>> we've participated in the pqrs since it was pqri, from the beginning. i'm a fully electronic practice since 2002, so i know i have data on my practice of what it's done. yet last year we filled in all the pqrs, and i can prove that i have the documents for each one of those. yet when i turned it into medicare, we didn't get any of those updates, they said your data is incomplete. i said, i have my data, they said, nope, ours says you didn't do it. and that's just one small example of some of the flaws in the medicare system in terms of rapid turn around for data. if we're going to manage a population of patients in the medical home, we have to have realtime, very good data where our patients are, what care they're accessing, what site of service they're doing it in, what are their complication, what are they comorbidities, who are their other doctors? we have to have that data

practically realtime if we're going to be able to save the system money. but if you get data from medicare, you get it a year, year and a half later when it's history. we need it now. so we really need medicare, cms as a part mother work with the physicians -- partner to work with the physicians -- >> we don't have the money to update the systems? what's their response? >> they're working with us. [laughter] >> so it's a legitimate reason -- >> the current structure, mr. chairman, that the way the data's pulled in and then analyzed, it's, for example, 2012 we're looking at 2010 data. and so how does that become actionable and meaningful when you get your report, it's really just tied to an update in finances and not to clinical care. and we want it tied to clinical care so we can make actionable statements about patients. so that's the problem using claims data that then has to be

aggregated when that year's closed out and analyzed. and by the time it's analyzed and presented, another year's passed. that's why we're looking at other data systems that get to the target you're asking us to get to, and if we had these other, access to these other data systems, they're realtime. they allow us to say that happened last month. that can't happen this month. we need to put an action plan in place to correct that. that's part of the big disconnect, and it's not for lack of trying. it's just the wrong data set to drive the goal that we're trying to reach. >> the other place you can help us is the private insurers, their data's much more rapid, but they're not very transparent with their data. >> true. >> and for us to manage ideally, you know, we should have anybody's data of those patients that we are trying to manage in order to do it best.

it allows us to look at claims data and clinical data at the same time. we're prepared to do that, but it's almost like it's proprietary to some of these payers. they don't want to share it with you. and yet their spending millions and millions of dollars -- >> i know that's true. i met with an insurance company not long ago, and they showed me all this gee whiz technology they have -- >> yes. >> -- on claims data. they know everything about everything. pull back the screen, and you think you're down in command central or something. i asked them what about outcomes? they were a little hesitant at that. i said, well, do you share that with the hospitals and with the practices? the answer was, well f they'll pay for it. [laughter] >> and the challenge for the practice might have 10% of your population in each of -- >> yeah. >> and then you've got your medicare and medicaid data, and it's not collated in any single place. they use the claims data because it's what they have. >> exactly. no question. >> as we make the transition to you charge more broadly in our

practices, we need to move to claims data -- to clinical data. >> a question i asked, senator kyl asked, what do we do? short term, long term, we have to be consistent but flexible, different parts of the country, i think we have some understanding of all that. but we do need some ideas in what to do. >> i mentioned in my opening remarks h.r. 5707, it's a bipartisan house bill, i would encourage your consideration of its provisions. you've heard from all of us the importance of providing some predictable stability in physician payment. primary care operates on a much thinner margin, the reyourecurrg annual potential live in payment is a huge, stifling factor in the investing in practice transformation for this future that we know we need. so this bill has a repeal, it has a positive update, and then it has declines in fee-for-service payments in the

later years once we have these new models tested to take the place of pure fee-for-service. >> um, to the specifics of senator kyl's question, can we have something ready for january, boy, it would be a really big push for us to push our model to that point. we're just now trying to sort through how do we actually score this and show you the ability that this has to reduce cost and improve quality at the same time. so in short, i think we're going to need a bridge, but also we could use help from the innovation center as to how we're looking at data and how we actually get that data in a meaningful point that we get adequate scoring in the value-based update model that we're proposing, so there's an opportunity for us to work more closely with the center, medicare and medicaid to actually do the work we need to get the scoring of the modeling so that we can by that subsequent year give you a more

complete package, and we think it's in alignment with our entire conversation about value and about patient centeredness. so that we do believe we can do, and we're ready to roll our sleeves up on it, but we could use some help in getting access to and partnering with the knowledgeable side of the innovation center and what they could do to add to this. >> one of the other things i would throw in on this, and i agree with what dr. opelka has said, is the whole issue around care coordination and transition of care. the new codes need to be in place, payment for this, i mean, there's going to be some up-front expenditures, the care coordination is extremely important. you've heard that earlier in our discussions today. it will result in long-term savings, but we have got to get the ball rolling and make it meaningful. we could talk for hours about how folks fall through the cracks that isn't patient-centered necessarily although we try like heck to make it so, but we do need help in that particular area as well.

>> okay. senator thune? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, all, for your insight. i want to throw, i know most of you represent more populated areas of the country or work in those areas, but i wanted to just raise an example of some of the challenges that we're facing in if rural parts of the country when we talk about sgr reform and financial stability for our health care providers. you know, in south dakota it shouldn't be any surprise that most of our providers are highly dependent upon goth payer sources, and here's an example of one of the towns in my state. it has a population of 2300 people, payer mix of 40 percent medicare, 20 percent medicaid and 20% private insurance. 80% of revenue tied to what tend to be unstable federal payment systems, and they're struggling to keep up with reinvesting in critical facility upgrades and

nursing recruitment and all those sorts of things, and the other point i wanted to make about that is it's very hard to recruit and retain providers, physicians into some of these rural areas, and i'm curious to know, you know, i'm going to give you another example of we're in south dakota, we have an estimate that 27% of our population resides in areas that lack sufficient family practice, internal medicine or ob/gyn which is 48th in the nation. so recruiting and retaining quality physicians has traditionally been a challenge for hospitals in rural communities. i'm wondering what your thoughts are about the lack of an ability in rural settings to cost shift. i mean, most people in more urban settings cost shift to private payers, and because the margins are so thin with regard to government reimbursements to physicians and particularly in the primary care area how much that will is impacting the

ability of rural areas to recruit and retain physicians. you've got this high amount of the payer mix that is government sources, the cost shifting that many areas can do isn't available, at least not on the same level as some of these rural areas, but it strikes me that's really impacting our ability in the rural parts of the country to be able to get people to come out and practice. again, it comes back to the whole point of payment reform and what we can do to incentivize physicians to work in these areas. just curious if any of you have observations about that. doctor, i guess the answer is doctor? [laughter] >> i currently practice in a small metro area, but my first practice was in a community of 2700 in central washington 12 miles from the nearest hospital. i understand the problem that you're referring to. and it is largely primary care physicians who are out in those rural areas.

and in most practices even in primary care, only 20 or 25% of their practices are medicare and a small medicaid portion, so it's the measures you described, but upside down. i think what we have to do is, again, realign payments so that it supports primary care and use the innovations that we've seen in the commercial market which is, unfortunately, for many of your folks a smaller piece of their business. but in the medical home pilots conducted around the country and coordinated with employers and insurers through the patient-centered primary care collaborative and others showing huge improvements in health care quality measures, but also cost efficiencies. and it's the reason that we need the federal payers to be involved in that. it's why the comprehensive primary care initiative is such a unique, potentially game

game-changer program for primary care including in rural areas because it's a collaborative between cms and private payers in the local market to pay this blended payment model, to support that necessary practice transformation. and we know not only are those practices more efficient and better care, but the people who work there are happier, and that's an important factor in recruiting to a rural area. >> yeah. >> thank you, senator thune, for that question. i come from new mexico. we're rural and frontier, so i can relate. and in the small towns where i provide oncology services, one is in the heart of the navajo nation, another is in the southern part of the state where the primary care doctors ask us to, please, provide those services because with patients were electing to stay home and die rather than drive for hours to get cancer care which is just

too sad in this country. one of the things that i find is that it actually costs more to recruit doctor cans, nurses, physical therapists, radiology technicians, etc., to a rural area than it does to an you urbn area. in an urban area, a doctor who shows up with a spouse both can generally find a job. in a rural area, often one can't. and we have to work harder and pay more in rural areas. yet the medicare system is set up with the geographic price cost indicators which penalize those of us who have been in rural areas who have kept costs down so that when we try to recruit people, we're paid less for someone who cost us more. and one thing that congress could do is to take a very strong look at the geographic price cost indicators that adjust all of our payments for these rural areas and look at whether or not they truly still reflect the cost of providing

care. i'm an oncologist. if i have to have oncology nurses, i'm recruiting through a national market. i advertise nationally for people to come to gallup, new mexico. it's not easy, and we struggle with that. we've set up our own training programs inside the practice to train nurses, to pay them more to become oncology certified, but this is things that we're taking on. your description of the payer mix is exactly my payer mix in gallup, maybe not quite as good as what you described. and that practice is losing money, and i'm struggling in a private practice to keep it alive. if the payments were higher for rural and underserved areas and populations with severe health disparities to reflect the increased work it takes to take care of people who are socially disadvantaged, then you would be able to move some of the doctors and nurses and others from the more urban areas into these rural areas, and we desperately

need your help with that. >> would the rest of you agree with dr. mcaneny? pay more for those who practice in, you know, rural areas? >> i wouldn't say it's just rural areas, i would say many inner cities have the same problem. >> yeah. >> equal pay for equal work. >> right. >> what about loan forgiveness? >> i think that's effective. i mean, physicians? >> yes. we do it in kentucky. >> yeah. >> yeah, there's good state and federal programs for that there are successful. >> the other point to this question as well is empowering those practices not just with payments, but empowering them to be engaged in the whole delivery reform process, and that is going to be a challenge. the advanced payment programs where they can get their i.t., health information technology up to speed is a very important one. the other thing is working on mechanisms for them being able

