when i was on deployment in 2007. i'm in iraq and every saturday night the officers use to get together and smoke cigars, watch movies.

usually banned of brothers or something so we could make fun of the way the army did it. [laughter] but as we would sit there, of course the thoughts we all drift to home. anyone would talk about their families and their wives and the letters they got from their kids. and i sat there in the back of the room not talking to anybody. because not only was it so hard to have left somebody at home, just like it was hard for everybody else, but when everybody was getting together and growing closer as a you know, by virtue of the fact that it was allowed to say anything, i was actually growing more distant from my unit. we hear people talk about unit cohesion and how is the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" going to affect unit cohesion. i would argue that it got better. because now you have a whole

portion of the military who is able to be honest with people that they work with. and when somebody says do you have anybody at home, we could say yes, as a matter of fact, we do. when the repeal happened on september 20, 2011, it came at an interesting point in my career. i had already been selected as the complete command and i was already serving as a company commander down at the recruit depot. and i went into work on the 20th of september thinking that my life was going to chan change. and i went in and i sat down at my desk, and the kind of braced myself on the desk waiting for everyone to come and ask me if i was gay. [laughter] and believe it or not, nobody did. [laughter]

i didn't get any e-mails. i didn't get any phone calls. in fact, the phone didn't even ring. i was waiting, like somebody, please talk to me today. because i felt like i was going to work for the very first time. after almost 10 years, matthew was going to work. as a marine. in uniform, doing my job, doing the job that i thought i had been doing for 10 years. but i had only sort of didn't have to doing. -- have to doing. and as we progressed since then, i found myself sort of cast into little spotlights, because all i have done is acknowledge the fact that i am gay, the fact that i love serving my country, that i love being a marine. that's it. that's all that i've done. and some of that is news. i can't imagine having a panel

where we would say congratulations, these are all male marines, let's give them a round of applause. i happen to be gay. but more important i am a marine. and if i could just touch on one more point it if i've learned anything is that the reason i am here is that it's still kind of is news. that there are still relatively few of us wearing the uniform are willing to go on record and say, this is my life, i am proud of my life, and i will serve as a leader with integrity, with openness, and serve as a role model for our younger troops, for our younger marines, for our younger servicemen. and for those who come after us to show them that it is not nearly the big deal that everybody thought this was going to be. thank you ipo. [applause]

>> terrific. just terrific. you know, it is wonderful to be here to represent the 8000 or so civilians who work here in the pentagon, together with those other civilians and our military workforce around the globe. but i'm also awfully proud of the military connection that we all have. because we have one mission together. and that's the important of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," i think, and the importance of today. i did retire as a reserve jag. i remember the fear and concern i had about potentially being outed during the period. and it would've been awful. and i can imagine what a relief

that, i can't imagine what a relief that is now. but we have a great deal to be thankful for. we have a great deal -- i personally have a great deal to be thankful for in that my husband, robert, raise your hand, robert. is down here. [applause] we have been together nine years, and married almost too. i'm thankful that we are being joined today by military members, civilian and military, from around the world. you have already heard we had a request just earlier this week from a group in afghanistan that wanted, of soldiers in afghanistan who wanted to be sure that they could tie in and participate by video in this conference. what an outreach that is for us, for each of us to them as they surface on the front lines. also think we ought to use this opportunity to remember that we are standing on the shoulders of

giants. there are huge numbers of people who have gone before us and worked on this issue, many of whom are in this room today. and while we can't go through all the names, on behalf of all of us connected with the military service, i want to say thank you for what you have done to make today possible. [applause] >> now, like a good lawyer, like i have been trained by mr. johnson and others around the room, i have this laundry list of all the civilian benefits that we have now are working on getting, or we have some. if you want that list, i'll be glad to e-mail that to you. it might be helpful actually, and it is available. but what i really want to talk

about today is what we, what each of us can do in our own day to day lives to make a difference. first of all, and most importantly, we need to be as visible as we can be. everybody has a different comfort level. everyone is in a different place. let me encourage you to be as open and honest as you can possibly be. why? well, first of all, we have strayed allies, colleagues and friends who absolutely supporters. one, because it's the right thing to do. and second, because they have loved ones, friends, neighbors, sons, daughters who they want to know more about their life, and we may be the bridge to helping them understand that. let us help be the bridge to our straight allies.

we've civilians, for those of you in the room and on, indeed land out there, -- in tv land out there, we have military colleagues are not yet comfortable about being more open. we as a civilians have a unique opportunity to be that bridge, to help them if they find themselves in a climate that is not as comfortable yet as it should be. we can be there for our military colleagues. finally, we in the pentagon here are often face-to-face with the policymakers, the people who are looking at the benefits and how those can be, so we have one class of marines and not first and second class of marines, or airman and sailor's or soldiers. we can be there for the policymakers. i want to ensure that our

visibility is open, and it shows, it shows that we can become, we can become one marine corps where a marine can perform his mission and not be treated as second class because he receives lesser benefits than his straight college. we can be one air force where deployed airmen can perform her mission and not have to worry about her partner and children living in shabby, off-base housing because they were ineligible for on base military housing. we can be one navy what a gay sailor can focus on his mission and not worry about the school that is children are forced to attend because they didn't qualify for certain dod school benefit. we can be one army where a soldier can both focus on her mission without her worrying about her partner back home not being cared for i the members of

her unit that are back home. spousal support is critical for our success for our deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. and our spouses, our partners need that support as well. so that we, we can focus on our mission. i'm not going to tell my own coming out story but i do want to tell you, i want to tell you about mr. will and ms. mildred albright. shortly after i came out, i was on the usher team at st. mark's church in san antonio, texas, where i was stationed. actually, i was the chicken on that team can if you can believe it. the usher team must've been 70 and 80 years old. they had been on that same team forever. and i was the new kid on the block. one of the usher team members,

mr. will, came up to me after church one sunday morning and asked if he could talk with me privately. he was a little sneaky about it. had no clue what he wanted to talk about but, of course, i agree to talk to him. he came up, he looked around to make sure no one was listening, and then he began talking to me about his grown son and his sons partner who lived in houston. mr. will and his wife, ms. mildred, loved both her son and that partner. they spent thanksgiving with them. the best code you can imagine. but mr. will and ms. mildred, although they have been active in the church for their entire lives did not feel they could tell one person about their sons and their experiences. not one. and they were just afraid that their friends would completely reject them because they have a gay son, and that they actually liked gays. well --

[laughter] i was i think maybe the first day% they had ever talked to. i didn't do anything. i was just there. i was out, and i listened. well, based on my just being there, they begin to open up to their friends, church friends and colleagues who, and brought them into the rest of their world. i have to tell you that mr. will and ms. mildred's son died of two years later, and they brought him back from houston to san antonio to be buried at st. mark's. and i wish you could have seen mr. will and ms. mildred bring that partner, arm in arm, up to the front row. and when that partner finished speaking and giving eulogy at the funeral, there was not a dry eye in that house.

everyone in that packed congregation was right there with mr. will and ms. mildred. what does that have to do with us today and the military? it has a lot. all we have to do, to whatever extent you can do, is be visible. you can be the bridge, you can be the face, you can be the friend. thank you. [applause] >> now, was there any doubt that we have the right folks to be up here to talk to you this afternoon? [laughter] what i'd like to do, i'm cognizant of the time and i realize that some of you may be fighting a busy schedule this afternoon, but what i'd like to do is just go back to each of our panelists and asked probably just one at this point in time,

for one point that i think, you know, may have been something that they drew out from their comments. so for mr. tanner, as a career civil servant, what is the most significant thing that you have seen in this building, aside from the stories that you have shared with us, that has been a key indicator that kind of let up his transition transition from the military side. as you stood from their civilian perspective, albeit with that one put in that reserve side. >> just quickly, i think it's -- i'm drawn to the fact that people become visible in different ways. it may be simply putting a photograph of a loved one in your cube. it may be talking about, just as

someone would talk about a straight couple would talk about, or individuals talk about what they did on the weekend. people are in various places, and i think that you have to come from a place where you're comfortable, that you have to stretch that a little. so i would encourage everyone who is thinking about becoming more visible to stretch a little, and to take the step that you believe could help you be that bridge i mentioned. >> thank you, sir. for captain phelps, i don't think there is anybody who, in this audience, or anybody watching, you know, around the world he was not moved by your words, by the strength of your passion as a marine, first. i would just ask has there been anything anecdotally in the last as you said, every once in while you're been been thrust into the spotlight, i'm trying to count

here, aside from the 12 that are blinding you at this point in time, is there anything significant event, post repeal, post that day when the phone didn't ring that you would like to share with this audience? >> i would say there were probably, i would say the most significant event to me, i mentioned that when i took command of my company in june of last year, i was in the closet. i was at a point in my career where if anybody had found out that i was gay, even though the law had been signed, repeal had not gone all the way through, if anybody had found out that i was gay at the time i could've lost my job. a year later, in fact, last friday, a week ago last friday, on the 15th, the president hosted a reception at his house, you know, the white one.

[laughter] and i was, i was invited to attend. i, captain matthew phelps, was invited to attend this private reception at the white house. and i thought, how amazing it is over the course of the year i could go from being fired for being who i am to having champagne with the commander-in-chief on cocktail napkins with the presidential seal on it. so i would say for me personally that was probably the most significant event, you know, the fact that although there is a certain distance for us still to travel before we find full equality, the fact that the service of gay and lesbian servicemembers is finally being recognized on that scale, i think that's just an amazing thing to me. >> sue, i would like to tap into

one thing that i think a number of folks may be interested. one, you have describe your experience as a member of the classic 1980 at west point. but today you're also involve as the executive director of knights out. so from my chair to his chair to his, what can you tell us about the next generation of leaders that is now changed because of how they serve at one of our military academies, and how they will serve as leaders with our next generation? >> well, the academies are learning institutions, and i think that, you know, repeal was more there than anywhere else. one in cl action is said to me that, you know we braced for impact and it wasn't even a speed bump. the repeal. so i mean, our students, the

cadets, students, midshipmen, they have had this preparation going through high school with gay and lesbian, get a, bi and trans bi and trans kids. so i think it's much less of an issue with this generation. i think, it's again, not even a speed bump at west point. and on the board of visitors, it just hasn't been an issue. we have much bigger fish to fry, to handle at west point, so it really hasn't. and i, but i don't want that to be taken as something we've all said, look, generationally this generation that is coming up now that is serving, they are the ones who get this. it's just the older folks, right? but, you know, there is some exceptions to that, too. i can't tell you how many stories from outserve members that i have seen -- >> you can see the rest of this program in the c-span video library. we will leave here as the u.s. senate is about to gavel and. lawmakers will continue work on a five year extension of the

national flood insurance program. it's -- if an agreement isn't reached we could see senators move onto the highway bill. legislation to keep student loan rates from dublin next month. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. father in heaven, we proclaim your greatness for what you have done, are doing and will do. thank you for your generosity to us. lord, we're grateful to live in

a nation where we can worship you in spirit and truth, according to the dictates of our conscience. thank you for protecting this land we love, for guiding its leadership, and for abiding in us by your holy spirit. give our senators this day the wisdom to take advantage of the opportunities you give to make a substantive difference in a needy world. use them to alleviate the suffering of the marginalized and to cause justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

give our lawmakers today a deeper reverence for you. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 27 , 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e.gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, the next hour will be equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. we'll continue to debate flood insurance. i hope we can reach an agreement to complete action on this bill. we also need to consider the transportation bill and the student loan extensions before the end of this week.