to connect to specialists, other folks not just in their primary care world, but the specialists they need to help them manage their patients, and i think we could do a better job in working out systems to allow that to happen so that they get the support, they don't feel like they're hung out to dry in eastern kentucky from where i'm from and that they can provide the care they really want and are able to do. >> how much emr interoperability is there with facilities -- >> that's a huge issue, a huge, painful issue. >> it's more like an oxymoron. >> yeah. there is no -- >> i was told that that was one of the things that we were addressing and getting better at. i mean, we have people come in, experts and testify that that's not happening. >> not happening. >> what we're seeing, what they're saying and what we're seeing is just completely opposed. um, even within the same vendor where there is a vendor who

version 1.1 and then this institution over here's version 2.2 -- >> right. >> -- they don't talk. even within the same vendor. so there's a major barrier there. >> so what, how do we incent getting them to work better together? i don't think much is going to change until they get proper incentives to vendors. >> well, you know, i think there's a lot going on from omc in this effort to try and set data standards and try to move more consistent data across all these areas. again, as the initial move of getting the ehrs out this was let's get everybody digital, and now we've got to get digital communication. we have got to get the movement of data, and then we've got to get the meaningful movement of data. so omc is now at the point of data to data movement. we're the content experts who can give you meaningful data, we

need to have the omc standards go out there and say we'll get you movement of data, and we can front end load that with content to context. that'll go be give us actionable data. >> the other area you can help us with, i mentioned before, criteria for appropriate use of testing and that sort of thing which would decrease utilization. that's done on the side right now. it's like it needs to be work flow, it needs to be in the emrs, and the vendors aren't stepping up to incorporate that kind of thing. and that's where we'll see changes occur when we don't have to pay extra to collect the data and distribute it versus having it part of the emr. >> maybe we should have the vendors here. >> maybe. >> uh-huh. >> it might help. >> talk to you about this with you here as wellsome. >> we actually had a meeting with them two days ago over at the iom, and the very first step in how do we get there, and any

direction you can get onc to get us there would move us that much faster. >> one of the issues is the intermediary to help information exchanges, and there are a number of successful and not so successful ones around the country. a lot of the issues is what's the business model or payment model that supports them, and they often look to the physicians to subscribe to a service that's going to exchange information. but it's the system, particularly the private health payers, that benefit from that exchange of information. i think we need to promote a payment model for those health information exchanges that's not asking small practices to contribute in order to get information exchanged. >> mr. chairman? >> go ahead. go ahead. >> yeah, i was just going to comment very quickly to senator thune's comments about the rural issue. um, we don't have a solution in surgery, but we're very concerned. and there's decreasing access to surgical care, and went that happens, you've got problems

with trauma, problems with acute surgical needs. and i really want to support what dr. hoven said about creating partnerships and new ways of delivering care into the rural environments. partnerships from these delivery systems that are forming that create some new connectivity whether that's telemedicine out to the specialty areas so that there's early intervention and prevention of avoidable, preventable, adverse patient events. it's deeply troubling in surgical care what we're seeing in the absence of surgeons in rural america, and it's something we're tracking, but i don't know that we have a solution for it. >> well, if we were to have a solution, what might it tend to be? >> well, i think finding out what the barriers are to creating the kind of partnerships we need, getting the right surgeon to the right environment for the right time matching the surgical need. there could be a sense of what, how do we actually create regionalization of key parts of

surgery, and how do we get rural surgeons into those rural environments? some of that's going to be recruiting from the medical schools themselves. as a person in louisiana, rural state with medical education, we find when we pull in students from the rural areas, there's a good chance they'll go back to the rural areas. so we're looking for best of breed opportunities to come in from the rural areas, and we're giving them incentives to come into medical school. but there are other steps, too, mr. chairman, that you've mentioned, and we endorse those. >> how much is occurring patient or surgical consults via technology, through a telemedicine type approach that might, i mean, that to me is one of the partnerships that we've seen be at least moderately successful in south dakota, and i think other rural states are doing that too. but there are, i think, some limitations to that, and i guess

to the chairman's question, are there things that the barriers that we could knock out of the way that would enable better use of technology to deliver care to these -- i mean, obviously, you've got to have a surgeon there at some point if you've got to have that kind of a, you know, intervention, but it seems like there are a lot of things that could be done on the preventive side in advance of that that could be accomplished through other means. >> senator,? short, i'd have to do more homework on that and get back to you. i don't have a sense of what kind of penetration there is. there's more than just a case report of this being out there, emerging. but i don't know that we've got clear data to answer your question. >> i'm not going to speak to the surge callish -- surgical issue, but i know in the specialties of med kin -- medicine, infectious disease which i do a great deal of outreach is now being done into rural parts of kentucky via telemedicine programs and other

communication tools. the technology needs to be improved, the standardization needs to be improved, but it does work. and recently in one of our communities the actual every day a member of the critical care icu team met video wise with telemed with a team in a small community hospital taking care of critical-type patients and actually arranged transfer, determined what diagnostic studies would be helpful and began to move that train before it became a catastrophe, before someone was seriously hurt because they were not able to get the care. so the movement is out there. i think we need the tools, the technology and the standards to get this to a place that makes it what it should be. >> senator carper? >> let me jump in if i can. i apologize for missing your comments. we had a simultaneous hearing on the committee of homeland security and government affairs, and we're coming up on the tenth

anniversary of the creation of the department on the heels of 9/11, and it was an opportunity to look back and forward at the threats we're facing around the world, so i apologize for missing much of what you said. how do we realize better health care outcomes for less money, for the same amount of money? if we don't do that, we're not going to be able to extend coverage long to people who don't otherwise have it. among the focus i've had is actually a focus shared by senator baucus and senator enzi, as well as others of our colleagues. is it possible, let me ask this question, is it possible to reduce the incidents of medical malpractice litigation? is it possible to reduce the incidents of defensive medicine, and is it possible to get better health care outcomes? one of the things we put in the health care reform bill was a $50 million authorization to incentivize states to experiment boldly on different approaches.

could be safe harbors, it could be panels of merit, you know, it could be kind of thing they did up in michigan. what the university of illinois have done, they've taken the michigan idea, they really put it on steroids to see if it's possible to get reduce the incidence of medical malpractice and get better results, and the answer in about the last two years of the good work they've done is yes, yes, and yes. i would just throw that at your feet and ask you to, -- to comment, please. >> senator hatch raised this issue moments ago, we really didn't dig into it at the time, but there's a disconnect from the conversation we're having about improving the value and how we purchase health care and this whole aspect of defensive medicine. and there's no way that we can actually fully achieve the value we wish unless we actually have ed-based, clinical care matched

with evidence-based tort. if we don't have evidence-based tort reform, then physicians and hospitals are going to continue of to have to defend their profession with defensive medicine. and that's the missed opportunity. if we're setting standards for better performance, then why aren't we setting those same standards as the standards that are used if we're using them for reporting, why aren't we using them for the decisions we snake i don't want to say malpractice doesn't occur. i wish it never occurred to anyone in any specialty anywhere, but it does. we're all human. and people deserve to be compensated. but if the best evidence was followed and everything was proper and then we just understand that's part of our own how many frailty -- our own human frailty, we desperately need to look at everything you proposed whether it's health

courts, whether it's safe harbors, whether it's evidence-base withed tort reform. as a necessary adjunct to this value proposition. if we don't, we're going to be forever struggling with trying to contain that cost. and it's a significant cost. i don't know if it's $50 billion or more, but it's not chump change. >> yeah. i spent quite a few years of my life as a naval flight officer back during the vietnam war and subsequent to that and during the cold war. yeah, i'm struck by how we've taken an idea that we used all the time in airplane, checklists, and actually applying them to delivery of health care. >> right. >> and with very good, in fact, and the other thing we did in naval aviation, i'm sure in the other branches of the military as well. if we had a prop of a p3 navy airplane, we didn't hide it. we just broadcast it throughout the navy and said this happened on this flight, these are the conditions, the circumstances, this was what was done well,

this was what was done badly and, frankly, that's a smart thing to do with respect to these issues, defensive medicine, mistakes that are made. and one of the beauties that they're doing at the university of illinois, putting it in the spotlight. folks are hurt, harmed in some way, apologies, and, i mean, it is really a smart approach. i'm very encouraged. any other comments on that? >> you bring up a good point, senator. it really is about a system of care and not just individual performance, and the checklist comment you made is exactly on point. but we need to look at those incidents, near misses as the faa looks at accidents for aircraft, you know, how can we learn from mistakes rather than try to hide them because of concern about litigation and how can we use them as learning opportunities to continuously improve the quality of care that we give. and we need to nurture that environment and, unfortunately, we for the most part don't have that. >> this has been a great hearing.

i would like, though, for each of you the best you can to submit to us your written suggestions in what we do about sgr. that is short term, midterm, long term knowing that we have to act one way or another. and just there's always gray areas here and bridges, all kinds of solutions that you can come up with. but we do need some o help. and i just tend to think the more you give us some suggestions and solutions, the more likely it is that you'll like 'em. [laughter] so, please, let us know what you think, and we deeply -- i mean that, we really need your help. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> a very good hearing, thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and the u.s. senate about to gavel in to continue work today on a bill that would give businesses a tax credit for hiring workers or giving pay increases this year. the measure also lets companies deduct all equipment purchases during 2012.

negotiations continue on amendment toss that bill -- amendments to that bill, several senators want to offer amendments unrelated to the bill. and the house debating a bill that classifies mining on public land as infrastructure projects. we'll take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate, live coverage 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. almighty god, by whose providence our forebears

brought forth this nation, hallowed be your name. we thank you for a new day of service to you and our nation forgive us when our lives contribute to the problems and not the solutions. keep us from obstructing the doing of your will. make us better that we may do better. today, attune the will of our lawmakers to your purposes, providing for them the wisdom and stamina that comes from above. lord, give them the strength to be productive in service, to

live above daily trifles, and to surrender to your will and love. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 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., july 12, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now prove to proceed

to calendar number 446, s. 3369, the disclose act. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 442, s. 3364, motion to proceed to calendar number 442, s. 3364, a bill to provide incentive for businesses to bring back jobs to america. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to calendar number 446, s. 3369. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 369, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971, to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, super pacs and other entities, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the next hour will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and republicans controlling the final half. last evening, i filed cloture on the landrieu substitute amendment and to s. 2237, the small business jobs and tax relief act. under the rule, cloture votes would be on friday. i'm going to work with the republican leader. we have already -- we already have a general agreement that we'll try to schedule votes sometime today. mr. president, this week republicans continued to make the case that millionaires and billionaires can't afford to pay even a penny more in taxes. meanwhile, a new report shows average tax rates are at their

lowest level in decades. the nonpartisan congressional budget office reported this week that in 2009, rates fell to their lowest level in more than three decades, 30 years. much of that decline is thanks to president obama who has consistently fought to lower taxes for middle-class families over the last three and a half years. the average tax rate in this country fell to the lowest rate since 1979, 17.4%. mr. president, of course, that's still higher than what mitt romney paid in the only year, the only year he has been willing to disclose his tax returns, and i am confident the reason he hasn't disclosed his tax returns in the years that people want to know -- remember, he has disclosed one year. his father, george romney, set the precedent that people running for president would file their tax returns, let everybody look at them, but mitt romney

can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years. so the average tax rate in this country is the lowest it's been since 1979, 17.4%, but i repeat it's still much higher than what mitt romney pays. most americans don't have the benefit of swiss bank accounts, tax shelters in the cayman islands or bermuda and who knows what else? we can't see those tax returns. as our economy continues to recover, it's critical we keep tax rates low for the middle class. they are still struggling to pay the mortgage, send their kids to college, save for retirement. that's why president obama and democrats in congress want to extend tax cuts for 98% of american families. but there is one group that's not struggling. mitt romney and the rest of the top 2% of americans. mr. president, my republican friends can come out here and

they can talk, oh, it's terrible because what we're trying to do is raise taxes on small business. mr. president, the president's presentation, legislation raises taxes on 2% of wealthy people and about 2.5% of businesses. this is no crush for small businesses. it seems to me that they can, the top 2%, can contribute a little bit more to get this cub's deficit under control. yet republicans are prepared to block tax cuts for 98% of families unless democrats agree to even more giveaways for the richest of the rich. as the republicans continue to argue the wealthiest 2% can't contribute even a little more, i urge them to talk to the 3/4 of americans who disagree. i urge them to talk to the

almost 60% of republicans who believe the wealthiest americans should shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for getting the deficit under control. almost 60% of the republicans agree with what the president is doing -- that is, the top 2% should pay a little more. so i urge my republicans to -- my republican friends to talk to a few of the more than 135 million taxpayers who are waiting to see whether republicans will continue holding hostage their tax cuts. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, yesterday, something truly remarkable happened right here in the senate. first democrats blocked a vote a president of their own party had called for just two days earlier, and last night the majority leader moved to shut down a debate on taxes that hadn't even begun. moved to shut down a debate on taxes that hadn't even begun. earlier this week, president obama issued an outrageous ultimatum to congress, raised taxes on about one million

business owners, he said, and i promise not to raise taxes on anybody else. at a moment when the american people are reeling from the slowest recovery in modern times, when the percentage of those who could work are working is at a three-decade low and just five months away from the economic body blow that will result if tax hikes spike -- tax rates spike as scheduled on january 1, the president's solution is to take more money away from the various business folks we are counting on to create jobs that we need, presumably so we can spend it on solar companies and stimulus bills. this was the president's brilliant economic solution to the mess we're in. now, naturally, republicans oppose this. the way we see it, nobody should see an income tax hike right

now, not small businesses, not individuals, nobody. nobody should get a tax hike right now. the problem isn't that washington taxes too little but that it spends too much. but rather than just talk about it, we thought we should actually take a vote on it, actually vote on it. after all, the president himself boasted monday that he would sign a bill to raise taxes on small businesses right away, right away, he said if we would pass it. so what we suggested was two votes, one on the president's plan once it's actually written and one on ours. but the majority leader in the senate blocked it from happening. why? because as usual, democrats want to have it both ways. now, two years ago, just two years ago when the economy was

growing faster than it is now, 40 democrats in the senate voted to do precisely what republicans are proposing right now. keep everybody's taxes right where they are and do no harm. well, the president apparently doesn't want any of them to vote that way now. in other words, he doesn't want to do what's right for the economy and jobs. he wants to do what he thinks is good for his re-election campaign. for some reason, his advisors think it helps them to take more money away from small, already struggling businesses and spend ton -- it on more government. that's the plan, anyway, and he wants to stick with it. so yesterday, the democratic majority leader did what the president told him to. he made sure there wasn't a vote on a proposal that the president of his own party demanded two

days earlier. my friend, the majority leader, made sure there wasn't a vote on the plan the president was asking for just two days ago. and then offered a vote today on a bill that isn't even written. and only if democrats and republicans give up their ability to offer amendments to the bill we haven't seen yet. this is the kind of absurdity you get when you've got a governing party that's more concerned with winning an election than in facing up to the consequences of the president's failed economic policies. but it actually gets even more absurd. because the majority leader didn't just block us yesterday from having votes on whether to raise taxes or not. he wouldn't even let us have a debate about it. don't have the vote and don't are the debate. senators on both sides of the aisle have proposals that would

help the american people weather the economic crisis we're in. senator hutchison has an amendment that would extend the relief from the blow of the marriage penalty. senator heller has a plan to extend the deduction of sales tax in nevada. senator scott brown and a whole host of other republicans have a proposal to repeal the potentially devastating tax on medical devices that's being used to help fund obamacare. senator cornyn and crapo would lessen the tax hikes on investments, hieks that will directly affect job creation and harm those like our seniors who are living on fixed incomes. as for the democrats, well, even they have some ideas that might do some good for the country. senator brown of ohio has an amendment to extend the research and development credit.

which i know has bipartisan support, even if republicans might differ in his approach. senator begich has an amendment that would extend a popular tax breaks for investments by small businesses. i don't fully endorse the specific approach taken by these two but if they had a chance to offer and debate debate, i think we might be able to work out an agreement and actually get a result. but we can't even have a debate or get a vote on these democratic amendments because of the politics of this. now, personally i can't imagine why democratic senators would tolerate this kind of you a thorn -- you aor tehran -- authoritarian approach. it seems if senator brown of ohio and senator begich believe in their amendments they'd fight for a vote on them. it's hard to believe their constituents sent them here to rubber stamp everything the party leader puts out there

regardless of the impact on their states. we probably will have these votes later today, if these democratic senators vote to cut off debate. i'll leave it up to them to explain to their constituents why they didn't think these amendments deserved votes. but the larger issue is this: all of these petty, political maneuvers betray an astounding lack of concern about not only the economic crisis we're in but the threat that's posed by the fiscal cliff we all know is looming in january. a "new york times" article from just this morning suggests that one reason the economy has slowed down so much is that businesses are reacting to the uncertainty about what happens at the end of the year. well, of course that's the case. we hear it from everyone. and yet here's a democratic controlled senate blocking

votes, blocking debate, and hosting private meetings with the president's political advisors on strategy instead of working on serious bipartisan solutions. last night democratic leaders admitted the bill they wanted republicans to turn to hadn't even been written yet. think about that. the proposal the president announced monday with so much fanfare hasn't even been put on paper yet. and yet democrats wanted us to move it to. move to what? what is it? we haven't seen it. i'm not -- i think it hasn't been written. can't move to a speech. this is the level of seriousness we're seeing from the democratic controlled senate right now. this is how seriously they take this economic crisis. it's nothing.

but one political game after another. if the president has a proposal, we'll be happy to send an intern down to the white house to pick it up. we can't vote on a speech. and frankly, we can't continue like this. it's long time -- long past time, democrats at the white house and in the senate took the lives and challenges of working americans as seriously as they take their politics. it's time to put childish things aside and get down to serious business for the american people. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the senator from colorado is

recognized. mr. udall: i rise today as i have been every day to urge my colleagues to work with me, to work with you, to extend the production tax credit for wind. the p.t.c. as it's known has broad economic effects, positive effects all across our great country. and i'm going to talk today as i have about a state, an individual state i talk about every day that is known for its wind resources and that's the great state of kansas. kansas is already known as a national leader in both wind manufacturing and production. in fact, kansas has the most wind projects under construction as we sit here today, and is on track to almost double their installed wind energy capacity. you can see from the map here of kansas that there's a lot of activity. for example, there is construction currently underway in what will be the largest wind

farm in kansas located just southwest of wichita which is in south central kansas. the flat rigid two wind farm will cover about 66,000 acres and it should be up and running by tend of the year. the two companies running the project, b.p. energy and semper u.s. gas and power, have invested over $800 million and employed 500 construction workers. those are impressive numbers wherever you might find them. but that's not all, mr. president. because once the project is done and operating, the local community should receive over $1 million annually in tax payments from the project, and there are some 200 properties owners who own the land under the turbines and they will receive a similar wament in royalty payments. that's real money for real americans all thanks to wind energy and the production tax credit. these are jobs and investments, mr. president, that are created here at home and they create good-paying jobs in kansas, they help the local economy,

and they provide critical income to rural communities. and i have to say this is especially important as the drought takes a steep toll on farmers across the midwest this year. wind power, if you think about it, mr. president, is a cash crop that always ripens and always returns on the investment in the marketplace. and this is just one project in kansas that isn't even completed yet so i want to talk about the overall effect of wind energy in kansas. the wind energy industry in kansas supports 3,000 jobs. it results in $3.7 million in property taxes from wind projects that go to local communities. and 8% of kansas power comes from wind. those are impressive numbers. they would only grow as kansas invests. there are thousands of kansas wind energy jobs supporting millions of dollars of local tax revenue, and as i pointed out here, almost 10% of kansas'

total power needs. this harnessing of the wind has truly become an economic driver and presents enormous opportunity for this important midwestern state. and i want to focus on one county, lane county is headed up, their economic development operation by dan hartman. he moved to western kansas five years ago in large part because he wanted to live in the heart of rural america but he also wanted to create a better, more secure energy future for america with kansas playing a central role. and since then dan has been working with counties, farmers, landowners to bring as much wind energy as possible to western kansas. and those possibilities are i think almost unlimited because there's enough potential wind power in kansas to meet the needs of kansas some 90 times over. mr. president, that brings me to the point that i want to make today and why i keep coming to the floor. the uncertainty that we've