there is a lot going on here on capitol hill today. we've been in touch with the speaker's office. our staffs have been meeting. when we come to these kind of bills, the finance committee is extremely important, and senator baucus, i've had many meetings with him and conversations with him. and he's a key to getting everything done. he's needed on the highway bill, needed on the flood insurance bill, needed on student loans. he realizes that and has a tremendous obligation and burden to bear, but he always comes through. he has a good relationship with his counterpart in the house, david camp. and so we are -- i'm cautiously optimistic that we can end this week tomorrow even with a little bit of luck. but we may not be able to. we have to see what happens the next 24 hours, which will be

key. monday the united states supreme court decision is to strike most of the arizona immigration law confirms something we knew. the onus is on congress to repair the broken system. no one denies the system is broken but in the 48 hours since the supreme court ruling republicans have engaged in revisionist history to explain why it's taken so long to fix it. here are the facts: when democrats brought a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor in 2007, republicans filibustered the legislation. this legislation was led by senator mccain and senator kennedy, among others. the republicans filibustered this legislation even though republican president bush supported it. they twice filibustered the dream act, which allowed children brought to the united states by their parents to go to college. it would allow them he to go to college, serve -- allow them to

go to college, serve in the military and work towards citizenship. democrats have done everything humanly possible to pass comprehensive immigration reform. we've been trying to do it for years. two congresses ago we spent more time on immigration on the floor than any other issue. and we were spending that time because we were being slow walked by the republicans. the republicans are divided on this issue. we're not. 90% of democrats support comprehensive immigration reform and of course the dream act. every time democrats offer to work together on comprehensive immigration reform, even bring to the floor bipartisan ideas originally proposed by republicans, the other side finds an excuse not to support the change. on the floor today is the senior senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader. he was one of the pushers of the dream act, but he had with him two republican senators who were

with him pushing just as hard. but those two senators have disappeared in supporting the legislation. republicans blame democrats for inaction. well, they can't have it both ways. they can't blame democrats for not passing a bipartisan immigration bill when they are the ones who blocked the bill. moving forward, congress has two things in its favor. thanks to president obama's decisive action, the specter of deportation no longer hangs over the heads of 800,000 young men and women brought to the country as children. and the supreme court offered yet another affirmation that a long-term fix for a broken immigration system must come from congress and not from the states. now is not the time for the republicans to continue this harangue that they've had. it's not our fault.

it's time for them to work with us for a reasonable solution, one that continues to secure our borders, punishes unscrupulous employers, improves our dysfunctional immigration system and requires the 11 million people who are undocumented to register with the government, pay fines, taxes, learn english and then they don't go to the front of the line. they go to the back of the line. they do this in order to change their status. if my republican colleagues truly care about changing the status quo, they should step forward now and work with democrats, not criticize from the sidelines. unfortunately, republicans who once favored a permanent solution for america's broken immigration system are deserting efforts to find common ground. only decisive -- the only decisive voice on this issue today seems to be from mitt romney, who has called the unconstitutional arizona law the -- quote -- "model for the

nation." that's what he said. he's also promised to veto the dream act. he said that. i didn't. democrats believe the kind of institutionalized racism in the arizona law is hardly the model for reform in a country that stands for liberty and justice for all. we believe upstanding young people who have never known any home but the united states of america should be able to go to college, fight for their country and contribute to society and not face deportation. but at least we know where mitt romney stands on these issues even if we disagree with him. he's for vetoing the dream act, and he believes that the arizona law is a model for our country. that's really too bad. as long as republicans remain unwilling to vote for comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform, we remain at an impasse. i want my republican clothes to know this -- republican colleagues to know as soon as they are willing to join a

commonsense legislative solution that's tough, fair and practical, we're ready to join them. woulded chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled by two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i'd like consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, let me follow up on what the majority leader spoke to on the issue of immigration because this is the right time to bring it up. i had a meeting, several meetings yesterday that were as touching emotionally as anything

that i've witnessed as a senator. there were students who came from all over the united states of america to walk peacefully in front of the supreme court. they were dreamers: undocumented students who have attended schools or add tending colleges and schools in america. they're not asking for a special treatment. they are asking for a chance, a chance to earn their way into the only country they've ever called home. these poor kids out there literally have no country. they were brought here to the united states as babies and infants. they didn't have a choice in the matter. they were packed into a car or on to a bus, and they grew up in america. as senator menendez often says, from new jersey, he comes to the floor and reminds us these kids put their hands on their hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag every day. they only know one national anthem: americans. and they're just asking for a

chance to be a part of this country. 11 years ago i introduced a bill called the dream act. it was a bipartisan bill, as senator reid said. senator orrin hatch of utah was my cosponsor. in fact, we had words over who would be the lead sponsor on this, and i bowed in his direction because he was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee and i felt that will help us pass the bill. sadly, today there are only a handful of republican senators who will even vote for it and virtually none who openly sponsor it at this moment. what has happened in 11 years? these kids haven't changed. their problem is the same. the country hasn't changed. there's still a nation of immigrants. and yet the republican party has decided it has no use for this approach. there are exceptions, and i thank those exceptions. senator dick lugar of indiana, a courageous man who two years ago wrote a letter with me to

senator -- pardon me -- to president obama asking him to give temporary protected status to the dream act students. i called senator lugar the morning of that announcement on june 15 and thanked him for his courage. it's rare and it should be recognized. in his case, i believe it will be recognized by many. senator lisa murkowski of alaska voted with me on the dream act. that was a courageous move on her part, and i thanked her for it. she's a very independent person seined there are hispanics in alaska and they are watching it closely. let me thank senator marco rubio. some of my colleagues criticized him for what he said about the dream act. i haven't. i'm glad he's trying. i need -- i need republican votes to break the republican filibuster on the dream act. marco rubio came to my office and offered a good-faith effort to do it, and i told him i'll

stand by him. i think what you're trying to achieve is not what i want completely, but it's on the path to that goal. let's work on it together. and he tried, and i salute him for trying. i hope he'll try again. so i look at the situation in this country today on immigration and wonder can this congress come together on a bipartisan basis and even honestly debate the issue? that's a challenge we should face because the problem is out there. the other day my friend -- and he is my friend -- senator mccain of arizona came to the floor and talked about border problems in arizona. it is a legitimate concern in his state and the border states. but i also would call to his attention an article i read this morning in the national journal daily that was written by major garrett, and it talks about what we have done on the borders of america. now, i was one of those who thought we were going overboard. too many agents, too much money,

too many different ideas. but i bought into it and said if we have to do this first, let's do it. and even if it's more than i think is necessary, let's do it to prove our bona fides in terms of wanting to stop illegal immigration. here's what he wrote, what major garrett wrote in this "national journal daily q after president george w. bush's attempt at comprehensive immigration reform failed, congress adopted a default reduction of spending more every year on border control. from 2008-2012, congress devoted $17.8 billion for u.s. border patrol agents and equipment. from 2006-2012, the number of border patrol agents has increased 73% from 12,350 to 21,370. the number of agents assigned to the nation's southwest border increased 67% from 11,032 to 18,415. the house homeland security

spending bill for fiscal year 2013 devotes $11.7 billion to customs and border patrol, 77% million more than the president asked and pay spending for i.c.e. which is the immigration control agency at $5.8 billion, $132 million more than the president asked. the nation how has more border patrol agents and i.c.e. detention beds -- 34,000 of them -- than at any time in history. for context, border patrol apprehensions totaled 340,252 in fiscal year 2011. that's down 53% from 2008, due in part to the recession and lack of available work. but that number of apprehensions was 1/5 the total of the year 2000. criminal and noncriminal deportations are also up, way up. this, too, is bipartisan. he goes on to cite numbers showing that the obama

administration has deported more in the name of prioritizing deportations than even the bush administration. so those who say we need to get tough at the border and tough in terms of deportations, i would say the evidence is there. in fact, it's overwhelming that we have done that. now my challenge back to them is now can we talk? can we talk about what to do about 10 million or 11 million americans living here who are in questionable status or undocumented? can we come up with a reasonable approach to this that is fair to them, to the family, to the nation, to the workers of this country? i think we can. we should. why else are we elected if we don't face an issue like that? the state of arizona i think basically lost the u.s. supreme court this week. out of four major provisions in the law, three were stricken and one was put on probation. the supreme court said we're going to watch you, arizona. if you do this wrong, we'll be back.

so in fairness to arizona, their argument is until there is a national immigration law, we're going to take matters in our own hands. the supreme court said not so fast. but that still doesn't be a solve us from our responsibility to arizona and other states. we have to move together to get this done. i have been listening carefully. i know where president obama is on this issue. i sat just a few feet away from here in a room day after day working on comprehensive immigration reform with senator obama, senator mccain, senator specter and so many others, trying to get this done. i know there was a genuine effort. i don't know where governor romney stands on this. it's hard to follow him. he said he would veto the dream act, veto the dream act. you know, is that the starting point of his immigration policy? i hope not. i hope he will reconsider it now. and i hope that he will say, as i hope others will say, what the president did in granting temporary renewable protected status to these dream students

is going to be the standard until we pass a permanent law. that is only fair. looking into the eyes of those students yesterday, i just have to tell you, madam president, that really is our responsibility, to do the humane, just thing. i will close quickly because i see my colleague from rhode island on the floor, and i know he wants to speak in morning business. i got started on this journey because of a young lady named teresa lee. she was a korean living in chicago. she was from a very poor family and decided that her only ticket to a future was the piano, and she became an accomplished pianist, to the point where she was seeking admission to juilliard in your state of new york and the manhattan conservatory, and only when it called for a social security number did she realize she had a

problem. she had been brought to this country at the age of 2 from brazil where she was born by her korean parents and never filed a paper after she got here. so she called our office and we found out there was no recourse for her, no place to turn. the law said leave the country for ten years and apply to come back in. that isn't fair. and so she went on to school at manhattan conservatory of music to study piano. two families, the foreman family and the harris family in chicago, paid for her education because they believed in this young girl. there is a great happy ending to her story. she not only graduated from manhattan conservatory of music, she played in carnegie hall. she had her debut concert there. she is now studying for a ph.d. in music at manhattan conservatory and she married a young man and she is now a citizen. she could have been lost, her talent could have been lost to this country if the law would have been followed 11 years ago

as it was written. she was given a chance and proved that she was a person of quality who had something to give back to this great nation, with her musical skills and ultimately her talent at writing music and teaching music. it's a great story and a lesson for all of us about the dream act and what it needs to be. i urge my colleagues, many of whom have turned a blind eye to this, meet these young people, look them in the eye and come to know that this isn't just a legal issue. this is a human issue. it will define us not only as a congress but as a nation. i yield the floor to the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, before i embark on my own remarks, let me say how pleased i am to have the chance to follow the senator from illinois. i have had the chance, madam president, to preside in the senate as you are doing now on

several occasions and to be present on the senate floor on other occasions when senator durbin has come to the floor to speak about the dream act and his passion for the opportunity that it provides to young people who are here in this country through no fault of their own, who know no other home in the world and who will one day be great americans, people that will be leaders and performers and experts and scientists and really provide great value to our country. i'm delighted that he is doing it again. his persistence matches his passion, and finally with the president's decision the other day, it's beginning to reap some rewards, and i hope more to come in the future, and i congratulate the senator from illinois. my remarks -- and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. whitehouse: will be on the subject of our carbon pollution and the damage that we are doing to our world. as i try to point out every week, last week i was not able to but senator kerry gave a wonderful, marvelous, very, very compelling speech on this subject, so we have kept the floor busy every week between the two of us, and i hope other senators will more and more join us. this is an issue that we have to address, and it is a disgrace, frankly, that this is one of the very few buildings in this country in which climate denial is still happening wholesale. here in the board -- here and the board room of exxonmobil i think are probably the two holdout locations. i wanted to address a few things that have happened this week, but i wanted to begin by correcting an error that i made in remarks last week when i came to the floor and spoke in favor of e.p.a.'s mercury and air

toxics standards for power plants. this is very, very important to rhode island as we are a down wind state, as is a good deal of new york, bombarded by midwestern power plants that frankly deliberately send polluted air up into the atmosphere through high smokestacks so that it will land elsewhere. well, guess what? we are the elsewhere. we were then about to vote on a resolution that would have voided these standards and put rhode island at considerable peril. it would have actually gone so far as to bar e.p.a. from ever issuing a substantially similar rule, so it would really have had a lasting as well as a damaging effect. it was a reckless proposal, and i am pleased that we defeated it here in the senate. during my remarks about this rule, i discussed the health hazards that mercury pollution poses for the people of my home state of rhode island. the pollution that comes out of these tall smokestacks very

often with no scrubbers of any kind just spews right out, and it comes to rhode island in the form of a number of things. ozone that causes us to have bad air days where children and people with breathing difficulties and old folks have to stay indoors. they are basically kept prisoner indoor because out-of-state polluters won't clean up their act. and the other is mercury. mercury poisoning is a very serious issue in my state. last week, i said that the rhode island department of health warns that high-risk populations, pregnant women, women who may become pregnant and small children should not eat any freshwater fish in rhode island because of the danger of mercury poisoning and mercury contamination. that is sadly correct. i also said that the health department warns that no one should ever eat any of the fish caught in three bodies of water in rhode island -- the quidnick

reservoir, windcheck pond and yagu pond. that, sadly, is also true. finally, i said that the health department suggests that anyone who catches freshwater fish in rhode island should limit their intake to one serving of this fish a month so as to protect their health from mercury contamination. in fact, it's more nuanced than that. the health department has issued different warnings for the general population, depending on the body of water. so it is not always true that anyone who catches freshwater fish in rhode island should limit their intake to just one serving, and i'd like to correct the record accordingly. i would suggest that rhode islanders consult the health department's web site where the agency lists fish advisories by pond and by river, and that way rhode islanders can make an informed decision for themselves and their families as to where and when our fish are safe to eat for mercury contamination. it does not, obviously, change the larger point that mercury

contamination is a continuing public health problem in rhode island and one that we can do very little about without e.p.a. standing up for us and defending us, because in these other states, it is a great deal for them to be able to poison our state's waters but get cheaper power in their states because they don't force their utilities to put scrubbers on and to keep themselves operating at appropriate levels of pollution control. in that -- on that same front, this was a good news week from the e.p.a. they have fought hard to show that carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant under the clean air act. that case was taken all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court agreed that that could be the case if the e.p.a. determined that those greenhouse gases might -- quote -- "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." the e.p.a. went forward and in 2009, they made this

endangerment finding. there had been some delays along the way, but i won't get into the history of that rule under the bush administration right now. the e.p.a. made that endangerment finding and they promulgated three additional rules. one was the tailpipe rule which sets greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles. the second is what's called the timing rule which clarifies when the stationary sources are required to meet pollution standards for greenhouse gases. and the third is the tailoring rule which limits the application of this rule to the big polluters so that you're not going after small or inconsequential sources, that you're really targeting the folks who are putting out tons of pollution. so that was a very good day. the d.c. circuit decision was really quite strong, and i'd like to take a moment to read some of it into the record. industry petitioners, the court said, assert that the scientific evidence does not adequately

support the endangerment finding. as we have stated before in reviewing the science-based decisions of agencies such as e.p.a., although we perform a searching and careful inquiry into the facts underlying the agency's decisions, we will presume the validity of agency action as long as our actual basis for it is presented. so they went on to see what the rational basis was, and they say as follows -- "the body of scientific evidence marshalled by e.p.a. in support of the endangerment finding is substantial. e.p.a. scientific evidence of record included support for the proposition that greenhouse gases trap heat on earth that would otherwise dissipate into space, that this -- quote -- greenhouse effect -- close quote -- warms the climate, that human activity is contributeing to increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, and that the climate system is warming." based on this scientific record, e.p.a. made the linchpin finding in its judgment the root cause of the recently observed climate

changes -- quote -- very likely -- close quote -- the observed scref in anthropogenic, mean man made greenhouse gas emissions. they continue below, relying again on substantial scientific evidence, e.p.a. determined that anthropro genetically induced climate change induces public health and public welfare. they found that extreme weather events, changes in air quality, increases in foodborne and water borne pathogens and increases in temperature are likely to have adverse health effects. the record also supports e.p.a.'s conclusion that climate change endangers human welfare by creating risk to food production and agriculture, forestry, energy, infrastructure, ecosystems, and wildlife. substantial evidence further supported e.p.a.'s conclusion that the warming resulting from the greenhouse gas emissions could be expected to create risks to water resources and in general to coastal areas like my

home state of rhode island, i will interject, as a result of expected increase in sea level. industry petitioners, the judges said, do not find fault with much of the substantial record e.p.a. amassed in support of the endangerment finding, nor could they, i would interject. rather, they contend that the record evidence is too much uncertainty to support that judgment. but the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. as we've stated before, awaiting certainty will often allow for only reactive and not preventive regulation. the language in the clean air act describing endangerment findings -- quote -- "requires a precautionary forward-looking scientific judgment about the risks of a particular air pollutant consistent with the clean air act's precautionary and preventive orientation."

so here you have three judges of the rather conservative district of columbia court of appeals throwing out all of the challenges to the endangerment finding, the tailpipe rule, the timing rule and the tailoring rule and recognizing that although there may be some doubt on the fringes, there is plenty of evidence for reasonable people to take sensible precautions and to do the right thing. as i've said before in other speeches, there is a strategy that is being pursued here by the polluting industries, and it is to create enough doubt not to effect what's really happening out there but to affect public judgment, to put enough propaganda into the system that people think maybe we shouldn't be so sure about this. the context i put that doubt in is how prudent a parent would be for the care of a child.

the statistics are that 97% of practicing climate scientists acknowledge that climate change is happening, that we're cause it go with carbon pollution and we've got to get serious about it. 97%. translate that to your own life as a parent. your child has symptoms, doesn't look right. you go to the doctor. they say we're pretty sure that she's got this condition and that she needs treatment. the treatments may be a little unpleasant, maybe a little bit expensive, so you want to go careful so you go to second opinion. and you go to another doctor. the doctor says the exact same thing. i've got a friend who is a doctor. let me just get a third opinion. you go to your friend who is a doctor; you get a third opinion. most prudent parents at that point would probably act. the polluting industry and the people who support them in this chamber expect us to act like that parent except go to 100 doctors, get 99 second opinions.

and then when only three of them say your kid's okay, don't worry about it, you don't need to do a thing, or there is some doubt about what the disease is and 97 of those 100 doctors say she is sick and you better give her this treatment, to ignore the 97% and listen to the 3%. no decent parent would do that. in fact, you probably lose your right to continue to be a parent for your child in those circumstances if the child welfare agencies became aware of the kind of risk you were putting your child to in those circumstances. but that's the way they want us to behave in this institution. it is -- well, i'm at a loss for a word to describe what it is that would be appropriate to the dignity and decorum of this particular chamber. there's a magazine that is a rather conservative magazine, it is called "the economist" magazine.

it is hardly associated with liberal causes, environmental causes. it is a world magazine. and they have just on a special that is called the vanishing north, about what is happening in the arctic. and in their summary of the report they say the arctic's glacier, including those of greenland's ice caps are receding. the land is thawing. the area covered by snow in june is roughly a fifth less than in the 1960's. the permafrost is shrinking. alien plants, birds, fish and animals are creeping north. atlantic mackerel and cod are coming up in arctic nests. some species will die out. it is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. it also contains grave warnings of its dangers. the world would be mad to ignore

them. it's printed in england. so "mad" has the english sense of that word meaning insane. the main reason, the report continues, appears to be a cat catalytic effect triggered by global warming. as a result, the arctic service absorbs more solar heat. this causes local warming, therefore, more melting which causes more warming, and so on. this positive feedback shows how even a small change to the earth's systems can trigger much greater ones. the report continues, the worry that needs to be taken most seriously is climate change itself. the impact of the melting arctic may have a calamitous effect on the planet. it is likely to disrupt oceanic circulation, the mixing of warm tropical and cold polar waters of which the gulf stream is a part and thawing permafrost will

lead to the emissions of masses of co2 and methane and thus further warming. it is also raising sea levels. the greenland ice sheet has recently shed around 200 giga tons of ice a year. a fourfold increase on a decade ago. if the warming continues, it could eventually disintegrate, raising the sea level by seven meters. the ocean state of rhode island could ill afford a sea level rise of seven meters. many of the world's biggest cities -- the senator from new york is presiding, she represents one of the world's biggest -- would be inundated long before that happened. that's from the summary of "the economist" report. if you go into the actual report itself, there are a few other compelling parts. the summer sea ice in the arctic is at its lowest level for at least 2,000 years. six of the hottest years on record going back to 1880 have

occurred since 2004. the last time the polar regions were significantly warmer was about 125,000 years ago. this transformation is in fact happening faster than anyone had predicted. according to an authoritative 2011 assessment for the arctic council -- quote -- "it is now becoming very clear that the cryossphere, the frozen part of the arctic, is changing rapidly and neither observations nor models are able to tell the full story. this is not without cost. the world bank estimates -- to continue from the article -- the cost of adapting to climate change between 2010 and 2050 at $75 billion to $100 billion a year. other estimates are higher. and here is where they conclude. sooner or later such arithmetic

is going to force governments to get serious about dealing with climate change. it is already clear what is required: policies to put an appropriate price on carbon emissions through a tax or market-based system that is sufficient to persuade polluters to develop and adopt cleaner technologies. these are already available. and so is the ingenuity needed to force down their costs and bring them to market. but then in a sentimental closing, the article concludes that the arctic will nonetheless be radically changed. this much is already inevitable. so the denial that continues in this body continues to have a high price. as i have pointed out, the science on this is not, neither

new nor questionable. the scientists tindall first determined about the carbon co-2 blanket that creates the warming effect back at the time of the civil war. that was nearly 150 years ago. so there's nothing new about this. the fringed scientists that are used by the polluters to create this doubt for propaganda purposes are indeed a fringe, as this resounding decision from the united states district court shows. and the perils that our planet is facing are manifesting themselves now in the arctic. as one of the scientists said -- i'll have to paraphrase because i don't have the quote in front of me. as one of the scientists said in "the economist" report, when you get up here, greenland, norway, the arctic, climate change is not a theory.