created, unfortunately, by failing to sustained the wind production tax credit has sidelined roughly $3.5 billion in wind energy investments. that defies common sense. back home in my state of colorado i keep hearing from coloradans, why haven't you in congress working to save wind energy jobs right now? to dan hartman the solution seems simple and wait a minute to quote men and women hymn. "i look at it has a matter of survival in kansas. if we don't extend the p.t.c., we're throwing away our future. we need it badly. if you really look at the money, the p.t.c. cost is dwarfed by the capital investment it encourages." dan has put it right and we should listen here in the congress. mr. president, if we refuse to develop our wind energy resources, there are a lot of countries that are willing to outcompete us, take china for

example. we have to work to keep these jobs and that investment here in the united states. and that's why the congress must extend the production tax credit as soon as possible. mr. president, you also know we have bipartisan support. this isn't a republican or a democratic issue solely and senator moran from kansas, my good friend, has joined me and others to make this happen. we've offered an amendment to the bipartisan small business lending bill that would extend the p.t.c. by two years until the end of 2014. so we need the p.t.c. it equals jobs, we need to pass it as soon as possible. i want to ask my colleagues again as i have every day to join senator moran, join senator udall from new mexico, join senator thune and others to help pass this much-needed commonsense bipartisan amendment or find another way to extend the p.t.c. to ensure more investments and jobs in states

like kansas, colorado, and all across our country will be the result. so, mr. president, i thank you. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator is advised we're in a quorum call. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of the small business tax cut and job creation act. this is a tough economy for a lot of people across the united states. it's especially difficult in my home state of rhode island and that's why i support the legislation that is before us today. it will help small businesses to hire new workers, to expand their payrolls or invest in new capital equipment and this is a

commonsense step to encourage growth and create jobs. these tax cuts are cost-effective and have been estimated by the c.b.o. as having some of the biggest bang for the buck compared to other fiscal policies that directly benefit businesses. it's especially important to pass these cost-effective policies because we are in the midst of a global slowdown hurting job creation and lowering government revenue. in contrast, particularly in the other body, the house, they have been intent upon repealing the affordable care act, rolling back regulations or providing tax windfalls to special interests. that will not provide the real economic growth that we need today to put people to work. in fact, it will exacerbate our deficit and will hurt the middle class of the united states. the targeted tax cuts in the legislation that we've proposed, the small business jobs and tax relief act stand in

stark contrast to the approach taken by the house the republicans pluns in their small business tult tut act which is in many effects just another way to provide huge tax benefits to the wealthiest americans in contrast to doing what we should be doing, providing jobs for all americans. proposals like the house republican bill would only generate 30 cents for every federal dollar spent compared to the $1.30 for, multiplier that are included in our version. even more disturbing with the house proposal is that half of the $46 billion would go to the wealthiest americans, millionaires, billionaires, without any obligation to create one single job. our bill provides, in contrast, a targeted 10% income tax credit to businesses that increase our payroll by hiring

new workers or raising wages this year. so there is a direct link between benefits, for new jobs or higher wages for american working men and women. this is a tax credit that is directly linked to this job creation effort and the credit is targeted to increasing middle-class jobs and wages because the credit only applies plis to the first $110,000 of wages for any individual employee. so we are looking to target this as closely and precisely as we can to be both effective and prudent with our resources. the taxes further target the small businesses as it only applies to the first $5 million in new payroll, especially effectively capping the maximum tax credit to any business under $500,000. the bill also extends bonus depreciation through 2012 for businesses that invest in new capital. bonus depreciation has proved to be an effective incentive for businesses to pull forward

capital purchases and invest in the near term, offsetting some of the weak aggregate demand that has held back our economic recovery. in 2011, bonus depreciation accelerated $150 billion in tax cuts to two million businesses and generated an estimated $50 billion in added investment. in total, small business jobs and tax relief act is estimated to create about one million jobs and over 3,500 jobs in my state of rhode island, and we desperately need these jobs and we need them as quickly as possible. this is a responsible, cost-effective and fair way to generate growth. before us today is yet another example, i believe, of my colleagues in the democratic caucus putting forth reasonable solutions that have been analyzed by economists and determined to provide immediate help to millions of out-of-work americans, but my fear is that

my colleagues on the other side will again filibuster and oppose this effort, like others we have made, while only offering proposals that promise great things but in reality contribute very little to putting people to work quickly. and that is our challenge. the damage caused by our refusal of many of my colleagues to support these legitimate job proposals and actively unwind federal support for our recovery is hard to overstate. the narrow focus in which a vast portion of their tax cuts flow to millionaires or billionaires or corporations that send jobs overseas doesn't help our middle class, doesn't help our economy, doesn't help our nation's fiscal health. and we have to respond to that immediate crisis. the legislation before us does respond to that crisis. jobs, middle-class working americans right now. not large additional tax cuts for the wealthiest of americans.

so i hope that we can move forward. i hope that we can bridge the differences and pass this legislation. it is legislation that has been looked at by economists and has been determined to provide real benefits. for every dollar we invest, we'll get more than that in terms of economic productivity in the economy. as a result, i hope we can move forward on this. and again, it is in stark contrast to simply proposing to cut taxes for the wealthiest americans and assume that that will put people to work. that was the essence of the bush administration for eight years, and at the end of those eight years, we were in the deepest economic crisis, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. we have pulled back from that brink, but in order to go forward, go forward with momentum and confidence, we have to pass legislation such as the legislation we have proposed

today. targeted efforts to put people to work in the private sector, to move our economy forward, to move the nation forward, to increase the confidence of our people that we are dealing with the problem that most affects them in the most meaningful way, and that is simply to put them back to work, and when we do, this country will do the great things that it always has done. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. last week's jobs report reinforces what many of us have known for some time. unlike what the president would like you to believe, the private sector is not doing fine and the administration's policies are not providing effective solutions to our nation's problems. the health of our economy hinges upon grob joat and it clearly has not received the attention it deserves. our nation has no road map and it is past time for genuine effort to work in a bipartisan manner to create the certainty and stability that will allow american businesses and families to thrive. every morning, nevadans wake up, grab their hometown newspaper, turn on their local news. are some getting ready for work, others starting -- others start another day to try to find a job. these nevadans have become all

too familiar with the headlines of nevada leading the country in unemployment and foreclosures. for the nevadan who is going to their job, these headlines create fear and uncertainty about their future. for the nevadan who is unemployed, these headlines are another blow to their hope to finding work. and that is what millions of nevadans have come to live with for far too long. i read and see the latest unemployment statistics just like everyone else, but i know that behind these numbers are real people struggling to make ends meet. being home in nevada, i've met the unemployed mechanic, i've met the unemployed computer engineer and the unemployed waitress. blue collar and white collar workers alike continue to pay the price of the poor decisions by wall street and washington, d.c. nevadans did not want wall street -- did not want the wall

street bailout and washington did it anyway. nevadans did not want the trillion-dollar stimulus bill, and washington did it anyway. nevadans did not want the president's health care bill, and washington did it anyway. when i'm in places like reno, las vegas, henderson or elko, i often ask people to raise their hands if the bailout has helped them find a job. no one raises their hand. so i ask did the stimulus help you find a job? and no one raises their hand. finally, i ask them if the health care bill helped them find a job, and still no one raises their hand. in january of 2009, president obama was inaugurated, democrats controlled both the house and the senate. nevada's unemployment was at 9.4%. nearly four years later, nevada's unemployment is 11.6%. too many people in nevada are

unemployed, have stopped looking for jobs, or worse, left the state for employment elsewhere. with over 23 million americans out of work or underemployed, i think it's past time to ask the president and this congress, is this working? nevadans have seen the effects of higher washington spending, higher washington -- higher regulations, and higher debt, and they know that these policies have failed. they deserve solutions instead of having more show votes, congress needs to focus on pro-growth policies that eliminate burdensome regulations, reform the tax code, and help struggling homeowners. it is my hope that our economy will improve as the year goes on, but washington must take action. there are small commonsense measures that could pass right now if given the opportunity. i continually come here to the

senate floor to offer solutions that will provide our nation's job creators with the tools to provide for long-term economic growth. i have crafted three housing bills to help those floafer foreclosed upon, and ensure homeowners who get mortgage relief are not hit with additional taxes. i have legislation that would require washington bureaucrats at agencies to take into account jobs when issuing regulations or to streamline permitting for energy-related projects on public lands. or even something as simple as combining annual reports submitted to congress. these are small measures that have passed -- if passed would make a big difference in the nation's job creators. unfortunately, it is too often we find ourselves taking political show votes instead of debating commonsense solutions.