it's an observation. it is what is happening around us. it is happening first in the polar regions because they're more vulnerable. but we're seeing it everywhere. wildfires tear through the west. florida's beaten under unprecedented levels of rainstorms. insurance companies across the country are predicting even worse storms, the biggest insurers and re-insurers came to washington to join with environmental senators to say you've got to do something about this. this is really coming. these aren't liberals. these aren't environmentalists. these aren't people from the sierra club. these are the accountants of the major international insurance and reinsurance companies, and their warnings deserve listening. so my time has expired. i will yield the floor at this point. i do not know if i should

suggest the absence of a quorum or if senator thune is going to be speaking. i'll suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota.

mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about our economy. the threat of the pending fiscal cliff and the need to address the challenges that we face. two years ago last week the obama administration hailed the advent of the summer of economic recovery. the president claimed -- and i quote -- "the economy is headed in the right direction." vice president biden predicted the creation of 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month. treasury secretary tim geithner published an op-ed in "the new york times" boldly entitled "welcome to the recovery." two years later, madam president, americans are still waiting for the recovery. today's jobs figures are well below the 250,000 to 500,000 jobs per month that vice

president biden forecast. this year the economy created a dismal 77,000 jobs in april and just 69,000 jobs in may; less than half of the 150,000 jobs that are needed each month just to keep up with population growth. unemployment, which the white house predicted would shrink below 6% by april of 2012 remained at or above 8% now for 40 straight months. looking at , it is clear that the private sector is not doing fine. in fact, that the president's economic policies have made the economic situation in this country worse. the president seems to prefer more stimulus spending from washington, d.c., but the president's $831 billion in stimulus money has not led to the job creation he claimed it would. under this administration, there has been a record four years with deficits over a trillion dollars. the federal government now borrows roughly 40 cents out of every dollar that it spends.

the fact is, madam president, we do not need more government spending that explodes the national debt. instead, we need to cut reckless government spending and tackle the mounting debt crisis through tax and entitlement reform. madam president, if we don't take action soon, our country could end up in the kind of financial disaster that greece and spain are now facing. the economic situation in europe is a clear warning sign for our country that if we don't get on a sustainable fiscal path, we will face a similar fiscal crisis. our children and grandchildren should not have to pay for washington's inability to stick to a budget. we owe it to the next generation to leave the country better than we found it. yet, it has now been over three years since the senate last passed a real budget. in part because of the senate's failure to pass a budget, we face a pending fiscal cliff that must be addressed before the end

of the year. madam president, financial markets and job creators are going to react to the uncertainty coming out of washington. we need to act now rather than kick the can down the road to a lame duck session of congress at a time when it will be very difficult to make these types of decisions. where things are going to be rushed, where members are not going to have an opportunity to really focus in a thoughtful way on the right solutions for this country's future. one aspect of the fiscal cliff this -- that we're talking about is the pending $1.2 trillion sequestration scheduled to go into effect on january 2 of 2013. i along with senator sessions and others have pushed for more transparency from the administration as to how they plan to implement sequestration, a provision that was adopted just last week as part of the farm bill. this information is critical so that congress and the american people have a full understanding of sequestration's impact. if congress is going to consider delaying or replacing the defense sequester, we need this

information in order to make those decisions. house republicans passed a bill last month that replaces the defense sequester scheduled to go into effect next year, and it does so by finding savings elsewhere in the federal government, yet the administration continues to stone wall requests by congress to help us better understand where the planned sequester cuts will take place. on the tax side, a family of four earning $50,000 per year would see their tax bill increase by $2,200 next year, according to the house ways and means committee and the joint committee on taxation. the joint committee on taxation also estimates that nearly one million business owners would face higher taxes if the top two tax rates increase. madam president, not one vote has been scheduled in the senate to prevent this tax-mageddon. in contrast, house republican leaders have a different view, and it's expected the house will

consider an extension of the current tax rates next month, which will then come to the united states senate. madam president, the economy continues to grow at a very slow rate. unemployment remains above 8%. congress must get to work to jump-start our economy and put this country on a sustainable fiscal path. we need to act now rather than to kick the can down the road. madam president, to put a fine point on that, the fiscal cliff that we will run into at the end of the year, as i mentioned, has already -- we have already -- we already know that it's going to have a profound impact on the economy next year because the congressional budget office and other analysts have looked at it and determined that it could cost us as much as 1.3% of economic growth in the first half of next year, which translated into actual jobs numbers is about 1.3 million jobs that would be lost because of this fiscal cliff if it's not dealt with. but, madam president, there is also a more immediate concern and that is the uncertainty that's created by the fiscal

cliff. the decisions that are being made right now by people across this country, by job creators, small businesses, investors is shaped by and based upon the fiscal cliff that's going to occur at the end of the year. and so the congressional budget office has also suggested that this is not only something that's going to have an impact down the road prospectively but also could have an impact right now as the economy contracts as a result of that uncertainty and investors and small businesses and job creators take their capital and keep it on the sidelines as opposed to putting it to work creating jobs and growing their businesses. and the congressional budget office has suggested it could cost us .5% of economic growth, not next year but this year, madam president. that is why it is so important that we work together here to address the fundamental issues that are going to impact this economy before the end of this year. by that, as i said, we have got to address the rate, the rates that are going to expire at the end of the year include the

marginal income tax rates, the dividends rate, the capital gains rate, estate taxes and all kinds of other provisions in tax law that expire at the end of this year. if you are a small business or an investor and you're thinking that starting january 1 of next year, you're going to be facing a massive tax increase, obviously you're going to think long and hard about putting your capital to work now to create jobs and grow the economy. in fact, i think, madam president, for many small businesses, as they look at the circumstances they find themselves in today, they are faced not only with the fiscal cliff, the potential tax increases but also a massive amount of regulation that makes it more difficult, more expensive for them to create jobs. those are the issues that we should be focused on because the most important thing that we can be doing right now is getting the economy growing and expanding again and creating jobs for american workers. that's not going to happen if we don't take steps to avert what is clearly a terrible disaster waiting in the future with the fiscal cliff and all the tax

increases that are going to occur at the end of the year. madam president, the joint committee on taxation has said that 53% of pass-through income, 53% of pass-through income would face higher taxes on january 1 of next year. that's all your s corporations, all your small businesses, all those folks out there in our economy, the entrepreneurs who are the people that we rely upon to get our economy going again and put people back to work. when they are looking at those types of tax increases starting january 1 of next year, it's going to make it very, very difficult for them to make the investments that are necessary to get this economy growing at a rate that will generate the kind of job creation that will get americans back to work, that will get this unemployment rate back down and start making -- creating confidence in the american public about the future of our economy. and so, madam president, i would just simply close again by saying that this is not something that we can afford to kick down the road. we have done that for way too long. we have a -- a massive problem ahead of us with regard to

entitlement spending, which has to be addressed in the form of entitlement reform. we need to reform our tax code to make it more simple, more clear, more fair and to create a greater, more competitive tax code with the countries around the world with whom we have to compete. and, madam president, we need to do something about this burden of regulation that we place upon our businesses, which is making it more difficult for them to compete in the world marketplace and certainly making it more difficult for them in the near term to do what's necessary to get jobs created in this country and get americans back to work. so i hope we can do that. it would be my expectation that the united states senate, if and when the house passes legislation to extend the tax rates, which they, i'm told, are going to do sometime next month, i hope that the democrat majority here in the senate will take that up and that we will put a bill on the president's desk that would provide the kind of certainty that's necessary for our small businesses and our job creators as they look at the future that will enable them to move forward with those investments, put their capital to work and put american workers

back to work. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i'd like to compliment my colleague from south dakota for his commitment and continuing focus on jobs and the economy and the impact that that has on our nation and our future. i come, as i have week after week, with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, which is in many ways directly tied to the economy and the economic situation that my colleague from south dakota was commenting on. we have seen continual unemployment of over 8%, now 8.2% unemployment. people graduating from colleges who can't find work who are going back to live with their parents. it's because the president focused on a health care law and the supreme court will rule on it tomorrow, but he focused on that instead of focusing on what people at home were concerned about -- jobs, the economy, getting the economy moving again, bringing the economy back

to health. a healthy economy is what people were looking for. so i come to the floor today, madam president, to talk a bit about things that have happened since the health care law was passed because president obama and democrats repeatedly promised that the health care law would do several things. one, they said it would make health insurance more affordable, and they also said it would help create jobs for millions of americans. millions of americans, they said. in fact, after the senate completed passage of the health care law, the majority leader, senator reid, said -- quote -- "this, of course, was a health bill." he went on. he said it was also a jobs bill. he went on. he said it was also an economic recovery bill. he said it was a deficit reduction bill. he said it was an antidiscrimination bill. he said it was truly a bill of rights. he went on to say, and now he said it is the law of the land. an economic recovery bill, he said, a jobs bill, he said. former speaker nancy pelosi

added it's about jobs, she said. she said in its life, health care reform would create, she said, four million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately. well, madam president, that -- that's not happened. it's not happened. another broken promise to the american people. and that's why i have come to the floor week after week to point out issues with this health care law which i continue to believe is bad for patients, bad for the providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients and terrible for taxpayers. madam president, one of the key components of the health care law that the president promised would help create jobs was what he referred to as the small employer health insurance tax credit. back in april of 2010, the president said -- quote -- "this health care tax credit is pro jobs, it's pro business, and he said and it starts this year. well, in essence, the credit was supposed to offset the cost of health insurance for small businesses so that they could

provide insurance to their employees. the president's council on economic advisors made some estimates. they estimated that about four million, four million small businesses, they said, would be eligible for the credit. the administration was so proud of the initiative that they sent out millions of post cards to small businesses. now, i believe they actually never read it, didn't understand it, didn't understand how it worked because susan collins, the senator from maine, stood on the floor of the senate and said look how it really works. it's not going to work the way you have described it. but no, this administration that knows better than anyone, they were so proud of the initiative, they sent out millions of post cards, and according to the i.r.s., 4.4 million post cards were sent out. who paid for it? the taxpayers. remember them? they are the people at home where only one in three of them think the country is heading in the right direction, and so many

of them believe that their tax dollars that they send to washington are not being used well. well, the white house ignored them and urged small businesses to look at the tax credit criteria and to take advantage, they said, of the credit that would be available. so what has been the response across the country of the small businesses, the over four million that received the post cards saying hey, look what we're doing for you? well, according to the nonpartisan government accountability office, only about 170,000, actually 170,300 employers were able to claim the credit. not four million. oh, no. and of these four million that got the post cards, how many were able to take full advantage of the credit? only 28,000. in other words, the credit only benefited about 4% of the businesses that the president promised to help. 96% of the businesses that the

president promised to help got nothing. only 4% of the businesses were able to benefit at all, at all, and even a smaller number than that were able to take full advantage. well, "the wall street journal" analyzed this issue in a recent article. the article featured michael griffin, the owner of a small advertising agency in st. louis, missouri. michael had this to say about the tax credit that the president promised and held up as some wonderful thing that he was doing. he said -- quote -- "you're penalized for giving people a higher wage and more professional opportunity." is that what the democrats believe, that we should penalize businesses for giving people a higher wage and more professional opportunity? michael went on to say -- "i appreciate any kind of tax reduction, with you i certainly cannot applaud a reduction that limits growth and the opportunity for employers to pay