the bill we have before us on the floor is a perfect example. i filed two amendments to this bill that would help ease the stress of taxes on middle-class nevadans, and one that would help underwater homeowners. both are bipartisan proposals, yet once again we find ourselves in a position that we cannot have an open debate on amendments. these are not partisan issues. these are american issues. if any member of congress commits themselves to spending reform, tax reform, regulation reform, and finding solutions to fix the housing problems, then they will have me as an ally. nevadans deserve better than what they've gotten from congress and this white house, which is why i will continue to keep coming to this floor to raise my voice for the citizens of nevada and i will fight every day to create jobs and get nevadans back to work. thank you, mr. president.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i would like to be recognized for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i come to the floor today to congratulate the university of kansas on its very prestigious designation as a national cancer institute comprehensive cancer center. i do regret i cannot be at the ceremony today to mark this designation by the national cancer too institute because of anticipated votes in the

senate, but i am certainly there in spirit. this designation of comprehensive cancer center is such an important development for my state and others in the region because it means that many kansans and their families who have faced frightening diagnosis, trying treatments, will no longer have to seek cures all the way down to texas or up to minnesota. they can and they will be able to stay closer to home and their support systems. simply put, it's great news for kansas cancer patients and those patients in the entire region. i am personally gratified by this designation because it represents more than a decade of work with so many outstanding partners. it has truly been a team effort to achieve this important federal designation. when i was first elected in this body back in 1996, i created a blue ribbon committee of kansas

leaders and government, academia and the private sector, over a hundred, to advise me on the state, science, and technology needs. the goal was to make us more competitive in a global marketplace, increasingly reliant on research and technology, and to provide economic opportunity to stop the outmigration of our best and our brightest young people. the roberts advisory committee set out to secure federal investments to further the research goals of kansas state university in plant and animal science, wichita state university in composite and aviation research, and the university of kansas in life science research. i personally took this goal to the kansas legislature back in 2001, and again in 2002. encouraging my colleagues in the state legislature to help promote state investment in

research infrastructure, to be a partner. at the time i spoke about how all of the statistics showed that kansas was lagging behind other states in the race for federal and private research dollars, and in response, the kansas legislature more than stepped up to the plate. special thanks to the a team at that time, kenny welg, kent grasscock, rick jordan and senator dave kerr. the legislature voted in favor of bonding authority and we constructed and invested buildings at the k.u. cancer center and the biosecurity research institute at k state. likewise, wichita state university's work in composite research has now revolutionizing industries from aircraft clear down to health care. at about this same time stowers biomedical research came into

existence which provided a key private source of research excellence. our kansas motto is to the stars difficulty. in short, the stars aligned. k.u.'s chancellor and i sawtd out other opportunities to help k.u.'s research profile. in 2004 we invited-inch director aliceas zahony for a tour and discussion about k.u.'s medical research facilities. he recognized as many directors do there is great promise in research constructed at kansas universities. the chancellor and i worked in concert to design congressionally directed programs to supplement k.u.'s internal national institute of health cancer research successes. this included those won by dr. jeff abbe who leads one of four

n.i.h. drug discovery centers. furthermore, this cooshedded effort with the chancellor and his leadership team also provided k.u. with the flexibility to recruit new cancer research faculty who brought expertise in cancer research programs to the university. in 2006 with the critical mission of the national cancer institute in mind from my post on the senate health committee, we fought to reauthorize funding for national institutes of health which oversee the national cancer institute. now, this reform bill reaffirmed the various centers of the national institute of health including the cancer institutes and reauthorized their funding. in fact, this was a continuation, mr. president, of congressional efforts from 1999 when we were successful at doubling n.i.h. funding over five years at a time when many wanted to divert federal funds

to other research. my then partner in the senate, senator sam brownback and now our state's governor and i worked together to advance this push, this effort, in 2009 senator brownback and i secured $5.5 million in federal investments for the university of kansas to purchase equipment needed to further its cancer research. sam's sam's leadership both then and now is immeasurable. over those ten years, there were many other excellent team members supporting this effort who should be recognized. i apologize i will not be able to name everyone who played such a big and important role. but first, dr. howard mosberg. dean emeritus of the k.u. school of pharmacy. he was the force behind the regular meetings of our science and technology advisory committee. howard, who lives in lawrence, home of k.u., did this work for free, for free because he

recognized the opportunity to use the advisory committee to provide us with key facts to support our research and technology initiatives. k.u., in fact, hosted many of our advisory committee meetings down through the years. i truly appreciate that. riding shotgun back in kansas on this effort has been my tireless staff member, harold stones. harold provided the hard work of collecting and then distilling and then providing to everybody concerned the valuable contributions among our technology leaders for more than a decade, helping me turn them into policy and progress. credit must also go to former k.u. research directors dr. bob barnhill, dr. michael welch. they were instrumental in my early education about the k.u. cancer center. jim roberts, who sadly passed away from cancer himself, was a valuable k.u. advisor to me, as is steve warren as of today.

i have appreciated getting to know dr. roy jensen who leads the k.u. cancer center. i know roy will continue to stay close in touch with me and the entire kansas delegation within the k.u. cancer center as it does continue to progress. our work is ongoing. it is not done. i'd also be remiss not to mention my -- or the contributions of my former legislative director, mr. keith yaley. keith was the point person for k.u. to contact, whether it was about the k.u. cancer center, the advancement in special education or the hoagland brain imaging center where we also secured 1.8 million for federal investment renovation and equipment. keith went on to work for k.u. chancellor hemingway and to help our current chancellor gray little to navigate the corridors

of capitol hill. my former steve chief of staff leroy towns, jennifer swanson and my senior health care policy advisor jennifer boyar. round out the list of the roberts team who have spent countless hours working on behalf of the university of kansas, whether it's the cancer center designation or any other of k.u.'s initiatives. let me emphasize that my current colleagues, let me stress that my current colleagues in congress, senator jerry moran, congresswoman lynn jenkins and congresswoman lynn yoder have each carved out important initiatives to promote this designation and help make this day possible. this partnership will continue for k.u. mr. president, you cannot accomplish something this encompassing without strong public support. in this regard, i also want to thank the publisher and the editor of the large journal world, mr. dolph simons jr., for

his comprehensive coverage with regard to all of these initiatives over the years. what we have today with the n.c.i. designation is proof of what i said to kansas and the kansas state legislature back in 2001, that public and private and academic partnerships are critical to developing our state's economy over the long term. i applaud the generosity of the kansas masonic foundation, the hall family foundation and others for their key contributions to this effort. mr. president, in the senate this week, we have talked a lot about the need for job growth, jobs, jobs, jobs. according to the university of kansas, since 2006, the national cancer institute's designation pursued, pursued alone has created 1,123 jobs and had a

regional economic impact of $453 million. we can only expect with the announcement of the cancer center designation today that these numbers will grow, jobs, jobs, jobs. our work does not end today. we'll always be focused on ensuring a better treatment of cancer victims. a great thanks go to so many past and present. i am honored to have been there at the beginning, but in some ways, i believe you ain't seen nothing yet. so congratulations to the university of kansas and to the entire state of kansas. rock chuck jay hawk, well done k.u. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the small business tax bill currently before the senate, one of which i hope we have an opportunity to debate openly and

fairly and allow amendments, but i'm not quite sure if that's going to happen, which is frustrating because the american people deserve better. when we allow the process to work, we actually have everybody have their say in the process, and as a result of that, we ultimately get a good bill, and i'm hopeful we can do the same on this one. it's good we are finally working on jobs, but i believe that we should be working in a more bipartisan way. as we did with the insider trading bill, as we did with crowd funding, as we have done with the arlington cemetery bill, the 3% withholding and many other bills. we need to work on a bill where all members are offered an opportunity to have their votes on job-creating ideas. i don't think one party has the monopoly on how to create jobs in this country. i think we could actually get together in a room and just hammer it out, try to work to help protect the middle class and everybody in america who wants to get out and work, and we have worked together, as i

said, on a whole host of bills. i forgot the hire a hero tax bill, which is clearly a jobs bill. i worked with senator merkley on that type of piece of legislation. with that type of success, i don't understand why we don't try that more often. the new medical device tax is one more example of a policy that we all know is bad for jobs and in fact bad for our economy. the house has already voted to repeal this job-killing tax, but i'm disappointed to say that the senate has not taken the time to work to repeal it in a truly bipartisan manner. for those of you who don't know what the medical device tax is, or why should you even care, well, in massachusetts, we have over 400 medical device companies in our state employing tens of thousands of people. this 2.3% tax on medical device sales would cost our economy thousands of jobs and limit americans' access to the most ground-breaking state-of-the-art medical devices.

for example, a medical device company with 2,000 employees in my home state has estimated that taxable medical devices represent approximately 30% to 40% of the total net sales in 2011. what that means in plain language is that tax will cause the company between $80 million and $107 million annually. so where is that money going to come from? is it r&d, is it expansion, is it hiring or expanding their work force? over the last five years, covinian has more than doubled its r&d investment and launched more than 100 new products. one of those products is a device that restores blood flow to the brain of patients suffering from stroke by mechanically removing blood clots from blocked vessels. i mean, obviously, a very important piece of -- a very important device that would actually help save people's lives and save costs. another product provides the first safe and effective treatment for large or giant

wide-neck brain aneurysms available on the market, but losing $80 million to $107 million in revenue each year is going to put covidian's continuing growth in very, very real jeopardy. another medical device company, stryker corporation, said late last year that they would begin cutting 5% of their work force in response to the tax. that's 1,000 jobs gone as a result of this tax. stryker expects the device tax to cost them $130 million to $150 million in the first year alone. these are just two examples. as i said, in massachusetts, we have over 400 medical device companies. the massachusetts medical device industry, as i referenced earlier, employs nearly 25,000 workers in massachusetts an contributes over $4 billion to our economy. massachusetts alone is expected to lose over 2,600 jobs. as a result of this tax, as a

direct result of this tax, around 10% of our entire medical device manufacturing work force will be affected. the bottom line is that we just can't have that kind of job loss in a sector of our economy that is still struggling. yesterday, i along with others, introduced an amendment to repeal this job-killing medical device tax, a tax which will in fact drive up the cost of care for patients and make our workers and our companies less -- less competitive. some say it's time to move on from the health care bill to work on jobs legislation. well, with all due respect, working on job growth means repealing the health care bill and its 18, 18 new job-destroying taxes, along, obviously, with a half a trillion in medicare cuts. a lot of these things haven't clicked in and the american public isn't quite aware that they are soon going to be affected by 18 new taxes associated with the federal health care bill and a half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts. it's time to get rid of the

medical device tax before it does even more damage, not only to massachusetts but other states that have a large medical device industry, and i urge my colleagues to get behind this effort in a truly bipartisan, bicameral manner. so i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: should we go to the bill? the presiding officer: the senate is considering a motion -- or a bill to proceed on s. 3369. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah, you are recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, i find it ironic that we are debating a bill called the small business jobs and tax relief act when that bill does absolutely

nothing to address the death tax, one of the biggest threats to our small businesses in our country. again, while republicans are being accused of not wanting to move legislation to help grow the economy and develop jobs, it was interesting to read this morning that my democratic friends still do not have any agreement among themselves on how to proceed on a number of tax issues, including the death tax. they need to get moving. they need to get moving over there. next year, unless congress does something, the death tax will come roaring back at a much higher rate of 55% and a much lower exemption amount of $1 million next year. there are those who promote the death tax characterize it as impacting only daddy warbucks, the monopoly man and montgomery byrnes, the data do not bear this cartoonish characterization out. the death tax does not just hit

those in higher income tax brackets. it has an effect well beyond small business owners, adversely impacting middle-class jobs and wages. call it what you will, the estate tax or the death tax, but in the end, it is a tax that is antismall business and antijob creation and antiwage increase. we are in the midst of another senate floor show, pursuing legislation that will give the president and his allies campaign talking points but will do nothing, absolutely nothing to spur economic growth and job creation. meanwhile, the senate has failed to take action on estate tax reform. this is beyond irresponsible. i have been a long-time proponent of repealing the death tax. not only is it double taxation and a deterrent to savings but it also sucks up capitol hill i-

sucks up capital in the marketplace. this is capital that could be used to hire more workers or expand small businesses or any business for that matter. this is a basic economic concept that seems lost on our current president, president obama. during last year's deficit reduction talks, president obama argued on behalf of tax increases, saying -- quote -- "i do not want and i will not accept a deal in which i am asked to do nothing. in fact, i'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that i don't need." income that i don't need? this is a point that could only be made by a person with a very loose understanding of how businesses and entrepreneurs operate. the president seems to think that this so-called excess income does no good. in fact, however, it will be invested -- or it would be invested in new business ventures, new hires and better wages. if these entrepreneurs with all

this excess income did nothing but put that money into a savings account, it would benefit individuals looking to buy a house, buy a car or start their own business. but the president doesn't seem to grasp this so it is no surprise he and his democratic allies have done nothing to address this job-killing death tax increase looming on the horizon. the president claims that he is interested in job creation. he certainly should be, after last month's anemic jobs report. well, he need look no further than death tax repeal. i know that his liberal base might not appreciate it, but the rest of the country which is less interested in class warfare talking points and more interested interested in getting the economy moving again, would embrace it. the death tax adds inefficiency to our economy. it is what economists refer to as dead weight loss. in other words, it creates another burden on our free

market system that prevents the full potential of economic growth. for instance, many small businesses have to purchase insurance in order to prepare for paying the death tax so they do not end up having to sell the business just to pay the death tax. this added cost is embedded into the cost of goods when sold. in other words, american consumers, american workers, or americans looking for work are those who will ultimately have to pay the death tax. consider also that heirs are often forced to sell an asset of the business or the business itself in order to meet this arbitrary tax due date. these assets are likely generating revenue and could be a vital part of the business, but because the tax man cometh, small businesses are forced to sell these assets to pay the death tax. we ought to repeal the death tax, plain and simple. we actually don't get that much revenue from the death tax to

justify its existence. and it's a pain in the neck from the beginning. in 20102010 the death tax was temporarily repealed but in a few months the law will take a sharp turn for the worse. back in 2010, senators kyl and lincoln offered a compromise that gained bipartisan support which eventually became law. under title three of the tax relief act, a law signed by president obama, the death tax and the gift tax are unified with a $5 million exemption amount and a tax rate of 35%. under current law, however, in 2013 we will once again have a 55% estate tax due within nine months of death and in some cases the tax will reach 60%. the exemption amount could be as low as $1 million. that just is not right. how does it benefit an economy or our economy to have small businesses and farmers wondering

whether they have to sell their business or literally sell the farm to pay for an uncertain amount of taxes? it creates an accounting and a financial nightmare. the estate tax is not about making the tax code more progressive. the estate tax is not about more redistribution. it is really not about deficit reduction. it is class warfare and while it might stir up some votes, it has an outsized and detrimental impact on our economy. mr. president, many do not realize the enormous -- enormous impact the death tax has on rural america. i'm not only talking about farmers and ranchers, i'm also talking about small family-owned businesses that generate economic growth in smaller towns and even larger towns. if we do not address the death tax, some businesses with assets over $1 million could be susceptible to the death tax. i know for a small business that

$1 million in assets is a pretty low threshold. that is why i care about this death tax debate, because of real people, real utahans and real communities that will be upended if this tax increase is allowed to go into effect. when you hear about the number of individuals impacted by the death tax, that statistic actually understates the sweep of this intrusion by the federal government. the estate tax return is filed by the representative of the deceased. that return does not take into account the dead person's family, employees, or neighbors. all of those folks are affected if the death tax burdens that -- burdens that particular family business or farm. there seems to be a strategy by the democratic leadership to drag its feet in coming up with a resolution to this impending problem.

what they fail to realize is that this strategy is only adding to the cloud of uncertainty, economic uncertainty over our country. and over our economy. will congress keep the rates and the exemption amounts the same? will congress increase them? what do i need to do as a small business owner to better prepare my business from withstanding a tax increase? these are the types of questions that more and more small business owners and farmers are continuing to act -- to ask. and the uncertainty these questions generate is holding back investment, job creation, and wage growth. yet policies to promote economic growth have unfortunately taking a back seat to presidential talking points that campaign advisors think will attract votes. attack the rich. promise more spending. as a candidate, president obama promised in 2008 that washington needed to be spreading the

wealth around. that is one promise the president has kept. in spite of an economy that demands a focus on job creation, the president and his liberal allies have spent the last year coming up with even more intensive redistributionist schemes. we should leave the joint committee on -- recently the joint committee on taxation released a report on how many more small business taxable estates would be affected by the increase in the death tax over ten years. the numbers are truly astonishing. if congress does not act, we will see more than a 1,000% increase in the number of taxable estates. a 2,300% increase in the number of farming taxable estates. and a 1,000% increase in the number of small business taxable estates. the reach of the death tax is growing and it is going to hit not just the so-called rich but

current employees and for that matter, entire communities. let's take a look at the death tax of 2013. it arrives in a little over seven months, by the way. under current law, 46,760 estates will be taxable. 46,700 estates will be taxable. if we extend the lincoln-kyl compromise, 3,600 estates would be taxable. now, let me refer to the joint committee on taxation, estate tax data chart. it's the second column on there.

if you can see, the filers are 97,300, the taxable estates are 46,700, farming taxable estates are 2,100 and small business taxable estates are 2,000. when you think about it, under current law the path seems to be slow walking on means more than 10 times the number of estates will be hit by the tax. the lincoln-kyl compromise means only the top 10% of the wealthiest estates would be hit by the death tax. if you project the eight years of current law over ten years you will find that roughly 570,000 estates will be taxable over that period. under the lincoln-kyl compromise which is the current estate tax regime, roughly 41,000 estates would be taxable over that period. 570,000 estates under the law

that many -- many democrats would want, but only 41,000 estates would be taxable under the kyl-lincoln compromise, or lincoln-kyl compromise. now, taxable estates. let's go to that on this chart. under the years, it would be the third one up from the bottom, under the -- i might just say in a recent interview with the associated press, secretary of agriculture kathleen her abegan describd an epidemic of sorts hitting our farmland across the united states. she did not talk about rising fuel prices or droughts. instead she discussed how the farmers and ranchers are getting older and fewer young people are

taking their place. i've heard time and time again that the death tax is the number-one reason family farms and businesses fail to pass down to the next generation. if congress does not act soon, the joint committee on taxation estimates another 2,000 farming estates will be hit by the death tax next year. keep in mind, farmers sometimes carry debt. that would reduce the value of the farm. but, on the other hand, farmers have other farm-related assets like combines and other equipment that are not included in the figures i cited. this data here shows that the failure to address the estate tax cliff will undermine many, many family farms. for those folks who are working this land, this is an unwelcome uncertainty and as i indicated earlier, the tax is an impediment to passing on the family business. in this case, the family farm. a much higher death tax apparently supported by many

members on the other side will undermine many family farms and small businesses. yet these family farms and small businesses form the economic backbone of their communities. do reel with rant to send the signal those who work hard, save and want to pass something on to their families exist solely to fund bloated federal programs? why work hard? why save? why not work less? instead if the president is just going to spread your wealth around it might be easier to go into debt and live beyond your means. there is something fundamentally unjust about the estate tax. contrary to the claims of the president and his most liberal supporters, a person's wealth is the result of his labor, his or her labor. when you build a business, you put your sweat and ingenuity into it and to then be published for this, to be taken away at the moment of death by the federal government is an assault on personal liberty and freedom. john little rock understood this, the floafer -- john

locke understood this, the nation's founders understood this and they would be appalled to know behind the grim reaper stands an i.r.s. agent waiting to deliver the government's share. but today's liberals have abandoned the rights and liberties our nation was founded upon in favor of the redistributionist philosophy that undermines rights and our economy. time is running out. we cannot continue this cycle of passing temporary tax relief and waiting until the last minute to decide what to do next. we owe it to family farms and small businesses to figure out a way to pass a permanent solution so that each year businesses are not left wondering whether or not they will have to shut their doors in order to pay the death tax. also for those who love to raise taxes on small businesses, keep in mind these small businesses pay a lot of income tax each

year into the treasury's coffers. do we really want to kill the goose that is laying the olden -- the golden eggs? mr. president, if we are serious about providing true tax relief that will help small businesses grow, we can consider whether a band-aid will be a cure to our ailing economy or begin the debate over how to prevent historic tax increases from hammering our small businesses and farms. i urge my friends in the democratic leadership to put the death tax on the senate's radar screen. and i would -- i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am reminded today of the old saying that we campaign in poetry but we govern in prose. we are in the midst of a campaign season when we hear a lot of rhetoric, perhaps posing as poetry, but we have an obligation to govern, and i rise today in support of s. 2337 which is most certainly simple,

straightforward prose in dedication to the art of government. it is the small business jobs and tax relief act. it is about as simple and straightforward as possibly it could be. it has two compelling, concise concepts. first is a tax credit of 10% on new payroll. it can be either new hiring or increased wages in 2012 as compared to 2011, and it is capped at $500,000, pretty simple, straightforward prose in aid of jobs, in aid of employment. it also extends for one year the 100% bonus depreciation allowance to stimulate economic investment. again, to create jobs. very simple and straightforward

extension of the accelerated depreciation that boosts gross domestic products and will benefit two million businesses, it's estimated, two million businesses, most of them small businesses, across the united states. in fact, this measure is targeted, very specifically targeted and aimed at small businesses creating jobs. they are the backbone of our economy, the source of the majority of new jobs. it economizes very prudently and practically the aid that is designed to boost new jobs as well as overall output in our economy. and it's supported by a broad consensus of economists ranging from alan blinder, who has

endorsed this idea as a job creator, saying that -- quote -- "the basic idea is to offer firms that boost their payrolls a tax break." as -- as one concrete example, taxpayers may be offered an increase in their wage bills. no increase, no reward. that's the concept. end of quote. that is the concept. no increase, no reward. but the reward and the incentive are a powerful potential driving force to aid small businesses in increasing the numbers of jobs they provide. i want to thank leader harry reid for this very targeted and profoundly meaningful proposal.