more to their employees." but that's exactly what this tax credit did. it reduces the -- it limits the growth of a company and it limits the opportunity for employers to pay more to their employees. mr. griffin is not te only small business owner who has had problems with this tax credit, this big promise by the president. jeffrey birdall, an accountant from allentown, pennsylvania, talk to the associated press about this very issue. he described the calculations required for the tax credit as mind-numbing. people pass laws here. i wonder if they read them, understand the implications. i believe they don't. he describes what this president touts as mind-numbing and pointed out that for many of his clients, this accountant's clients, he said the money they received from the tax credit was offset by the money that they had to pay their accountants to

just try to figure out if they could receive any of these credits. in the same a.p. article, terry guiterrez from raleigh, north carolina, stated in some cases, he said the tax credit is more hassle than it's worth. more hassle than it's worth. and the g.a.o., the government accountability office, confirmed these experiences in their report. they found many small businesses are deterred from claiming the credit. why? because like so much that has come out as part of this health care law, it is just so complex. the report highlighted the fact that it requires 15 separate calculations. the president sends out a postcard, 4.4 million people paid for by the taxpayers to say you may get a tax credit. 96% of the people that get the

tax -- that get the postcard end up with nothing. why? did anybody look at this? 15 separate calculations, seven separate work sheets just to calculate the amount of the credit. the g.a.o. was told by tax preparers that it would take their clients anywhere from two to eight hours or possibly longer just to gather in, just to gather in the necessary information to just start to calculate the credit. on top of this, they found that tax prayer and prayer and tax -t three to five hours calculating the credit. this is not the kind of help from washington that small businesses are looking for or want or deserve. the american people deserve better. so, for all of this trouble, g.a.o. determined that the average amount claimed per small

business across the country? less than $3,000. $2,700, average amount claimed. it's clear that this policy is just another broken promise of the president's health care law. since the president recently said that the private sector is doing fine, we can remember, we've seen him from the white house giving a speech saying the private sector is doing fine. the ineffectiveness -- the ineffectiveness -- of his small business tax credits may not bother him one bit. but it does bother most americans. and as i speak with my neighbors across wyoming, i know that the truth of their lives is very much different than what the president may believe. many americans are also concerned about the fact that bureaucrats at the internal revenue service seemed to benefit the most from the tax provisions in the law. according to the inspector general for tax administration,

the i.r.s. will need nearly 1,300 new federal employees in 2012 to implement the president's health care law. that's what they're asking for. 1,300 new federal employees for the i.r.s. in a report issued on june 14 of this year, just a week or two ago, the inspector general pointed that enforcing the small business health insurance tax credit is one of the reasons why the agency must expand. they need 1,300 new federal employees so they can put forward and deal with this so-called tax credit that only 4% of the people that the president said would help have actually received any credit. and the amount that they received so very low that for most of them it wasn't worth

even doing the paperwork. while the president and washington democrats may believe that adding employees to the i.r.s. is the key to job creation, i respectfully disagree. the private sector is not fine and the government doesn't need to get any bigger. this is why i have fought and will continue to fight to replace the president's health care law with real reforms that will improve competition, increase consumer choice and lower the cost of care for all americans. that's what this was all supposed to be about in the first place. patient-centered care, giving people the care that they need from a doctor that they choose. not that the government chooses, not that the insurance company chooses, but that they choose at lower cost. that, madam president, is why i come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about a health care law at a time that i still believe that the health care law that the supreme court will rule on

tomorrow is one that is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients, and is terrible for our taxpayers. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i understand there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum

call. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i understand there's a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: a bill to improve information security and for other purposes. s. 3342. mrs. hutchison: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the title of the bill will be read for the second time in the next legislative day. mrs. hutchison: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today because we have introduced a new version of the strengthening and enhancing cybersecurity by using research, education and information and technology act

of 2012, a bill known as the secure i.t. act. senator mccain and i, along with senator chambliss, grassley, murkowski, coats, burr and johnson, are reintroducing the secure i.t. act after making improvements and clarifications in response to constructive feedback that we have received from the first bill that we introduced. we are employing rule 14 on this bill because it is clear that it will not receive the benefit of the traditional committee process and the majority leader has indicated he intends to debate this issue on the senate floor in july. so what those of us who are cosponsors of this bill are trying to do is have our version of a cybersecurity bill on the floor introduced so that everyone will be able to see it, and then when the committee bill

is introduced we will be able to debate the differences between our bills. the sponsors of our bill include eight ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cybersecurity. we have combined our expertise to develop a balanced piece of legislation that we believe will greatly enhance our country's cybersecurity of the infrastructure that could be affected. we believe it is now time for congress to act. the nation faces an evolving array of threats from hackers, criminal groups and terrorists that seek to sabotage networks, gain access to sensitive government information and steal valuable intellectual property. secure i.t. is centered on consensus items t-rbs it sets aside controversial provisions that are of questionable value

at this time and we believe our bill can pass both chambers. it offers a balanced approach that will significantly advance cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors by focusing on four issues and areas on tkh we believe everyone can agree. first, to facilitate sharing of cyberthreat information among private sector entities and to and from the government. second. to better secure federal networks, including requiring federal contractors to notify the federal law enforcement agencies of cyberattacks that would threaten government infrastructure. third, to strengthen the ability to prosecute cybercrime. and fourth, to prioritize cybersecurity research and development so that our nation will continue to lead the world in this area. so let me start with number one.

facilitate sharing of cyberthreat information. secure i.t. helps the private sector combat cyberattacks by breaking down barriers to sharing information about threats and vulnerabilities. currently antitrust laws and liability concerns inhibit private companies from exchanging information that we believe is necessary to defend against and respond to cyberthreats. i was talking to someone last night who is in the very high-tech internet field, and there are great concerns about their company calling a competitor and saying we're seeing signs of a possible threat here, and we wanted to share what the type of red flag we're seeing is so that you would be able to check your

networks to see if you're getting the same thing. thaoers -- these are two competitors, but this is not an anticompetitive situation. it's not something that would be, we believe, subject to antitrust. they're still competitors, but everybody wants security for all of our networks in this country against any kind of intervention, whether it's criminal or foreign intelligence. secondly, our bill's liability protections and limited antitrust exemption will allow these companies to rapidly respond, so you don't have to go to a lawyer and say, would this be antitrust if we called our competitor and started sharing this information right away? so it needs to be timely, fast, and safe. that's the criteria. secondly, sharing should be a two-way street. our bill sets up a framework

that timely shares classified, declassified and unclassified information by the federal government with trusted private-sector entities, while allowing private-sector companies to share cyberthreat information with the government. since the introduction of secure i.t., we have been working with stakeholders in all of the areas of infrastructure and internet access to make a number of improvements and clarifications of the bill. i am pleased that we introduced the bill early, that we got the feedback from the different stakeholders and we have now been able to adjust to those that would also help the bill but also protect privacy and protect the issue that we're trying to address, which of course is safety and cybersecurity. we tighten the definition of

what information is shared. we refined the process for sharing it. this will ensure that only essential information is shared and that it is handled appropriately. for example, it is vital that federal agencies be informed if their systems are compromised. our bill requires federal contractors to coordinate with their supervisory agencies and to notify them of significant cyberincidents that would impede their mission. we have added explicit and strong privacy protections and increased oversight throughout our revised bill. at every stage of information sharing, there are statutory safeguards that will ensure cyber threat information is handled in a manner that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of all americans while preserving the ability to address cyber threats that could affect them as well as other members of the public.

number two, secure federal networks. the government needs to do a much better job of securing its own networks. to address this problem, secure i.t. provides necessary reforms to the federal information security management act, modernizing the way the government monitors and mitigates its own cyber risks. secure i.t. requires agencies to use automateed real-time network monitoring, upgrading their current primarily paper based reporting. our revisions also ensure that agencies will be continuously updating their technologies to prevent and remediate significant cyber incidents. number three, we prosecute cyber crime. we update the federal criminal statutes and streamline existing confuseing penalties to facilitate the prosecution of cyber criminals.

and number four, cybersecurity research and development is essential to harness innovation and to train i.t. professionals to counter future attacks. by focusing on these four areas, madam president, we believe that we can significantly improve the cybersecurity of our country. facilitating the sharing of cyber threat information in the private sector, securing federal networks, strengthening criminal penalties for cyber crimes and prioritizing cyber security research and development. equally important is what our bill does not do. secure i.t. does not give the department of homeland security open-ended power to regulate networks for infrastructure that it deems to be critical. it does not give them the power to determine what is critical infrastructure. instead, we take a different

approach that is not heavy-handed regulatory. it sets up a true partnership between the public and private sector to combat these cyber threats. we will not improve this country's cybersecurity by creating an adversarial system based on a regulatory compliance structure. we believe subjecting industry to more regulation from an agency that is ill equipped to understand the private sector systems will ultimately erode the ability of business to provide effective, nimble and innovative responses to cyber threats. diverting precious resources from security and innovation to regulatory compliance could ultimately harm security, not improve it, which is why we are taking the different approach from the more heavy-handed

regulatory approach of the bill that came out of committee. we do not want americans to be fooled into a false sense of security by imposing an unproven prescriptive regulatory framework that no agency could effectively implement, and we do not think that the department of homeland security could. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting the secure i.t. act of 2012. and, madam president, i will just reiterate again that our bill is sponsored by senator mccain and myself, senator chambliss, senator grassley, senator murkowski, senator coats, senator burr and senator johnson. all of whom -- johnson of wisconsin. all of whom are either ranking members of full committees or

subcommittees that have a jurisdiction in this area. we have worked very hard with all of the different interests. the privacy groups, the groups that handle the private sector, the groups that are federal contractors to assure that we are doing the best balanced approach that could possibly be done to take the next step with a bill that we believe we can pass in the senate but also the house and to the president, and i believe he will sign it because it is a major first step forward. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. conrad: i just want to indicate that listening to the senator from texas' remarks

about introduction of a bill apparently on cybersecurity how critically important that is to the country. i'm a relatively new member of the intelligence committee, but if there is anything i've learned, it's what a major threat this is to our country and how critically important it is to address it. i want to commend the senator from texas for her leadership and appreciate that she and her colleagues have taken this step of actually introducing legislation. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i want to thank the senator from north dakota and appreciate very much that he is on the intelligence committee and knows the sensitivities and all of the stakeholders that we must work with in order to do the right thing for our country, both in the private sector as well as in our government infrastructure. as always, the senator from north dakota is a person who is

visionary and looking out for the best interests of our country, and i hope that we can come together on this bill. thank you, madam president. mr. conrad: i thank the senator. i look forward to reviewing her proposal. hopefully together we can find a way to get something passed that will further protect our country. madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i have come to the floor today to talk about the state of our economy, where we have come from, where we're headed, the critical challenges facing our nation, and i want to go back and reminded people of where we have come from because i think it's very important to put in context the circumstances that

we now confront. first of all, the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 was the worst recession since the great depression. by the way, this was not the creation of barack obama. he inherited this mess. he has done really quite a good job of getting us moving in a better protection, but more of that later. remember in the fourth quarter of 2008 -- that's the last quarter before this president took office -- the economy was actually shrinking at a rate of almost 9%, and in the first month of 2009, we lost 800,000 jobs. the housing market was in crisis. home building and sales were plummeting. we faced record foreclosures. the financial market crisis was

threatening global economic collapse. in fact, i will never forget being called to a meeting in the capital, in 2008 in the fall, and i was the last one to arrive. it was the leaders of the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, and there was the chairman of the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury and the bush administration telling us they were going to take over a.i.g. the next morning, and they told us if they did not, they believed there would be a financial collapse in this country within days. i tell you, that gets your attention. but that's the circumstances that were being confronted in late 2008. let's go to that next slide, if we can. since that time, we have seen a dramatic improvement. here's the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008 before president obama took office, shrinking at a rate of almost 9%, and in the

subsequent quarters, it continued to shrink until it began to get better in 2000 -- late 2009, frankly because of stimulus and tarp that helped start to turn things around, and since that time, we have had consistent growth in the economy. not as robust as we would like, but nonetheless consistent growth. a rather remarkable turnaround given how serious the economic downturn was. we also see the same pattern with respect to the private sector jobs picture. again in january of 2009, in one month alone, we lost more than 800,000 jobs. those were private sector jobs. more than 800,000 jobs in a month. again, in about 2009, things began to turn. we got back to growing jobs. in fact, we have had over 4.5 million jobs in the private

sector created since the turnaround began. and again, job growth not as robust as we would like but nonetheless quite a remarkable turnaround from where it was. madam president, when we look back at the economic crisis and we look at what was done, what we have seen looking at previous crises is that economic recovery is shallower and takes much longer after a financial crisis, so you can't compare this to the garden-variety recessions that we have faced since world war ii. i think we have had nine recessions since world war ii, but this went far beyond a typical recession. this was enormous damage to the financial sector. and looking historically, here's what dr. reinhart of the peter peterson institute for

international economics and dr. vincent reinhart of the american enterprise institute have found in their research." really per capita g.d.p. growth rates are significantly lower during the decade following severe financial crises. in the ten-year window following severe financial crises, unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the decade that preceded the crisis." now, madam president, that's the circumstance we're in. that is not the fault of president obama. he inherited this mess. and the fact is after a financial crisis, if you look back historically, it takes up to ten years to recover. let's go to the next slide. and for those who say well, the federal government response didn't work, hasn't made any difference, i don't think that's true. i don't think that will stand up to scrutiny. two of the most distinguished economists in the country, alan

blinder, who is former deputy chairman of the federal reserve, and mark zandi, who is actually one of the economic advisors to the john mccain campaign, said "we find that its effects" -- talking about the federal government actions to deal with the crisis, that its effects on real g.d.p., jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called great depression 2.0. they went on to say -- "when all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. if the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost." madam president, two of the most

distinguished economists in the country telling us had we not taken the actions the federal government did, we would have had a depression, a depression. they also looked at what would have happened without the federal response on the jobs front, and here's what they found, running their econometric models. the green line is the jobs with the federal response. the red line is the estimate of what would have happened without the federal response. you will see, they find a difference of about eight million jobs. in other words, we have eight million more jobs than we would have otherwise had had the federal government done nothing. i just say this to my colleagues who say well, stimulus tarp, that didn't work because we're not growing as rapidly as we would like. but let's think back.

what was happening when those steps were taken? the the economy wasn't growing, the economy was shrinking. we weren't getting more jobs. we were losing jobs at a record rate. so, madam president, to those who say none of these federal actions were successful, i say i don't think that's what the record shows here. i think what the record shows is they didn't accomplish all we would like, but they really led to quite a dramatic turnaround from the worst recession since the great depression. and here are positive signs we see now that are facts. they're not projections, they're facts. we have had 27 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, 11 consecutive quarters of real g.d.p. growth, the unemployment rate is down from the 2009 peak, manufacturing

has expanded for 34 consecutive months, the u.s. auto manufacturers have returned to profitability, and state revenues are now showing signs of improvement. so he, again, this -- so, again, this isn't political talk. these are facts, and facts matter. and the facts demonstrate there has been quite a remarkable turnaround. again, these aren't wroa proajections, these are facts. these are things that have occurred. madam president, if we then compare to the united states' performance to other countries with whom we compete, we can see the united states has really done the best in terms of the comparisons here. some developing nations have certainly done better than we have, but if you look at the developed world, the united states is really doing the best. we're doing -- here's our economic performance. the top line. far better than the euro zone,

all the european countries, that's the green line. japan is the red line, we're doing much better than them and much better than the united kingdom. so if we look at how we have done compared to the rest of the world, we're really doing much better at least in terms of the developed nations. madam president, we know that europe has gone in a somewhat different direction. they have imposed austerity and without regard to growth policies. and here are the headlines from the international herald tribune , austerity is strangling europe. and i've pulled out a paragraph because i think it speaks very well of what has been the effect of the european strategy. the direction of european and financial policy must change. away from pure austerity toward growth.

greece, ireland, portugal, italy and spain have made substantial progress in stabilizing their finances. but the progress and stabilizing -- but the economic and political situation in these countries shows that us a expert -- austerity alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. on the contrary, there is a danger of half strangling national economies with a strict policy of us austerity. we would therefore be well advised to cushion harsh us austerity measures with programs for growth. madam president, i believe there's a lesson in that for us as well. i am an unvarnished deficit hawk, have been my desire career, have called repeatedly for to us get our fiscal house in order, i believe it's imperative that we do but it is also imperative that we recognize that you don't impose austerity on a weak and struggling economy, you'll only

make things worse. getting back on financial -- a more sustainable financial path has to be done in a measured way. absolutely we need a long-term plan to take on our deficits and debt. i've made that speech 500 times. absolutely that has to be done. but that's got to be done in a phased way and the austerity should not be imposed until we're on a stronger growth path. i think economic history tells us that, and that's a lesson we need to learn. madam president, what is holding back the u.s. economy from a stronger recovery? well, we've identified these elements. number one, the european debt and financial crisis has thrown a cloud over global markets, and they are still our biggest trading partners. so a chilling of economic

activity in europe has had an adverse effect on our own economic performance. second, the iran/middle east situation has threatened to disrupt oil supplies. that creates uncertainty because we know if the straits of home muse were closed -- straits of hormuz were closed, economic activity would weaken and we would be hurt. that has led companies even though they have $2 billion on their books to be cautious about expanding hiring. madam president, federal, state, and local government cutbacks have also created economic drag. i'll go to that issue in a moment. the political deadlock on fiscal issues here in congress has created uncertainty, and we face of course the threat from the fiscal cliff. the fiscal cliff is the fact at the end of this year all of the bush tax cuts are going to expire which means an automatic tax increase for virtually every

american. we also face additional spending cuts, $1.2 trillion in the so-called sequester, about evenly shared between defense and nondefense. that would reduce demand, that would further reduce economic growth. and, of course, the housing market continues to pose a threat at least in many parts of the country, certainly in nevada and arizona and florida and parts of california. the housing market crisis still leaves an overhang. madam president, i thought this article in "the new york times" on saturday, may 5 was very interesting because i think if we gave a quiz 0 the american people listening to the debates here they would conclude the government has gotten bigger and bigger during the obama administration. but it's not true. you know, a previous presidents -- a previous

president said facts are stubborn things and these are facts. the government, if you take state, local, and federal government and you combine them, the government is getting smaller in the united states. in fact, again, i pulled out a paragraph. for the first time in 40 years the government sector of the american economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration. spending by the federal government adjusted for inflation has risen at a slow rate under president obama. but that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts. in the first quarter of this year the real gross domestic product for the government including state and local governments as well as federal, was 2% lower than it was three years earlier when barack obama took office. madam president, all the talk we hear on this floor about the

exploding size of government is bloviation, bloviation. bloviation. you know, let's get real. the government of the united states is shrinking. facts are stub boash -- stubborn things. madam president, madam president, this is what's happening to the u.s. government work force under this president. obama took office in january of 2009. this is millions of federal, state, and local employees. we had more than 22.5 million federal, state, and local employees. look what's happened. do we have more governments in -- employees in government today than when president obama took office or do we have less? we have less and a lot less. this chart shows very clearly

the number of employees has gone down dramatically, dramatically iuring the years of this administration. madam president, facts are stubborn things. what is underlying our current weakness? well, before the budget committee we had dr. joel prakken, the chairman of macroeconomic advisors. this is the testimony he gave earlier this year. the number-one problem that small businesses say they have to deal with right now is lack of demand. colleagues, are we paying attention? can we pass a quiz? what is the problem? the problem is a lack of demand. further, tax increases or further spending cuts will only weaken demand in the short term. so we got to be paying attention to what we do here. some of our colleagues say just

slash spending some more. make government even smaller. guess what that will do to demand. it will weaken it. that will make the economic recovery even more tepid, even weaker. that is not the answer. yes, it is absolutely the case over the longer term. we have got to be aggressive at reducing spending, reforming entitlements and reforming the tax system. i've been part of virtually every effort here to do that. part of the bloals simpson and the group of six, but we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and we need to understand what we need here is a two-step strategy. one, strengthen growth in the short term and then pivot and deal with our deficits and debt over the longer term. but we cannot get confused about this and think that the answer

is to impose -- impose immediate austerity now. we've already imposed a fair amount of us austerity which i'l get into in a minute with the budget cuts that were included in the budget control act passed last year. madam president, i want to repeat the testimony of dr. prakke northwestern. the number one problem that small businesses say they have to deal with right now is lack of demand. they do not say access to capital, they do not say burden of regulation. they say their order books are thin. colleagues, let's pay attention to what the problem is. weak demand. we've got to take steps to strengthen demand in the short term while at the same time putting in place a longer-term plan to get us back on track with our nation's finances. when we look at that weak demand, one reason we have a weak demand is we have made weak

investments in infrastructure. look at where we are compared to our global competitors. china is investing 9% of their public spending on infrastructure. europe, 5%. here we are, at 2.4%. one of the reasons we have a weak recovery is we are not investing sufficiently in roads, bridges, airports, rail, and as a result, our infrastructure across america is becoming second rate. madam president, that's about as clear as it can be and i hear my colleagues say, well, our problem is the senate has not passed a budget in over a thousand days. you know, sometimes i wonder if our colleagues pay very close attention to what they're voting on here. because last year instead of a budget resolution, we passed

the budget control act, a law. now, what's the difference between a resolution and a law? i think almost any high school student can tell you a resolution is weaker than a law. and and yet our colleagues continue to come to the floor and complain and say we have not passed a resolution in more than a thousand days. that's true. what we did do is pass a law called the budget control act. we passed it last year overwhelming vote here in the united states senate. bipartisan vote. it also passed in the house of representatives, and was signed into law by the president. a budget resolution never even goes to the president. a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. so a law is stronger than any

resolution. and it's true, we didn't pass a budget resolution last year. we passed a law. called the budget control act. and that law in part said the allocations,ing a re gatsz and spending levels set in subsection b-1 shall apply in the senate, in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. that's about as clear as it can be. the budget control act says that the spending levels will apply in the same manner as a budget resolution. so all these speeches that have been given, we haven't had -- we have not had a budget resolution in a thousand days, is not telling people the rest of the story. instead of a budget resolution,

we passed a budget law called the budget control act. what did that law do? one of the things it did was cut spending $900 billion over the next ten years. i can tell you, it put in place ten years of spend caps. ten years of spending caps. a typical budget resolution only deals with one year. the budget control act, the law that we passed last year put in place ten years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. in addition, it said we're going to create a special committee to deal with the entitlement programs and the tax system, and we're going to say to that special committee if you can come to an agreement, you will not face a filibuster, you will not face delays, you will be able to bring that proposal right to the floor of the united states senate and get a vote. and they further said but if you

don't agree, there will be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed. and of course we all know now the special committee couldn't agree. and so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law of the land on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts that was in the budget control act as well. so let's do the math. $900 billion of discretionary savings in the budget control act plus the sequester, the $1.2 trillion of additional spending cuts focused on defense and non-defense discretionary spending for a total of $2.1 trillion of spending cuts that were in the budget control act passed last year that is now the law of the land. that is the biggest spending cut

package in the history of the united states. so, you know, i think facts are stubborn things, and we need to remind our colleagues of what the facts are. here's another unfortunate fact. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend here. you can do that for awhile. you can't do it -- you can't do it endlessly. madam president, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend, and so we've got to deal with that. what does it mean in terms of our debt? it means this is what's happening to our debt. gross debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product, under what's called the c.b.o. alternative fiscal scenario -- that's their prediction of what we might do here -- shows the debt, the gross debt in the united states is going to be 104% of our gross domestic product at the end of this year.

104% of our gross domestic product. and it shows if we don't do anything, that's going to go up to 119%. our gross debt will be 119% of the size of our economy by 2022 if we don't do anything. that is not a path that we should allow to be followed. why not? because the best economic analysis that has been done by row depart -- by reinhart and rogoff, growth in a time of debt found that once you get a gross debt of more than 90% of your g.d.p., your future economic prospects are diminished. that doesn't happen all at once. it's not like you fall off a cliff when you get to debt, gross debt that's 90% of your g.d.p. it's more like a long, slow decline in terms of your future

economic prospects. so, madam president, here's what they concluded after studying 200 years of economic history, 44 different countries. we examined the experience of 44 countries spanning up to two centuries of data on central government debt, inflation and growth. our main finding is across both advanced countries and emerging markets high debt to g.d.p. levels, 90% and above -- again, this is gross debt. when you get to a gross debt of 90% or more, are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. madam president, this isn't just about numbers on a page. this is about future economic prospects, future economic opportunity, future job prospects, future wealth of a nation is hurt when you get to a gross debt of more than 90% of your g.d.p. the previous chart i showed is that we will be at 104% of

g.d.p. at the end of this year. so absolutely we have got to focus on deficits and debt. but we should not lose sight of the fact that you can't pivot and do that when the economy is weak or you'll make the economy even weaker. so the initial steps we need to take are to strengthen growth. at the same time we ought to put in place a plan that gets us back on track fiscally. the deals with this debt -- that deals with this debt problem for the longer term. because this is not a matter of you goat this point, you -- you get to this point, you fall off the cliff. it doesn't work that way. what is critically important is we adopt the right economic policies now to strengthen the economy, to lift growth. but at the same time to put in place a longer-term plan that deals with deficits and debt.

madam president, here's where we're headed if we fail to act. this is according to the congressional budget office. it's nonpartisan. we've got a debt, gross debt that i was referencing before, 104%. you'll look at this and you'll say, gee, it's not 104% on this chart. that's because this is not gross debt. this is debt held by the public which most economists like to talk about. i talk about the gross debt because gross debt includes what we owe to the trust funds. and the work of reinhart and rogoff focused on gross debt. so if we're going to compare ourselves to the research they did, we have to be talking gross debt. this is debt held by the public, and this is what c.b.o. says is going to happen to debt held by the public if we fail to act. we're going to have a debt more than 200% of g.d.p.

that's the track we're on. so, hey, we've got to sober up. we need a plan that gets us back on track. and when we analyze how we got in this situation, what's critical is that we look at spending and revenue because it's that mismatch that leads to deficits. it's when you're spending more than you're talking in, it's when your outlays are greater than your revenue that you have deficits. and it's the cumulation of deficits that is the debt. right? the debt is adding up all the deficits over all these years. the red line shows the spending of the united states. the green line shows the revenue. and what jumps out at you here as spending is at or near a 60-year high. that's not surprising because we just had the biggest economic

downturn since the great depression. and what happens when you have a strong economic downturn? the things we call the automatic stabilizers kick in to prevent us from going into a depression. what are the automatic stabilizers? things like unemployment insurance. things like spending programs on food stamps. other things that are done to prevent going from a recession into a depression. and those things kicked in, and the result is -- and of course we had tarp and bead stimulus, which -- and we had stimulus which i demonstrated worked i think quite effectively. without them, the best economists in the country tell us we would have been in a depression. madam president, spending is at or near a 60-year high. but look at revenue.

revenue is at or near a 60-year low. low revenue, high spending, big deficits, big additions to debt. that's what's happening to us. and you can see the spending has come back somewhat now. revenue has improved somewhat. so things are starting to get better. but we still have a big gap and a deficit of $1.2 trillion for this year. staggering. and that over time has got to be addressed. madam president, the budget control act that we passed last year, the law -- and our friends over here say you didn't pass a budget resolution for 1,000 days. wow. did they forget they voted on a law called the budget control act that cut spending by the biggest amount in the history of the united states?

and look what's happened to discretionary spending. under the budget control act, discretionary spending is going to go to an historic low. all this talk about the runaway spending around here, yes, spending went up when you had a deep economic decline in order to prevent that decline from becoming even worse and becoming a depression. but you know what? we've already taken steps to rein that spending back in in the future in the budget control act. and look how it's going to do. we saw back in 1968 discretionary spending. you know, in federal spending there are two kinds of spending. there's mandatory spending; things like social security, medicare, that's mandatory spending. then there's discretionary

spending. that's things like education, law enforcement, and parks. and back in 1968, 13.6% of budget outlays went to discretionary spending. in 2012, even after this uptick, we're still far below where we have in 1968. only 8.4% of budget outlace are going to stkregsary spending. -- discretionary spending. look what happens under the budget control act. discretionary spending as a share of the total budget will drop to less than 5%. we haven't been there going way, way back. that's an historic low. so those who say we've got

runaway spending, nothing's been done about it, they haven't done their homework. and they obviously haven't paid attention to the laws that have been passed here. the budget control act that passed last year is taking us to spending for discretionary programs that are an historic low. madam president, where is the spending going up? well, it's those mandatory accounts. that's where the spending is going up. and of course this is the picture on social security. again, this goes back to 1972. social security was 3.3% of g.d.p. here we are in 2012, it is up to well over 5% of g.d.p. and

headed to over 6% of g.d.p. as the baby boomers retire. and that's not a projection. the baby boomers have been born. they're alive today. they're going to retire. i'm a baby boomer. i see a number of others in front of me here. and that's not a projection. that's baked in the cake. so we know that we have gone in 1972 from social security being 3.3% of g.d.p. to being 6% of g.d.p. and that's not because we've had increases in the program. it's because we have increases in the number of people who are eligible for the program. the same is true in other mandatory parts of the the budget. here's medicare. medicare back in 1972 was 1.1% of g.d.p. medicare, medicaid, other federal health spending, if you

added it all up in 1972 was 1.1% of g.d.p. in 2050, we expect that to increase to 12.4% of g.d.p. 12.4% of g.d.p. so if we're looking for where the spending is really increasing, it's certainly not in the domestic accounts. that's going down as a share of g.d.p. social security, we have seen an increase because of increased people eligible because of the baby-boom generation. but the big place that we have seen an explosion is in the health care accounts. that's not because of the law that was passed, what some people call obamacare. that had nothing to do with this. this is long-term trends because of the increase in the cost of

medicine and because of the baby-boom generation. that's where we really see a large increase in federal spending. madam president, it's also interesting that we're seeing medicare enrollment soaring. back in 1970, there were 20 million people eligible for medicare. in 2085, it is going to be 115 million. so a key reason we're seeing increases in costs in the so-called mandatory programs is a dramatic increase in the people, the number of people who are eligible. that's no fault of the program. that's a demographic reality. and we've got to cope with this reality. if we're going to have a medicare program that gives an

assurance that people in their senior years have medical treatment available to them, we've got to deal with this reality of a dramatic increase in the number of people who are eligible for medicare. madam president, an aging population is the primary driver of medicare, medicaid, and social security cost growth. an aging population. the world is changing. as a population, we've got a much bigger group than is eligible for these programs -- social security, medicare, medicaid. my own belief is it's absolutely essential that those programs be maintained in order for our seniors to have a comfortable

retirement. and in their aging years, to have security. that is the genius of social security and medicare and medicaid. they have transformed life for people in their senior years. but we also have this reality to confront that because we have a growing number, because of the baby-boom generation, the costs to the federal government are swelling. again, it is not on discretionary spending. that's part of the budget, as i've demonstrated -- that part of the bucket, as i'vof the bude demonstrated, is going down. interestingly enough, the medicare trustees say that the health reform law passed has reduced long-term medicare

costs. i mean, i hear people, especially our friends on the other side, say that the law that we passed has increased these costs. that's not what the medicare trustees have found. the medicare trustees have said, "projected medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the ... 'affordable care act' or a.c.a." so, madam president, when our colleagues say they want to repeal the affordable care act, they're talking about making the situation worse. not according to kent conrad, but according to the medicare trustees. the medicare trustees said, "projected medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the ...

'affordable care act'." so, our colleagues who are lining up to say they want to repeal the affordable care act, we will, they'rwell, they're lio increase medicare costs. and, by the way, they're lining up to increase the debt, because the congressional budget office has told us that in the first ten years of the affordable care act, it saves several hundred billion dollars under the deficit. but in the second ten years, it saves well over $1 trillion on deficits and debt. let me repeat that. the congressional budget office tells us that the affordable care act that some of our colleagues are lining up to repeal will reduce deficits and debt in the second ten years by well over a trillion dollars. so, my friends who are lining up -- they want to repeal the

affordable care act -- they are lining up to increase medicare costs, they are lining up to increase the debt of the united states, according to the congressional budget office -- that's nonpartisan. madam president, this is what the medicare trustees project in terms of reduction in medicare costs. this is the percent change in average per-beneficiary cost. from 2001 to 2011 it was up 94%. from 2011 to 2020, they predict it will go up 37%, a dramatic slowing of the rise in cost because of the affordable care act. madam president, we also hear colleagues on the other side say the answer to this deficit and debt situation is to have further tax cuts that primarily

benefit the wealthiest among us. really? i've just showed a chart that showed our revenue is at or near a 60-year low. so does digging the hole deeper make much sense before we start to fill it in? i don't think so. and we hear our colleagues say, well, if you looked over the last 40 years, revenue has been about 18% of g.d.p. that's true. but, you know what? the five times we've balanced since is the 69 the revenue has -- we've balanced since 1969, the reef knew has not been at 18% of g.d.p. the revenue has been at 19.% of g.d.p., 19.9% of g.d.p., 19.%, 20.6%, 19.5%. so these friends who say they want to balance the budget,

let's study their numbers. it doesn't add up. it doesn't add up. they want to cut the revenue, which already is at a 60-year low, cut it some more. and they say, well, sometime it's going to get back toward ts it's historic average. well, that's not going to cut it. the times we have balanced the budget, revenue has not been at 18% of g.d.p. revenue has been at about 20% of g.d.p. madam president, i don't know what could be more clear that we need tax reform in this country. the tax code is out of date, inefficient, hurting u.s. global competitiveness. the complexity imposes significant burdens on individuals and businesses.

the expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. we're hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, to tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. i've shown on this floor many times the picture of a little five-story building in the cayman islands called ugland house. ugland house, i'm going to put it in u up in just a minute, cls to be the home to 18,000 companies. they all say they're doing business. really? we'll talk about that in a minute. but we need to restore fairness. the current system is contributing to growing income inequality. i don't know how anybody can deny we see a dramatic growth in income inequality in our country. one of the reasons is we have a tax code that favors those at

the very top -- at least some of them. it is very interesting, because not all -- some people at the top pay a lost taxes. some people at the top and some companies pay nothing, even though they're highly profitable. that's not fair. that's not right. and it is hurting the country. and our long-term fiscal imbalance must be addressed. revenue must be part of the solution. madam president, martin feldstein, a distinguished conservative economist -- nobody ever accused martin feldstein of being a liberal -- said this: "cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment, or risk-taking. it would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions.

and eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. in short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue." madam president, in this case, i think martin feldstein has got it about right. one way we could raise additional revenue is to reform the current tax system, making our system more competitive and at the same time raising additional revenue that could be used to help reduce the deficit, along with reform of entitlement programs, along with additional spending restraint. madam president, these tax expenditures go overwhelmingly to the top 1%. here is the increase in aftert after-tax income from tax

expensed expenditures. the middle quintile gets $2 $3,0 a year of value. the top 1% get over a quarter of a million dollars a year. overwhelmingly, these tax expenditures which are now costing us $1.2 trillion a year are going to the wealthiest among us. again, nothing against wealth or people succeeding. i'm all for it. i am for there being a fair distribution of the burden of raising the revenue necessary to support the country. and this is not fair. it is not fair when the top 1% get a quarter of a million dollars in value every year from these tax expenditures that get almost no attention. madam president, this is the picture i was talking about.

this is a little building in the cayman islands, five-story building called ugland house. 18,857 companies call this building "home." really? well, i say, that's the most efficient building in the world. can you imagine all these companies doing business out of that little building? 18,857 companies? are they reallloy doing business out of that little building? the only business they're doing out of there is monkey business, and the monkey business they're doing is to avoid the taxes they legitimately owe in this country. that's what's going on in this building in the cayman islands. the avoidance of taxes, legitimate taxes, in this country. and it is the reason there are some very large companies that even though they're hugely profitable pay absolutely

nothing in taxes. that's not right. that's not fair. and it should be stopped. and our colleagues on the other side, they don't want to stop it. they're against it. in fact, they've taken a pledge that they won't increase tax revenues by closing down this kind of tax dodge. they've taken a pledge not to do anything about it. virtually every republican has taken a pledge that this would be a tax increase to shut down this kind of tax dodge. madam president, that's not right. now, when we look at this long longer-term deficit and debt problem -- and i tried to be clear here today -- what we need

to do is a two-step approach. the first step -- we need more economic growth. we need things to support this economic recovery. we need more investment, certainly in infrastructure where we are falling badly behind, but realso need a comprehensive -- but we also need a comprehensive long-term plan to get us back on track, to face up to these deficits and debt. and what's the best way to do that? well, here's what the american people say: they say, you need a balanced approach. er you knowyou know, some peoplt cut spending. that's where 17% of the american people are. some say, just increase taxes. that's where 8% of the american people are. but 62% of the american people say, you got to do some of both, got to cut spending, you got to raise revenue, you ought to have a balanced plan. so, that's what the american

people are telling you and interestingly enough, that's what -- are telling us, and interestingly enough, that's what the president's commission -- fiscal commission concluded. that's the simpson-bowles commission. 11 of us supported the recommendations of that commission. we took that balanced approach and yes, we reformed the revenue system to have a more fair tax system, to shut down abusive tax havens and loopholes, but also to have further savings on the spending side of the equation. this is an overview of the fiscal commission plan. $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. lowered the deficit to 1.4% of g.d.p. in 2022 from the peak which is around 10% of g.d.p.

stabilized the gross debt by 2015, reduced discretionary spending to 4.8% of g.d.p. by 2022 which has already been done as i've indicated in the budget control act. build on health care reform savings, called for social security reform with the savings to be used only to extend the life of social security itself. social security was not part of a deficit reduction plan because social security has not been a contributor to building these deficits and debt. but we also know social security is in trouble. its solvency is in question. and we recommended any changes to social security be purely for the purpose of extending the life of social security itself given the incredibly important role it plays in our country. and we also included fundamental tax reform to raise revenue and

to go after these tax havens, to go after these abusive tax shelters. and yes, to ask the wealthiest among us, some of whom -- some of whom, not all -- some of whom have gotten away with paying very little, to ask them to pay that are fair share. madam president, this is what would happen to the deficit as a percentage of g.d.p. under that plan. you can see it would be reduced dramatically from 7.6% of g.d.p. in this year to 1.4% of g.d.p. by 2021. and really dramatic reductions as a percentage of g.d.p. by 2016. and this is what would happen to the debt. instead of the debt continuing to grow to more than 119% of

g.d.p. by 2022, that debt would be at 93% of g.d.p. by 2022. so we would get -- in the near term debt would go up some more, absolutely, because we got to deal with this economic weakness but over the full ten years of the plan, the debt would be brought under control and be brought down somewhat. madam president, that's the elements of the plan. i'd just say to my colleagues we're going to have to find a way to come together. it's important to the country that we do. i'm retiring at the end of this year, but i would hope that weekd find a -- we could find a way to reform the tax system to make it more fair, to reform our entitlements in recognition that the baby boom generation is

upon us, they're going to retire, they're putting stress on these programs. these programs are critically important to life in america, certainly the life of our senior citizens. and that we're going to have to do more about the discretionary accounts. but as i've indicated, the discretionary accounts have already been hit repeatedly and we are headed for a share of our budget going to the discretionary accounts that are a record low. so i personally don't believe going back and cutting them more beyond what's already been done in the budget control act passed last year is a winning strategy. madam president, you know, this is an important and defining moment, i think, in the country's history. these are problems that are real certainly to the millions of

people who are without a job, we have an absolute obligation to do everything we can to strengthen this economy. we also have an absolute obligation to take on this debt threat because that hangs over the country as well. and you know what? we can do this. we've done it before. in the clinton administration we got back to balanced budgets, and a strong economic growth, the creation of more than 20 million jobs and a country that was prospering and doing better than any competitor on the face of the globe. we can do it, and i believe we will. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, the american people are angry. they are angry because they are living through the worst recession since the great depression.

unemployment is not 8.2%, real unemployment is closer to 15%. young people who are graduating high school and they're graduating college, they're going out into the world, they want to become independent, they want to create jobs, there are no jobs. there are workers out there and i'm sure you know them, madam president,, 50, 55 years old who intended to work out the remainder of their work lives, suddenly they got a pink slip, their self-esteem is destroyed, they're never going to have another job again and now they're worried about their retirement security. what the american people are angry about is they understand that they did not cause this recession. teachers did not cause this recession. firefighters and police officers who are being attacked daily by governors all over this country did not cause this recession. construction workers did not

cause this recession. this recession was caused by the greed, the recklessness and illegal behavior of the people on weet. and what -- on wall street. and what these people on wall street did is spend billions of dollars, billions of dollars, trying to deregulate wall street and they got their way. $5 billion in ten years is what they spent, and then they were able to merge investment banks with commercial banks, with insurance companies. they got everything they wanted. they said get the government off the backs of wall street. they got it. and the end result was that they plunged this country into the worst recession since the great depression. now, madam president, four years after the financial crisis caused by j.p. morgan chase,

bank of america, goldman sachs abc and the other huge financial institutions, one might have thought that perhaps they learned something, that maybe the lesson of the great financial crisis was you cannot continue to maintain the largest gambling casino in the history of the world. but apparently they have not learned that lesson. they are back at it again and we have recently seen the $2 billion or $3 billion gambling losses at j.p. morgan chase. what we need from wall street if we're going to put people back to work is investments in the productive economy. small and medium sized businesses all over this country need affordable loans and that's what financial institutions should be doing. they should be helping us create jobs, expand businesses, not continuing to engage in their wild and exotic gambling

schemes. now, madam president, when we talk about why the american people are angry, they are angry because they understand that wall street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. but it was not just the $700 billion that congress approved through the tarp program. as a result of an independent audit that some of us helped to bring about in the dodd-frank bill, we learned, madam president, that the federal reserve, the federal reserve, provided a jow-dropping -- jaw-dropping $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, the central banks all over the world, to large corporations in america and, in fact, to even wealthy individuals and what the american people are saying is if the fed can provide $16 trillion to large financial

institutions, why cannot they begin to move to protect homeowners, unemployed workers, and the middle class of this country? madam president, the american people are looking around them, and they are angry not just because unemployment is high, they're angry not just because millions of people have lost their homes and their life savings. they are angry because they understand that the middle class of this country is collapsing, poverty is increasing, while at the same time the people on top are doing phenomenally well. they, the taxpayers of this country, bail out wall street, and wall street recovers, wall street does well, but now we have kids in this country graduating college deeply in debt, can't find a job. we have older workers losing their jobs and people are saying what is going on in america?

the american people ultimately, i believe, are angry because they are looking at this great country, a country which many of our veterans fought and died for and what they are seeing is that this nation is losing its middle class, is losing its democratic values, and, in fact, is moving toward an oligarchic form of government where a handful of billionaires control the economic and political life of this nation. madam president, in the united states today we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920's. now, you're not going to see what i'm talking about now, you're not going to see it on fox, you're not going to see it on nbc or kansas but it's -- or cbs but it's important that we discuss this issue because it's one of the most important issues facing america. madam president, today the

wealthiest 400 individuals in america own more wealth than the bottom half of america, 150 million people. 400, and 150 million. today -- and this is really quite amazing. the six heirs to the wal-mart fortune, the wal-mart company, of course, started by sam walton, his children, one family now own more wealth than do the bottom 30% of the american people. one family owns more wealth than the bottom 30%, 90 million americans. today the top 1% own 40% of all of the woalt in -- wealth in america. the top 1% own 40% of all the wealth in america. madam president, what do we

think the bottom 60% of the american people own? i ask this question a lot around vermont. have a lot of meetings. say the top 1% owns 40%. okay. people say okay, we understand that. what do the bottom 60% own? people say maybe they own 15%, maybe they own 20%. well, the answer is they own less than 2%. less than 2%. so you got the bottom 60% of the american people owning less than 2% of the wealth, top 1% own 40% of the wealth. here's another astounding fact and we don't see this too much in the media. many of my colleagues don't talk about it too often but incredibly, the bottom 40% of the american people own .3% of the wealth of this country. and i know we have some of my colleagues coming up here and say look, not everybody in america is paying taxes. got millions of people not

paying any taxes. no kidding. they don't have any money. because all of the money is on the top. madam president, according to a new study from the federal reserve, median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40% from 2007 to 2010, primarily because of the plummeting value of homes. that is the eiffel went of -- equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle-class family. now, i talked a moment about distribution of wealth. that's what you accumulate in your lifetime. let me say a word about income, which is what we earn in a year. the last study that was done on income distribution was done recently, and this is what it told us and this is really literally quite hard to believe. the last s