but when i think about the impact of this legislation, i don't think of the folks who are gathered in this chamber. i think of people in connectic connecticut, 13,000 people in connecticut who will have jobs if we move forward on this bill. i think of a man named hecker -- hectare hernandez. i met hector at a jobs fair that i hosted in east hartford this past september. after 25 years of working for the same company, as they say, working hard and playing by the rules, hector lost his job. and he's willing to do most anything to find a new job but he can't find one. there are simply no jobs for hector and this measure will help to provide him one. at that same jobs fair, i met ty

wagner. ty took a very smart path. he decided he was going to get all the education that could possibly be accessible to him. he got a technical degree from a top university. he wanted to work in the state when he graduated. his dream job control was to give back, to provide public service. he hasn't been able to find any job, let alone his dream job, and he is every bit as lost as hector hernandez. and that situation faced by hector and ty is only one aspect of the crisis in america's job market. i think of jodie lazarus who moved to stanford five years ago in search of economic opportunity. she put her two kids in local schools, signed up for college classes, starred to ge started r

finances in order and today she makes barely enough to feed her family and she receives no benefits. she's been looking for a job that will pay her more and give her more security, but in this economy, her efforts have come to nothing. and every week she hopes and praise that this week's income will be enough to provide food this week for her family. people like jodie and hector and ty deserve better. as i travel across connecticut, i hear often that there are jobs and employers can't find people with the skills to fill them, and we need to provide those skills to develop our work force to make sure that education and training are available so that people have skills to fill the jobs that exist.

but washington can do more for them in this kind of targ h tar, practical approach. not republican or democrat, not conservative or progressive, it simply provides the tools that small businesses need, a 10% payroll tax cut, accelerated depreciation, simple, straightforward, propose -- nott poetry -- pros thank you will put people back to work in con and across the country. i urge that my colleagues come together, as the american people want us to do, desperately are seeking for us to do, and to govern in prose that makes a practical difference in their lives. a tool for small business so that, not as a panacea but as a practical aid, small businesses

can put people back to work across the state of connecticut and across the country. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: mr. president, first let me thank my colleague from connecticut, senator blumenthal, for his comments. i must tell you, i was listening to you account to the people in connecticut, the individuals who are struggling in this economy. i can tell you that we have the -- the same exact circumstances happening in the -- in maryland. i -- this past weekend, i was with some small business owners who were telling me their plans for opening up a new restaurant and opening up a new gasoline station and telling me the struggles that they're having in getting financing. there are community banks that have money but they can't make the loans because of the way that the new rating system is. and it's very difficult to get the capital to make the type of expansions that -- that you need today to start a new business.

in my state of maryland, the high-tech and the cyber security areas, where we have small companies that are starting up to help our country, help our country answer the problems of cyber security, help our country develop the type of biotech discoveries that will make our health care system more cost-effective, they're having a very difficult time today putting together the capital in order to be able to move forward with job creation. you and i know that 60% of our job creation will come from small businesses. you also know that innovation is more likely to come from small companies that find ways to do things more cost-effectively. and today, in this economy, it is a challenge for small business owners to be able to put together the business financing to be able to create the jobs that we need for our economy. you also understand that if we're going to balance our budget, if we're going to be

able to move forward, we have to have more people working in this country. a lot of people looking for jobs, can't find jobs. we want more people working to fuel our economy. and also, by the way, they also pay taxes and help us bring our budget into balance. so i couldn't agree with you more that we need to get democrats and republicans working together. here we have a bill on the floor that helps small businesses. let's not filibuster this bill. let us at least bring it up for an up-or-down vote. i've always thought in democracy, a majority rules. let's bring it up, let's have a vote, let's keep it to the small business issues. we all talk about our support for small businesses. let's keep it to the -- the -- to the issue before us, to create jobs, help small businesses to -- to do that. the underlying bill -- and i thank senator reid for the underlying bill -- it says to small businesses that if you add to our economy, if you create

more jobs, if you increase your payroll, then we have a tax help for you to do that. and i must tell you, mr. president, i think this is exactly what we need. we know that businesses can't get all the financing they need. they need some help in order to be able to put together the new job opportunities. this bill provides that with a 10% credit on the costs of a new hire. that's -- that -- that gives the incentive for a small business owner, it might be the difference between setting up that new restaurant or moving forward to add that employee that will not only help our economy but will help that company discover the way in which we can deal with the cyber threats to this country. so it helps our country, it creates the jobs. and this underlying bill should be discussed on the floor of the senate without filibusters that

deny us that chance to talk about the issue. i also want to thank senator landrieu. senator landrieu has put forward a series of amendments, the chair of our small business committee -- and i'm proud to have worked with her on the amendment that she has brought forward that adds some additional provisions that are extremely important. i know in the underlying bill in working with senator landrieu we have also the expensing provision. that's an important provision. as i'm sure the senator from connecticut understands, that provision allows a business owner to go out and make a capital investment, make a -- buy a piece of equipment and rather than having to write it off over three years or five years or ten years, they can write it off immediately and get the ability to buy that piece of equipment, to -- to grow their business and to be able to then write the cost of that off. it's just a timing issue for the business person but it's the difference between making the investment or not making the investment, creating a job or

not creating the job. and by the way, by buying that piece of equipment, that business owner's also helping another business owner who's selling that piece of equipment to keep -- get our economy back moving again. it's that type of commonsense provisions that have always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the senate. always. these are -- these are provisions that we've had, democrats and republicans, working together on. we need to do that today. let's move on with this bill. we've had it on the floor now a couple days. let's move on, start voting. but don't filibuster. let us vote on relevant amendments. can't we just stick with the small business issues and vote on that in order to help our economy grow? i'm also pleased about another provision that's in the landrieu amendment in the underlying bill now that we could have a chance to vote on that increases the surety bond limits for small businesses. this was passed by the senate

and incorporated into law in february of 2009. i was proud to be the sponsor of this amendment that increased the surety bond limit from $2 million to $5 million. the reason why this becomes important is that for a small business owner, to be able to get a government contract over $100,000, they need to have a surety bond. now, in order to get that surety bond, the small business owner has to take some of their -- usually some of their -- for security, some of their assets and pledge it for the surety bond rather than using it for the credit of the company, which is really a catch-22 situation. increasing the limits from $2 million to $5 million frees up some of that ability because the government comes in, the small business administration comes in and helps them with that surety bond. so if you're a construction contractor trying to get a federal contract, the difference between $2 million and $35 million is a huge -- $2 million and $5 million is a huge difference in the types of

contracts that you can compete for. and it's interesting that when we looked at it, we had projected that it would generate about $147 million in additional bonding activity for the projects over $2 million, and we found that in fact it increased activity by $360 million. so the need was there. it generated strong activity. democrats and republicans supported it. i was prude to have the support of senator landrieu and senator snowe -- i was proud to have the support of senator landrieu and senator snowe. this is not a controversial issue. well, the only way we're going to get that increase -- that expired in 2010. it is no longer part of the law. so the small business owners are at a disadvantage. we haven't had a chance to extend that. iit is not controversial. it brings money into the economy. it is not scored, so we need to be able to get that done. if we can't get to this bill, i

don't know when we get that increase in the surety bond limit. so it is another reason i just urge my colleagues to let us vote on this bill to help small businesses in our community. it has always enjoyed bipartisan support. so here's what we're asking: my colleagues, we all talk about we want to create more jobs. we all talk about supporting small businesses because we know small businesses are the growth engine of america. we all know that small businesses are more -- create more of the new patents, more of the new innovations per employer than the larger companies do. well, let's put our action where our words are, and we could do that today by allowing us to move forward to consider amendments on the reid bill that is before us, the landrieu amendments. let's move forward with that bill. let's take up relevant amendments that deal with small

business issues. let's vote them up or down by a majority vote of the united states senate. and then i'm sure at the end of the day when we put that bill up for final passage, it will enjoy broad support by the members of this body. and it gives, i think, the american people confidence that we indeed are focused on job creeks for america. so i -- on job creek job creatir america. let's do something that can help small businesses, help job growth, help our economics and restore -- help economy, and restore confidence to the american people, move our country forward, move our economy forward by creating more jobs in our economy. with that, i yield -- i thank my friend from connecticut, i thank the presiding officer, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven:i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i ask to speak on the need for progrowth tax reform. on monday president obama announced a plan to raise tax rates rather than continuing the current tax rates. that means raising taxes on individuals and small businesses. that means raising the capital gains tax on investment. so not only the income tax, but also the capital gains tax, small businesses, individuals, capital gains tax on investment.

it also means raising the death tax on american families. the estate tax as well. i made that proposal even though he has -- he made that proposal even though he repeatedly said we cannot raise taxes in a recession. he's made that statement repeatedly in recent years, that we cannot raise taxes in recession because it would hurt the economy, and raising taxes would hurt job creation. so here we are, opbd -- on monday he proposes we raise tax rates and we have 8.2% unemployment. in fact, we've been over 8% employment for 41 straight months. we have 13 million people unemployed that we want to get back to work. and we have another 10 million that are underemployed. on the order of 23 million people that are either unemployed or underemployed.

since this administration has taken office, middle-class income has declined from approximately $55,000 to about $50,000. the number of people on food stamps has grown from 32 million recipients to 46 million recipients. home values have dropped from an average of about $169,000 to an average of about $148,000. in the area of economic growth, g.d.p. growth is the weakest of any recovery postworld war ii. the last quarter report was about a 1.9% increase over the prior quarter. in the area of job creation, the report for june as far as the number of jobs gained in the month, came out last week. in june we gained about 80,000 jobs. that is far short of the 150,000 jobs that we need to grow just each month just to keep up with population growth. and so now the president says

that the solution is to raise taxes on our job creators. this week after the president's speech, as i said he gave that speech on monday, i received a letter from a small business owner in my home state of north dakota. i know this individual. in fact, he has a hardware store in bismarck, north dakota, and i've often gone there for items that i need when i'm working on my home. in fact, last year we had terrible flooding throughout the state of north dakota, in minot and other communities. my home was along the missouri that was in the way of the flood, so i often went over to his hardware store to get needed items. he runs a good business, good small business and is very helpful. but he sent me this letter after the president's speech on monday, and i'd just like he to read it. it's short, and i'd like to take a minute and read it.

"senator hoeven, the president's recent comments on raising taxes on high-income earners concerns me greatly. perhaps he just doesn't understand that for people like me who own a business, the bulk of those earnings actually go to the bank payments for what i borrowed to be here. i'm actually in danger of being taxed to a point of no living wage for myself. the taxes and bank payments come first. out of an income that classifies me as rich, i actually take $40,000 home to my family. how much more do they want? john, you've shopped in my store. you've seen how we've grown. and you know people like me would use every available dime to grow more. this president's program not only limits my company's potential to grow, but they destroy any incentive to work

and hire more people. i just don't know if he doesn't understand what he's doing or just doesn't care. please, senator hoeven, share with your partners in the senate how critical an issue this is for small business owners like me. oh, and thanks for shopping at ace when you're home in bismarck." it's from jeff hintz. he has the kirkwood ace hardware store, as i mentioned. i think jeff sums it up very well, better than i could. jeff represents millions of small businesses across this country that are the very backbone, the backbone of our economy. they hire the people. they pay the wages. they pay the taxes, and they fuel the growth and the dynamism of our economy. in short, they make our economy go. small business in this country makes our economy go.

yet, the president's proposal would raise taxes on about one million business owners, hurting their ability to grow our economy. and you know what? hurting our ability to get those 13 million unemployed people back to work. it's not the way to go. very clearly that is not the way to go. this administration's policies are making it worse. but the president says everyone needs to pay their fair share. how many times have you heard him say that? everyone needs to pay their fair share. well, of course everyone needs to pay their fair share. but the way to do it is with progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes, not by raising taxes on some people, some businesses, and not others. so that's what we've proposed. that's exactly what we've

proposed. we've proposed progrowth tax reform and closing loopholes. let's extend the current tax rates for one year and set up a process to pass progrowth tax reform that lowers rates, that closes loopholes, that's fair, that's simpler and that will generate the revenue to reduce our debt and deficit along with savings, along with spending less, controlling government spending, but that will generate the economic growth to drive revenue, not higher taxes. the reality is that is the only way to get on top of our debt and deficit and to get people back to work. we need economic growth to reduce the debt and deficit along with more savings at the federal level, controlling spending. and we need economic growth to get people working again. and that's why we've put forward our approach. a simple approach. a simple approach. extend the current tax rates for another year and set up a

process for comprehensive progrowth tax reform. that's the right approach. for the decade of 2000 to 2010 i served as governor of a state. that's the approach we took. look at the results in our state. look at the results in our state of north dakota. look at the results in states like indiana where that approach has been taken. it works at the state level. it will work at the federal level. and we need to do it. i call on president obama as well as my colleagues to engage in this vital effort now for the good of the american people. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i reluctantly request that the senator from ohio be recognized following my remarks. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the -- this body for 50 years has passed the national defense authorization act, and for 50 years it has reached the, after conference has reached the president's desk and been signed by the president of the united states. there are many pressing issues that confront the united states senate, the congress and the nation. but i don't think we should forget that our first obligation is to secure the safety of our citizens, and that can only be done by training, arming, equipping the men and women who are serving in the military. mr. president, we passed through the senate armed services

committee a couple of months ago the national defense authorization act, and it has some very important components in it to continue to support the men and women who are serving, and their families, and provide them with the equipment and training that they need to defend this nation. we are still in conflict in afghanistan. we are on the brink of a crisis with iran over nuclear weapons. we have adjusted our presence in asia in response to the rising influence of china. the uprising in syria threatens to spill over into neighboring countries, and of course the situation in egypt is one that is clearly one of great, of significant question as to how

the egyptian and government and people will progress. some would argue that in many respects, the state of israel is under more threat than at any time since perhaps the 1973 war. so we live in a dangerous world. we live in a very uncertain time and it seems to me that our priority should be to bring the national defense authorization bill to the floor. it received a unanimous vote in the committee by both republican and democrat. i'm proud of the relationship that the chairman and i have developed over many years of working together. i am confident, as we have in the past, that despite the fact that there will be hundreds of amendments that will be filed, that we can work through those and work through the process and bring the defense authorization

bill to a conclusion and then conference with the house and then signed by the president of the united states. we owe this to the men and women who are serving in the military. it is not or right, it's our obligation to get the authorization bill to the president's desk. and we may have significant disagreements. but for 50 years, this body has passed the defense authorization bill and it has been signed by the president of the united states, and we are in some danger -- we're in some danger of not having happen -- not letting this happen this year. when you look at the remaining weeks that we have in session and the number of challenges that are before us, i think that it's time we stepped back and looked at the requirement to pass this legislation.

i have some sympathy for the majority leader in that there is great difficulties in the way that we're doing business nowadays, but i hope my colleagues would all recognize on both sides of the aisle the importance of this legislation and we must urge members on both sides to set aside our own personal agendas and do what's necessary for the defense of this nation. the bill provides $525 billion for the base budget of the defense department, $88 billion for operations in afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. it authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7% across-the-board pay increase for all members of the uniformed services, something i think all of us would agree is well earn

earned. and that, by the way, is also the president's request. it improves the quality of life of the men and women in the active and reserve components of the all-volunteer force and helps to address the needs of the wounded service members and their families. as we and our nato partners reduce operations in afghanist afghanistan, the importance of transitioning responsibility to afghan forces increases as does the need to provide for the protection of our deployed troops. this legislation provides authorities -- provides our servicemen and women with resources, training, equipment and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. it enhances the capability of u.s. forces to support the afghan national security forces and afghan local police as they assume responsibilities for security throughout the --

throughout afghanistan by the year 2014. weapons systems modernization is essential to the future viability of our national security strategy and this legislation provides for a substantial improvement of legacy ships, aircraft and vehicles while authorizing research and development investments to ensure that our troops remain the best equipped in the world. the bill authorized the president's request for missile defense and accelerates support for our allies, including the joint u.s.-israeli cooperative missile defense programs like the aero weapons system and the david sling short-range missile defense system. it provides multiyear procurement authority for the chinook helicopters, v-22 aircraft, virginia class submarines and arleigh burke class destroyers, reflecting estimated savings of more than $7 billion over five years.

all of these things can't take place unless we pass the authorization bill. the committee also sought to improve the ability of the armed services to counter nontraditional threats including terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. i believe that the key battlefield of the 21st century will be cyber warfare, and i'm concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain. to improve the defense department's cyber capabilities, this legislation consolidates defense networks to improve security and management which will permit personnel to be reassigned to support offensive cyber missions which are understaffed. the issue of nuclear proliferation is addressed, counter of flow of improvised explosive devices and curtail the worldwide trade of narcotics are authorized in this bill.

especially important are provisions to enhance the capability of the security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremist organizations. the armed services committee extended the defense department's authority to train and equip forces in yemen to counter al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and forces in east africa to counter al qaeda affiliates and elements of al shabaab. to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayers' dollars and compliance with law and regulation, the bill promotes aggressive and thorough oversight of the department's programs and activities. this includes adding funding for the department of defense inspector general. the department of defense inspector general reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 billion in savings in 2011, a return on investment of more

than $8 for every $1 spent. the committee mark also codifies the 2014 goal for the department of defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources. further, it improves the cost-effectiveness of d.o.d. contracting by limiting the cost -- the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapons systems. in addition, the bill includes a series of wartime contracting provisions drawn from the mccaskill-webb bill, implementing the recommendations of the commission on wartime contracting, and in that vain, the bill enhances protections for contractors that blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracts. finally, this legislation requires the secretary of defense to submit a detailed report to congress on the impact budget sequestration will have on military readiness and national security.

similar legislative language has been passed twice by this body and by the house of representatives. the congress does not yet have an accurate understanding of the implications of sequester beyond an assertion that the cuts would be devastating, which is the word used by the secretary of defense, leon panetta, and nearly every other defense official we have queried. we must have this information as we begin the work of developing a balanced approach to deficit reduction that replaces sequestration with a responsible plan for getting our nation's finances in order. i want to repeat again, mr. president. for 50 years, i am proud to sa say -- and in the years that i've been in it, obviously -- we have successfully authorized the programs and policies of the department of defense. i'm proud. i'm proud of what this committee has done.

i'm proud of what the united states senate has done. and i'm proud of what the congress has done, and the presidenpresident, that these pf legislation have come before for their signature. let's not allow the anticipation of an election hinder our ability to act in the interests of the men and women who are so bravely serving our nation. so i hope the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, will come to an agreement so that we can have a date certain. and i can assure the leadership on both sides that senator levin and i again will be able to expedite this process, allowing amendments and debate as they are called for and at the same time come to a successful conclusion and make it the 51st year that we have succeeded in doing what's necessary to fulfill our most solemn and important obligation and that is to do everything

within our power to ensure the security of this nation. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: