the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i rise today to address a problem facing too many communities in ohio and north carolina, all across our country, from small towns to big cities to suburbs

to remote rural areas. service members who have risked their lives protectingprotecting our nationt have to wonder whether they'll find a job when they leave the service. far too many do. i was speaking to an army veteran pedro march roan, a veteran to be approved to be v-rap. v-rap is particularly important program for veterans in this country. it standard for veterans retraining assistance program. we just authorized it under the veterans -- under the vow to hire act. i'm the first ohio senator ever to sit on the veterans' committee for a full term. take that responsibility seriously. one of the -- one of the programs, one of the outreach efforts, one of the training programs that -- training efforts put together by senator

murray and the veterans' committee is this vrap. mr. marone served in an army medical laboratory as a specialist. civilian employers wouldn't accept his military training experience. in many cases, as the presiding officer knows, having such a huge military presence in her state -- in many cases employers are reluctant to hire veterans. perhaps they -- perhaps they're afraid of something that they might have learned in the military in terms of -- perhaps they haven't been tested for ptsd or whatever the reasons, employers far too often seem reluctant to hire veterans, in far too many cases. we know the unemployment levels

are hire among veterans than they are the rest of the population. we know there's a particular problem for veterans who are a little bit older, who are in the case of mr. calone, are middle age. we know that sometimes veterans, particularly if they came out of school -- high school and went directly into the service, they might not know exactly when leaving the service thousand apply for a job, all those thing that people do when they are stateside, in the civilian work force they learn to do. because of vrap, mr. cologne will study to become a medical assistant, something he knows something about from his military service but was not certified and not too many employers, unfortunately you employable in that field. we are responsible to the pedro colognes of the world, to do something about the thousands of veterans who are unemployed.

vrap is for veterans 35-60. the g.i. bill that most of us supported helped veterans -- not as much as it should have -- but in a significant way, those veterans, those returning sailors and airmen and men and women who are a little bit older than 35. but for many like mr. cologne who is older than that, his opportunity has expired, if you will, to benefit from much of the g.i. bill. so as we invest in our service members in times of war, we should do so when they return to their communities, when they hang up that you are uniforms, when they embark on the next phase of their life. this is a case where government can step in and help the private sector do the right thing to serve those -- those veterans who served us. that's why the veterans retraining assistance program, which is a joint department of veterans affairs and department of labor training initiative, is

so important. last year congress passed, president obama signed into law the heroes act which honors our government's obligation to our veterans. vrap provides unemployed veterans between 35 and 60 the opportunity to pursue training for new careers in high-demand occupations. as of july 12, some 33,000 applications have been received nationally for the vrap program. the program was limited to 99,000 participants through march 31, 2014. all of us must do everything we can to spread the word to eligible veterans. the number was restricted to 99,000, the expiration date was set march 31, in large part so we could see how this program worked, we could reintroduce it, continue it if it is effective, as i think it will be and as most on veterans' committee think it will be.

tony blankeningship, another ohioan, from martins ferry on the ohio river in eastern ohio across from wheeling, west virginia, was an air force veterans, unemployed iron worker. he plans to study ras a medical assistant. there are tens of thousands -- there are hundreds of different kinds of jobs, tens of thousands of slots for people to sign up. people can go -- if my state, they can go to veterans service commission. ohio is one of those lucky states that is not -- not every state does this -- that has a veterans service commission funded by taxpayers in local communities, every county in the state -- in the county seat, i believe, and the county, has a veterans service officer and a ernst i isveterans service commn whose function is to return veterans with education, with a whole host of any issues that a veteran -- job training, for

instance -- might deal with. so programs like the vow-to-hire heroes act, programs like vrap are not only about opportunities for veterans, they are about businesses strengthen our economy by meeting the demand for high-skilled workers. we are seeing business leverage public and private resources to hire veterans and expand operations. i have met with veterans and veterans advocates from dayton and dublin and mansfield and chillicothe and columbus and lots of places around my state to talk to them about how we can partner to help businesses hire unemployed veterans. north canton i worked with the chesapeake corporation to convene a job fair for ohio veterans seeking equipment as equipment operations and technicians and other high-demand careers, perhaps in the shale development industry. at cleveland state private "serve" program, they help

veterans trank significance through education workforce training. a round table did i on veterans day -- it may have been five years ago -- at cleveland and cleveland state, i talked to veterans -- i talked to the veterans and to school administrators at cleveland state about the importance of integrating servicemen and women, recently -- who have recently left the military, integrate them back into the classroom, thinking about 24-year-old, 25-year-old young man or woman who have been in combat in iraq, sitting next to in class an 18-year-old suburban young man or young woman who had no idea of the kind of life experiences that the veteran only six or seven years older chrono logically had seen in combat. cleveland state figured this out, as has youngstown state. and they have been models for ways to integrate these

servicemen and women back into the classroom to be able to go out in the workforce. in columbus i held a field hearing on veterans unemployment in december, the solar by soldiers program is hiring veterans to install solar technology. we need to spread the word about programs like vrap. it is part of our job again, madam president -- it is part of our job to serve those who have served us so faithfully and so well. thank you, madam president. madam president, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. it's always good to see the gallery full and people in town visiting this process this week in the senate. we've had a pretty good week. we had a chance to talk about the economy and taxes, something i wish we had spent more time

talking about in the months that i've been here since i got elected last year to the united states senate. later this afternoon we'll have a vote on a bill that's been called the tax cut bill. the problem with it -- and i want people watching it here that are maybe not fully familiar with the process, a process i'm still learning. what has happened is the republicans had a bunch of ideas we wanted to be included. we're probably not going to win those votes. we're not the majority. but we wanted those ideas to be discussed. instead we've been told that can't happen. the majority is going to pick our ideas they're willing to listen to but the other ideas they're going to put aside. the problem with that is the people of florida sent me here. like there are 99 other people that serve here, they have a right to have their choices heard. some of the ideas we've offered will not get a vote. we will not be able to move forward on that bill as a result. one of the only things the minority can do in the senate to ensure their voices are heard is ensure we're not going to allow legislation to move forward unless the rights of the minority are respected. we represent americans as well

who have different ideas than the majority and have a right to have their voices heard. i hope we can get back to a point where we're working here in the senate the way it was designed to work, the senate i ran to be a part of, not the senate we're a part of here today. i do think what's been good about this week is we've had a chance to talk about the economy. i know people at home are hearing a lot about the economy, about jobs and about the debt, so i'm trying to make sense of it for folks that are calling our office. one of the best ways to do that is to come here on the floor of the senate and be able to speak about these things not just to the people that are sitting here today, but to the folks that are going to watch back at home or later on on youtube or wherever this video might be available to them. what i want to talk a little bit about today is the debt and what that means. what it basically means is that the government of the united states borrows money to pay for our costs because we spend more money than we take in. the federal government, your government, spends more money every year than it takes in in taxes and other fees. the only place they can get the money to pay for these things is it has to borrow it by selling

something called bonds. they sell this debt we have to pay back over the years. that's how we fund our government. almost a third of it now, unfortunately, is funded in that way. what's happened over the years is because we've spent consistently more than we take in, that's called the deficit, every single year when you spend more than you take in, that's the annual amount of money that you owe is called the deficit. but it starts building up something called the national debt. today we owe just about or over $15 trillion of money that we are going to have to pay back. let me correct that. that you are going to have to pay back through your taxes now and in the future. in fact, your great-grandchildren are going to have to pay it back. that's the national debt. the problem with the national debt is it has become an enormous part of our national economy. it's grown to a very dangerous level as a percentage of our overall economy. what's the way to solve it? the only way to solve it is growth. the only way to solve this problem is to grow our economy. if our economy grows, then the

debt becomes smaller as a percentage of our overall economy. think of it almost as a pie. if the pie gets bigger, the slice gets smaller if you keep it constant. it's the same thing with the debt. if we can keep the debt constant and we can grow the economy, then our debt becomes less problematic. that's really the solution to this problem. as a point of emphasis, let's suppose we wanted to get back to what our debt was in 2007. we want our debt to be what it was in 2007. in order to do that, we'd have to come up with over $1 trillion this year to get us back to what our debt was as a percentage back in 2007. basically means we'd -- and we'd have to come up with that permanently. the functional reality is that to do that, we'd either have to double everybody's taxes or we would have to cut close to a third of our budget right now. and the point is we can't tax our way or cut our way out of this issue.

definitely there has to be cuts, but we can't just cut our way out of this. and we certainly can't tax our way out of it. if you double the tax rates in this country, which is what you would have to do to just get us back to 2007, number one, you would trigger a massive recession. the economy would really stop. but number two, it would be impossible to collect it. it's unrealistic. i'm citing those numbers just to give you an example of why we can't raise taxes, we can't tax our way out of this problem and we can't simply cut our way out of it either. the only solution is growth. dynamic growth. not slow growth. big growth. that's the only solution. because if the economy grows, more jobs are created. and if more jobs are created, you have more taxpayers. if someone's unemployed right now, they're not paying income tax. now they get a job or raise at their job, even if their rates stay the same now they're paying more taxes. now the government has more money to pay down the debt, if it doesn't grow the government.

that's been the problem over the last few years. our revenue in government has grown. the amount of money coming into government has actually gone up, but the spending's gone up by even more. that's why the deficit grows and why the debt grows. that's how growth would solve this problem. if the economy grows, more people have jobs. and people get raises at their jobs. that means people are making more money, which leads to more growth because they spend that money and they invest that money. but it also means they're generating more revenue for government. now the government has more money to pay down the debt, and they have to borrow less. that's the solution. so growth is the solution. growing our economy. how do we grow the economy faster? the economy grows because of the private sector. that's how the economy grows. real growth comes from businesses. it comes from private-sector growth, from small businesses and from big businesses, from dry cleaners, from gas stations, from convenience stores, from the guy that cuts your yard and your lawn. that's growth. private-sector growth.

and here's the truth if you look at the statistics. it's undeniable. the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector. there's only so much money in the world. and the only place government gets its money from is either it has to tax it or borrow it from the private sector. that's really -- unless it's going to print more money which has a whole other set of problems we'll talk about one day, the only way your government can get more money to grow is if it takes it from you, from the private sector. it either has to tax you or it has to borrow the money from you. either way, it's money that the government has to take out of the private world to grow the government. and here's what happens when you take money out of the private world. that money's no longer available to save. if you save it, you're putting it in a bank and the bank can use that money to give you a mortgage. or that's money you no longer have to spend, which means businesses have less customers and the customers they do have are spending less money.

let me tell you the functional application of that. if you're a waiter or waitress at a restaurant and people aren't spending as much because they don't have the money -- they're spending it in taxes -- that means they're going to restaurants less which means you're going to make less money in tips and wages. it may even mean your hours get cut. millions of americans know this reality. this is not a theory. this is a reality. if people have less money to spend, they can't spend it at the place where you work. if they don't have the money to spend at the place where you work, you will make less money. you will work less hours. and you may even lose your job. the other thing the private sector can do with this money is invest it. that's where you really get growth in the economy. when a business or businessman or woman makes some money and they take that money and they decide, you know what i'm going to do with this money? i'm going to use it to grow my business. or i'm going to use this money to start a new business. the problem is if the government takes that money from them or some of that money from them, they can't do that. and that's why the bigger the

government, the smaller the private sector. and the smaller the private sector, the smaller the growth, which is our only solution. that's not a theory. that's a reality. statistics prove that the bigger the government, the higher the unemployment rate. i didn't bring it today, but i should have, a chart that shows -- you can see in the chart every time government size goes up, every time government spending goes up, the unemployment rate goes up. why? for the reasons that i just told you. that money that government used to grow came out of the private sector. that's money that businesses now don't have to invest or to spend. that's why. let me tell you another place where it hurts. the higher the government, the worse the stock market does. why is that? i'll tell you why. because people buy stock on the hope that they can make a profit on that stock in the future. the problem is that the more the government spends, the higher the taxes are going to have to be in the future to pay for th that. and so if people decide, you know what, i think taxes in the future are going to be higher,

therefore, my chances of making money on stock are going to be less, i'm not going to buy sto stock. and here's the problem when they don't buy stock. when you buy shares of stock, what you are basically doing is you're giving -- you're investing money in companies. you're -- you're investing money in companies so that company can grow and make more money and then they pay you back a profit. but if people are no longer willing to invest money in companies, these companies can't grow. and if these companies can't grow, that's where you people get unemployed. that's where people's hours get cuts. that's where new jobs are not created. that's where kids that are graduating from college can't find a job. the money has to come from somewhere and the bigger the government, the less of it is available in the private sector to grow. these are facts. now, one of the argument we'll hear around here is, "well, the bush tax cuts," which, by the way, is the existing tax code. "the bush tax cuts led to this debt. george bush cut taxes and as a

result, government didn't generate enough money and that's why we have that debt." that's false. our revenue has grown impressively over the last decade. the problem is that the amount of money we spend's growing even faster. listen, it doesn't matter if you get a raise. if you get a raise but your spending grows by even more, you're not going to notice the difference. if you get a $10,000 raise but you buy something that costs $20,000 more than what you're spending now, you're going to owe more money. that's what we've done here in washington, certainly before i got here. and by the way, both parties are to blame for that. this is a bipartisan debt, unfortunately. and what's happened is that even though the government has generated more money, it has spent even more. so it's not the bush tax cuts. that's just not true. the fact of the matter is that we have a spending problem. and let me tell you what's on dangerous about this spending problem. the federal government has grown fast in the past. we've had periods like this before. let me tell you when they were. the revolutionary war, the civil

war, world war i, and world war ii. during those four periods, government spending grew really fast. but here's the difference. when the war is over, the war is over. the war happens, you win world war ii, and things come back to normal. the difference now is that this is not because of a war, this is because we've grown government. this is permanent. that's the difference between this spike in spending and the other ones in the past. this spike in spending is permanent. that means it's here to stay unless we change it. there is no going back to norm normal. we have a serious problem and i've explained to you why the debt hurts you at home. if you're unemployed, if you're underemployed, if you're working twice as hard and making half as much, the debt is part of the problem because the government has taken money out of the private sector, money that used to go to you is now going to the government. now and in the future.

so the debt is part of the reason why the economy's not growing and why jobs are not being created. at the end of the day, we can't tax our way out of this and we can't simply cut our way out of this. now, let me be clear. there are places to save money. i promise you, the federal government wastes money. we should find that and we should eliminate it. it is never a good idea to waste money. but we can't just cut our way. and we certainly cannot tax our way out of this debt problem. we have to grow our way out of this debt problem, grow our economy out of it, not our government out of it. and the only way to grow your economy is for the private sector to grow. but the evidence is clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector. and so therein lies the answer. when we talk about holding constant and -- and lowering the size of government, it's not some ideological talking point. this is not some, you know, conservative versus liberal talking point. this is evidence based.

this is the fact that the statistics are clear that the bigger the government, the higher the unemployment rate. the bigger the government, the worse the stock market performs. the bigger the government, the less money there is available to create jobs in the private sector. the less money there is available to start new businesses or grow existing businesses. that's why we have to shrink the size of our government. and the sooner we do it, the better we're going to be. and that's what i hope we will work on here in a bipartisan fashion. both parties helped create this situation and now i hope both parties will work to solve it. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate terminate the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the senate now resume consideration of s. 2237, that the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that at 2:00 p.m. today, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment number 2524, that immediately following that -- disposition of that amendment, 2524, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment, 2521. that if cloture is not invoked

on the substitute amendment, the senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 2237. that if cloture is invoked on the substitute amendment, all postcloture time be yielded back, the substitute amendment be agreed to and the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 223 -- 22 2273. if cloture is invoke on the bill, all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended. if cloture is not invoked on s. 2273, the bill be returned to the calendar. further, that there be no other amendments or motions in order to the amendments or the bill prior to the votes other than motions to waive or motions to table. that there be two minutes equally divided between the votes and all after the first vote be 10 minutes. so finally, the senate then resume the motion to proceed to calendar number 446, s. 3369. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 341, s. 2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and for other purposes. the presiding officermr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum and ask the time be charged equally between the proponents and opponents. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:quorum :

quorum call:

mr. grassley: madam president, i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: president obama and his administration claim to be open and above board in its actions. just as recently as july 1, the white house chief of staff told a television audience -- quote -- "this administration has been the most transparent administration ever." end of quote. so, i come to the floor now to say that this simply is not the case, and i'm going to highlight an outstanding example of how this is not the case. last month an attorney with the department of justice from the

civil rights division attended a public meeting in louisiana, a public meeting in her official capacity. before the meeting began, this attorney, rachel raniski, reportedly asked whether any representative of the media were present at this meeting. a reporter from "the daily iberia" identified himself. this justice department attorney then announced -- quote -- "you can quote those who speak, but you can't quote me." end of quote. on that basis, does the justice department presume to tell a reporter who can be quoted at a public meeting? the reporter had the same question. it has been reported that he asked her to cite legal

authority that would support her claim that he could not quote a justice department attorney at a public meeting. ms. raniski provided no such law. she did say that the department has special rules on how its attorneys can be quoted. she did not back up that statement, however, so here is a public meeting which anyone could attend, and here hear a r speak on civil rights enforcement. yet a representative claimed that it was the justice department policy that the press would have fewer rights than the general public to quote what that government representative said at that public meeting. so, this undercuts the claim that this administration has been the most transparent

administration ever, going back to that quote of the chief of staff. this refusal to allow the public to know how government officials are performing their job is totally unacceptable, and i hope to everybody it would be unacceptable. as appalling as this reported action was, what followed was even worse. ms. raniski tried to kick the reporter out of an open meeting because he questioned her. she relented after he said, regrettably but understandably, in my view, that he would not quote her. and then the justice department attorney totally abused her power, according to press reports. she told the reporter that she could have the justice department call the newspaper's

publishers or editors and say something like this. quote -- "you don't want to get on the department of justice's bad side." end of quote. that statement represents raw abuse of power. we expect the justice department to investigate law-breaking and pursue appropriate cases without regard to politics. threatening to use the power to bring a criminal case or civil action against any entity because it had the temerity to insist that the department of justice obey the first amendment is outrageous. the department has protested to the justice department -- the newspaper has protested and has not, to my knowledge, received any response. the department's public comment on the incident does not deny

that any of the reported statements were made. that the civil rights division and the department of justice have not committed to allowing the press to quote its attorneys at public meetings, a month after one of its attorneys has claimed that it is the department's policy not to permit such reporting, is completely unacceptable. now, you have to ask: be what does the civil rights division want to hide? i have received many complaints concerning the enforcement actions of the civil rights division, when the division's attorneys will not allow themselves to be quoted, we can only conclude that they are saying things about enforcing the law that the american people would never accept. there are no statutes that deny the media the right to quote statements of justice department officials that are made at

public meetings. if there were, they would violate the first amendment's protection of freedom of speech as well as protection of freedom of press, and there should be no justice department policies to that effect either -- and for the very same reason. this administration says that it is transparent. it wants people to believe that. but then it wants to prevent the press from reporting what it says in public. to carry out that plan, it threatens those reporters with a politically motivated legal action. that is thuggish, not transparency. to the extent that the department has a policy of preventing the press from quoting the statements of its attorneys at public meetings,

that policy should be reversed immediately and comply with the first amendment. and whether it has a policy or not, the attorney that claimed that sufficient a policy existed -- the attorney that claimed that sufficient a policy existed and tried to expel the reporter from a public meetings because he might quote her and threatened the reporter for getting on the department of justice's bad side, that employ should be appropriately disciplined. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. hagan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: i request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: madam president, i rise today to speak in support of the small business tax cut and job creation act. families throughout north carolina are facing a difficult economy right now, and i've said repeatedly that the people of our state cannot wait until after the election for congress to work on solutions to speed up our economic recovery. and that's why i'm pleased that the senate has agreed to consider this small business legislation. this is a bill that will help north cash -- north carolinians get back to work this year in industries such as health care, finance, construction, manufacturing and retail. this legislation supports businesses that expand payroll or invest in new equipment, and there are estimates that it will put 27,000 of unemployed people

in my state back to work. and it does this by creating an incentive for north carolina small businesses to add new jobs in 2012 by giving businesses a 10% income tax credit on new payroll. and it encourages businesses to make new investments by extending 100% depreciation deduction on qualified property, providing real tax relief that lowers the cost of doing business should be a bipartisan idea and it is one that i will support. i also want to express my deep appreciation to the small business committee chair, senator landrieu, for including a proposal of mine in her success act amendment. this amendment would put us on the path to establishing a common application for small businesses to apply for federal assistance across agencies, across departments and programs

with a single application. frequently, i hear from small business owners that tell me that government red tape is preventing them from growing their businesses and creating jobs. we need to slim down this bureaucratic red tape. i believe that our small businesses shouldn't have to be responsive to the whims of the federal bureaucracy. the federal government needs to be responsive to the needs of our small businesses. in february, i introduced the small business common application act which would establish a common application that allows small business owners to apply for grants, seek technical assistance and bid on contracts from the federal government with a single form. it would function much like the common applications, the common application that students use today to apply to multiple colleges and universities. senator landrieu's amendment

would put us on the path toward creating a common application by establishing an interagency executive committee with representatives from 12 different agencies and departments that will report back to congress and the s.b.a. within 270 days on whether a common application is feasible. this is a commonsense bill that i believe both sides of the aisle can agree to cut the paperwork burden on our small business owners. thank you, madam president, and i ask for a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: i ask that all time spent in qorls be equally -- in quorum calls be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: madam president, i ask for a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, before too long here, we're going to be voting -- we will have three votes, i think, on whether or not we're going to move forward on a tax bill. i frankly think that there are things in the underlying bill that is before us today that would do some good. the bonus depreciation provision is something that many of us have supported in the past. we think that's a good tax policy with regard to encouraging small businesses to invest by giving them a quicker way to write off those capital investments, and so there are some things in the underlying bill that make some sense, but the whole exercise that we're going through here really is a

charade for a couple of reasons. one is you can't originate revenue measures in the senate. that's something that has to happen in the house of representatives, so anything that comes out of here if it were to pass would be blue slipped by the house of representatives. so you have got -- you have got a constitutional issue to deal with here in the first place. secondly, you have got a procedure process set up whereby there is not an opportunity for us to offer amendments. you put a tax bill on the floor, a piece of legislation, a vehicle that ought to be open to amendment, there are many of us with ideas about things that we think would promote economic growth and create jobs in our economy, but we're not going to have the opportunity to offer those amendments. and frankly, a tax debate is something that many of us welcome. we think that talking about taxes is -- is certainly something that if you're someone who is concerned about the economy, if you're someone who is concerned about getting americans back to work, certainly talking about the tax

code and its impact on our economy is -- is a very relevant debate, and frankly we ought to be headed toward a reform of our tax code which today is way too complicated and frankly it needs to be overhauled. but in the interim, we have coming up now on january 1 of this year a bunch of tax provisions, current tax policy that expires, and in anticipation of that, we have got a lot of businesses who are very concerned. there is an uncertainty out there among job creators in our economy about what's going to happen on january 1 and is congress going to act to put off these tax increases that will occur on january 1 or are they going to allow them to go into effect, in which case many businesses would be dramatically impacted by having higher tax burdens, making it more difficult for them to create jobs. and i don't think there is anybody out there, those who study economics, even those of

us who don't just as a matter of commonsense and on a very practical level that would think that raising taxes on people who create jobs on small businesses would be something that would be good in an economy that you're trying to get back on its feet, trying to get to recover. and in fact, a couple of years ago, the president of the united states in 2010 said that the -- it would be a blow to our economy if tax rates went up on small businesses. well, that was back at a time when economic growth was a little over 3%. well, here we are two years later. economic growth is much slower. we're going at a more sluggish rate, about 2%. there is concern that even is going to slow down as we approach the end of the year. yet we have this threat hanging out there on the horizon looming of smaller taxes on small businesses, the very people that we rely upon to get americans back to work, to create jobs and to get this economy growing again. and what we ought to be thinking

about is what can we do to promote economic growth. we ought to be thinking about what are those tax policies that we can put in place, and i hope that that will be the purpose of tax reform when we get there, and i hope that is soon as well. as i said before, i think tax reform is critical if we're going to see economic growth and if we're going to do away with the complex tax code that we have today and replace it with something that makes much more sense, that's more clear, more simple, more fair for american businesses and american -- and people across this country who are filing their tax returns every year. but we ought to be looking at what can we do to promote economic growth. all of our tax policy ought to be oriented around getting this economy growing and expanding again because in so many ways that helps address many of the other problems that we're confronting. we have this huge out-of-control debt problem, obviously needs to be addressed through spending reductions, trying to make government more efficient,

smaller, more limited rather than the government we have seen here the last few years that continues to grow as a percentage of our economy. the government as a percentage of our economy today is at the highest level that we have seen literally since the end of world war ii. we are at about 24% or 25% of our entire g.d.p. now is represented by federal spending. so we have got to get government under control which means we have got to address some of the drivers of federal spending, including medicare and medicaid and social security. that means these entitlement programs that so many people rely upon in order to save them have to be reformed if we're going to get them on a sustainable fiscal path, if we will make sure they are there for future generations, we have to reform our entitlement programs and get the government spending back at a more reasonable level, more consistent with what we have seen historically, which is about 20% to 21% of our entire economy. and so it starts there, but then you have got to couple the reductions in government spending with economic growth. the way ultimately we get to be

where we need to be as a nation is we have got to get the economy growing and expanding again. it is just counterintuitive to me and to most americans i think to suggest that the way to do that would be to raise taxes on the very people that you are looking to create jobs and to grow this economy, and those are our small businesses. so when the president came out earlier this week and suggested that we ought to allow the tax rates to expire for people who make more than $250,000, what he was talking about, according to the joint committee on taxation, was almost a million small businesses, almost a million small businesses if we don't take steps to avert it on january 1 are going to see their taxes go up. now, those small businesses that i am referring to employ 25% of the american work force. most of them are small businesses, they are organized as subchapter s corporations, l.l.c.'s which means that their income flows through to their

individual tax return and they pay at the individual rate level, and so as a consequence of that, when you start raising taxes for people above $250,000, you are hitting a million -- almost a million i should say of those small businesses who are going to be faced with higher tax burdens and higher tax liabilities. that to me is completely counterintuitive to what we ought to be thinking about if we're interesting in getting the economy growing again. we shouldn't be making it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to create jobs. we ought to be looking at what we can do to lessen the burden on our small businesses and to keep that tax burden, that regulatory burden at a level that doesn't create impediments and barriers to them going out and investing and creating jobs. and so the president's proposal is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. 53% of the income that i mention, these companies that are organized, small businesses as s corporations, l.l.c.'s, 53%

of that income would be faced with a higher tax burden come january 1 unless we take steps to avert it, and what the president proposed essentially was allowing taxes to go up on those very small businesses. so i hope not only will we turn down the president's proposal but that we will be thinking about things we can be doing that would simplify the tax code, that would lower rates that businesses in this country pay, and provide incentives for them to get people back to work in this country. and by that, again, i mean policies that promote economic growth. there are so many things that we ought to be doing that we're not doing right now that would get -- that i think provide the necessary policies to encourage, enable small businesses to grow their businesses, to make those investments and to put people back to work. there are a number of things that our small businesses face that are not directly related to the tax code but indirectly

related to the tax code, those are regulatory burdens, we hear about those all the time, there are more and more agencies that are spinning out more and more regulations making it more difficult, more expensive for our small businesses to create jobs, regulatory reform i think ought to be part of an agenda here that, again, if we're serious about policies that will grow our economy, we ought to be dealing with those out-of-control, overreaching regulations that are creating excessive burdens for our small businesses. and then couple that, as i said, with tax reform. one of the burdens that we placed on small business here -- small businesses here of late, of course, is the obamacare legislation which passed a few years ago and there's been some debate about the question of whether or not the individual mandate is a penalty or rather it is a tax. we know one thing, it is a cost that is going to be borne by loot of people across this country. we also have the mandates, the requirements that imposed upon small businesses, we call them employer mandate. that also is going to increase the cost of our small

businesses, the cost of doing business for our small businesses out there. all of these things that have been put in place drive up the cost of doing business. make it more difficult, more expensive to create jobs in this country. rather than looking at what can we do to make it less expensive and less difficult to create jobs. the health care bill, we talked a lot about the individual mandate, who gets impacted by that and, by the way, according to the joint committee on taxation, 77% of the people who would be impacted by the individual mandate tax are people who make less than $120,000 a year. now, the president promised when he was running for office he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $250,000 a year. clearly one of the many broken promises in the health care bill was the individual mandate and its impact on the very people he said he wouldn't raise taxes on, middle-income americans, those who make less than $120,000 a year who according to the joint committee on taxation

are 77% of those people would see higher taxes. and it's a significant amount of tax. $54 billion over the next ten years, and if you think about what that raises, the individual mandate, the amount of revenue raised by the health care tax, individual mandate tax, it actually is more in revenue than would have been raised by the so-called buffett tax designed to get millionaires in this country to pay more in taxes. so we're levying a tax on middle-income americans that actually is going to exceed in revenue the amount that would be raised by the tax, the so-called tax on millionaires. ironic but that's exactly what the obamacare bill would do. but in addition to that, there are a whole series of other taxes that are imposed on people across this country, and many of them strike at middle-income americans. about $250 billion in taxes that are imposed on our economy that would be passed on in many cases

to consumers in this country, and impact and raise the cost of health care, obviously these are taxes on health insurance plans, taxes on pharmaceuticals, taxes on medical devices, taxes on tanning services, taxes on self-insured health plans. there are a whole range of taxes included in the obamacare legislation which when it's fully implemented are just going to hit people, middle-income americans squarely in the face. you have not only the individual mandate tax, the new tax imposed there but all these other taxes included in the obamacare legislation which are going to hit working people across this country. and so you look at all those taxes, all the burdens associated with that, all the regulations that are coming out of many of the agencies in our government right now and all you see if you're a small business is a hire cost of -- higher cost of doing business, more uncertainty about what's going to happen in the future, and just that match more difficulty

when it comes to making determinations about growing your business or starting a new business, and creating jobs that are so important to our economy. and so when you talk about the -- the economic circumstances we're in today, everybody focuses on the unemployment rate, of course, and we've had more than 8% unemployment now for literally 41 straight months, we've got 23 million americans who are either jobless or underemployed in our economy, 5.4 million americans who have been employed for a -- unemployed for a long period of time, we've got the weakest recovery literally since end of world war ii and yet what is the prescription that the president and many of his allies here in the congress have for that? higher taxes. higher taxes on the people who create jobs. i mean, can you think of anything that makes less sense if you're really interested in economic growth and creating jobs in this country, it is

absolutely, absolutely the opposite of what we ought to be doing. shouldn't be raising taxes as the president proposes on those one million small businesses, subjecting them, the 25% of the work force that work for them, to the possibility that with these higher taxes their jobs could be in jeopardy. what we ought to be doing is looking for ways to provide certainty, extend the rates that exist today so small businesses who are out there trying to make decisions about what they're going to do in the future know for sure what the rules are but more importantly, also know that their taxes are not going to go up on january 1. now, there's a congressional budget office analysis out there that suggests that come january 1 when we hit the so-called fiscal cliff which includes the increase in tax rates as well as the sequester on spending that was put in place as a part of the budget control act, if nothing is done to avert that

so-called fiscal cliff in the first six months of next year we would see 1.3% less economic growth or up to 1.3% less economic growth but not only is than that be an issue or factore deal with next year, it's something that impacts us right now today because the congressional budget office found it could cost us half a point of economic growth this year, right now. and it's because of this uncertainty. it's because of the -- the specter of tax rates going up on small businesses come january 1 of next year. and so what we ought to be doing, madam president, instead of talking about what we're going to do to raise taxes on small businesses in this economy, is looking for -- looking to extend the rates that exist today so those tax rates don't go up giving businesses certainty and hopefully following up on that next year with tax reform that broadens the tax base, that lowers rates, gets us more competitive

in the global marketplace and is more clear, more simple, more fair for americans and for american business. but until that happens, until that happens, the very worst thing that we could be doing right now in my opinion is raising taxes for all the reasons i just mentioned. creates uncertainty, it obviously raises the cost of doing business in this country, hits the very people we're hoping are going to lead us out of this economic malaise we're in today. i would say again with regard to this issue, the issue of taxes is -- is so important to businesses. the issue of regulations is so important to businesses. those are both things that if we're serious about an agenda that we'll good -- will get americans back to work we ought to be focused on and that's why we ought to be repealing obamacare. these $248 billion in taxes, that's not just -- that's not

the total amount of taxes. it's actually over $500 billion in taxes that are going to be imposed as a result of obamacare. these are the taxes that hit middle-income americans according to the joint economic committee. so not only do you have the $248 billion or $250 billion here that hits middle-income americans, you also have additional taxes, the 3.8% tax on unearned income that would hit high end earners as well as the new medicare tax that hit high-end earners. we have so many taxes coming at this economy right now it's hard to fathom but that shouldn't be complicated by doubling down and with our small businesses and essentially telling them that come january 1 of next year they're going to see their rates go up so the people paying the 35% tax rate today would see their rate go up to 39.6%, capital gains rates go up january 1 if no steps are taken to avoid it from 15% to 20%, dividend rates go from 15% to

39.6%. this is a very real issue, a real-time issue, having an impact on the economy today and we should do everything that we can to avoid that. and so i hope that when we're through with this what is a charade today and we have these votes on this bill which, as i said, because it -- revenue measures don't originate in the senate, they originate in the house of representatives, it would be blue slipped if it passed in the first place, because this is a process where republicans are not allowed to offer amendments, this is a tax vehicle that's on the floor, but in the terms that we use here in the senate, the majority leader has filled the amendment tree making it virtually impossible for republicans to offer amendments that we would like to see debated and voted on. when this charade is completed, i hope then the leader will decide that we need to have a debate aboutweax can do to promote economic growth in this country and that should start with the debate about whoarp we're going to --

whether or not we're going to extend the rates going to expire january 1 meaning higher taxes for nearly a million small businesses in this country, the very small businesses that we're looking to to get us out of this recession and get americans back to work. i hope that will be the debate that we have. i hope that will be the vote that we ultimately have when this particular political exercise is completed here today. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i ask that further proceedings under the qurk be dispensed with. -- quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i'd like to speak -- say a few words about the next vote which is the cantor amendment. the cantor amendment, just to review, would give a 20% deduction to all businesses that

employ fewer than 500 people. that 20% deduction is calculated on u.s. sourced business income and is limited to 50% of w-2 wages paid. in other words, the business must be paying at least twice the amount of the deduction in wages. in addition, the taxpayer cannot get both this deduction and the 9% manufacturing deduction. the main point being here, madam president, that this cantor bill is a gross giveaway. it gives businesses a 20% deduction for simply earning income. they don't have to do anything. just earn income and get a 20% deduction. it allows businesses to avoid paying tax on about a fifth of their profits so long as they employ fewer than 500 people. that virtually is 99% of all american companies. worse still, it provides a temporary reduced tax rate. this would incentivize business to defer making investments, hiring of new employees or

increasing wages in 2012 in order to increase profits and that's because the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction under this bill. rather than creating jobs or investing in business, the cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. incentivizes businesses to sit and wait rather than invest. nor does it make any sense to spend $46 billion for only one year on a provision as proposed in this bill. it is a giveaway, frankly, to any -- almost all companies, 99.6% companies in the united states.e that's hedge firms, partnerships, private equity firms. they will all -- almost all employ fewer than 500 employees. it is absolutely the wrong policy for this national to adopt. and i move to table the cantor amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on amendment 2524.

the motion to table has been made. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who has not yet voted or wishes to change his or her vote? if not, on this amendment the ayes are 73. the nays are 24. the amendment is -- the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the amendment is tabled.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i yield to my distinguished colleague. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if we could have order in the chamber? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the senator from maine, senator collins, just passed an important milestone. her 5,000th consecutive roll call vote. a tenacious accomplishment indeed and represents the work ethic and dedication senator collins has for the people of maine and for the senate. we all know she's one of the hardest-working members of the united states senate. listen to this. since she was sworn in in january, january 3 of 1997, she's been present for every single roll call vote. that's over 15 consecutive years of never missing a vote. senator collins is actually in quite an elite company. recently she passed senator byrd and is now third all-time behind

senator chuck grassley and the late bill proxmire from wisconsin. i know she took great pride also to be in the company of her role model, a woman that played a major role in her decision to run for public office in the first place, fellow maine senator margaret chase smith, currently number five on the list. on behalf of the entire senate, i want to congratulate senator collins for this great achievement. mr. reid: it is a remarkable accomplishment. i hope i don't get in trouble, but i really like her. i appreciate her ability to work

with us, work with everybody. she is somebody who you never have to guess where she stands on an issue, and i admire and appreciate her so much for that. i've worked with her on issues going back for many, many years. i really, again, say i appreciate what she's doing. she has great genes. her mother and father each served as mayor of a small town in maine, a place called caribou. and i have really -- i don't have fond memories of caribou because in my, i think it was my 1998 race, we were, this great mailing that we did, one of my consultants from nevada, instead of having deer, they had caribou on my campaign literature. it took me awhile to figure that

one out. i'm sure the town of caribou is bigger than my campaign spot. her family ran a lumber business. her father was also a state senator. i am confident that susan has learned to be the senator that she is because of bill cohen. i had the pleasure of serving with this good man from maine. i served as a junior member when he was chairman of the aging committee, and he was such a wonderful man. i still talk to bill cohen. and she has many of his traits. as we know, she worked for him. he has been a great secretary of defense. he's just been a good person, and i am confident that her ability to be the legislator she is, a lot of it is attributed to him. she's always been known for her ability to compromise, legislation the art of compromise. and she works with all

lawmakers. i think that the tone that she has set working with joe lieberman is magnificent. they have run that committee with dignity and on a totally bipartisan basis. this is -- 5,000 votes, frankly, a number of us have cast 5,000 votes, but it is ridiculous the example she has set, never missed any votes. i wish her the very best in her many years to serve in the future of the senate.

the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. who yields time? ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i think we're on the landrieu amendment. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i discussed this amendment -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. ms. landrieu: i discussed this amendment in great detail yesterday, so there's no reason to review it. i want to thank many members of the small business committee on both sides of the aisle for putting forth some really, really terrific, very popular and effective ideas for small business. 100% exclusion of capital gains, decreased deduction for start-up expenditures, "s." corporation holding period rubbings,

carry-back on business credits and expensing of 179, all very familiar to this body and absolutely critical for investing in our small business. the bill only costs $4 billion compared to some of the other numbers that are being thrown around here. we think it's very cost effective. and i ask for the support of the body. the presiding officer: who rises in opposition? the time is yielded back. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute amendment numbered 2521 to s. 2237, the small business jobs and tax relief act, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment numbered 2521 offered by the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for ms. landrieu to s. 2237 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or wish to change their votes? if not, on this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 41. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. there will now be two minutes of debate, equally divided. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i think minds are made up here. i suggest to both sides yield back the balance of the time and we vote.

the presiding officer: without objection, time is yielded back. the clerk will report motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned ?orgs in provisions of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 2237, the small business and jobs and tax relief act. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is it is sense of the senate that gate on s. 2237 a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend depreciation for an additional year be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory. under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber wishing to

vote or wishing to change their vote? hearing none, on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, s. 2237 is returned to the calend calendar. the senate resumes consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3369. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. before we end the debate on the small business tax relief bills, i wanted to thank the 57 members of this senate who voted for the success act. the success act has been building support, strong suppo support, across the aisle now for about three to four weeks. it's an outgrowth of not one, not two but three very successful high-profile

round-tables that the small business committee in the senate has conducted over the course of the spring coming into the summer in hopes that we could present a bill that could give a boost in the middle of this summer period to the small businesses that are really struggling to hire and to get stronger as this economy gains strength. and unfortunately we fell only three votes short just a few minutes ago. this bill is primarily a tax c cut. very targeted, very specific and very effective to the small businesses that we're counting on to grow and to accelerate the high-growth potential business businesses. not just any start-ups but those that really have the capacity to grow. and we were hoping that despite the partisan posturing that we

could have received the 60 votes to give this effort some more life. but we're not going to be discouraged. i want to particularly thank you, senator shaheen, the presiding officer today, for your help. i want to specifically thank senator cardin, senator hagan for spending time on the floor for the provision of streamlining applications for small businesses that's in this bill. i want to thank senator vitter, senator heller and senator collins particularly for their support today. and i want to just say just briefly for another minute to mention just a few of the organizations that are supporting this effort, which is only a $4 billion cost. it has a $12 billion immediate impact but only a $ billion score. very effectively written to create a score like that, and i'm proud of the staff work that went into this. but the american bureau bureau

federation, the american lighting association, the rental association, association of builders and contractors, association of equipment manufacturers, automotive aftermarket industry, financial executives, metal services institute, independent community bankers, and just to name a few more, national beer wholesalers, national association of homebuilders, printing industry of america, small business entrepreneurship council, the u.s. black chamber of commerce, the national association of homebuilders, many women's organizations, women in construction, women businessent price, et cetera, et cetera. we are very proud to be building the u.s. chamber of commerce, a very broad coalition that can see the value. perhaps we can't find common ground on a $40 billion tax cut bill or a $50 billion tax cut bill or even a $20 billion, but

i think we could find common ground on a bill that only scores and costs the federal government $4 billion in the score but has a $12 billion impact, because it's $4 billion over ten years, but the benefit is right now, the way that we've structured it to extend these tax credits and tax extenders for about a year and three months, which would give us time, as we move forward, to revising the tax code and to seeing how we can reduce and eliminate our deficit and make our tax code more fair. at least it would give a strong signal to many of these small businesses they could count on the tax cuts that are in this bill. so i am going to, on behalf of the 57 members that voted for this today, to file a stand-alone bill. it's going to be called the success act bill of 2012. i'm going to ask all of those

that voted today to join me as a cosponsor of the legislation, and let's just see, madam president, we still have some time left in the summer before we leave, perhaps with the administration's support -- and they do support the provisions of this -- and with the leadership shown by some of the republican senators today. who know, we might be able to get something done. and finally, we're working closely with the house leer on the small business committee. i'm working very closely with chairman graves. they've passed some of this already through the house. so just perhaps if we stay focused and work just a little bit harder, we might being able to squeeze out another fees of legislation that will really help the small businesses of america. so thank you, madam president. i don't see anyone on the floor, so i'm going to suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor at this point to counteract an -- and add substance to some things that the majority leader said today in regard to taxes. recently, the congressional budget office released an update to its report on average effective tax rates. several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pounced on this report, claiming that tax rates are at historic lows. just this morning in a floor speech, the majority leader said the lowest tax rates in 30 years was -- quote -- "thanks to president obama, who has consistently fought to lower taxes for the middle-class families over the last three and a half years" -- end of quote.

however, the majority leader and others of his political party are only telling half the story. the report also shows that incomes of households in all income groups have declined by an average of 12% since 2007. this means, then, that the -- that americans are 12% poorer than they were in 2007. now, should we also thank president obama for this reduction in income? essentially, this is what the majority leader is doing when he thanks president obama for lower tax rates. because when individuals have less income, they pay less in tax. now, isn't that common sense? millions of americans are out of work, and have no or very little income.

you would have better luck getting blood out of a turnip than collecting income taxes from someone who has no income. over the past weeks and months we have heard a lot about income inequality. occupy wall street has been very vocal on this very issue. many members of congress have also expressed concern that income inequality is ever increasing. the finance committee, of which i am a member, just recently had a hearing on this very topic. this most recent c.b.o. data shows that income inequality is at the lowest point in more than a decade. the share of income held by the top 1% has shrunk by 28%. at the same time, the bottom 60% of households saw their share of income increase by an

average of 11%. so perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle do have reason to cheer. the rich are much less rich, but, of course, the poor are poorer as well. it's just that those in the lower incomes did not see their income shrink by as much as higher income people. of course, those in the bottom 60% of households are not better off today than they were when income inequality was greater. in fact, they are poorer and struggling more than ever. so i would just hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep that in mind as we try to create a better future and do it for everyone. reduction in income inequality should not be a goal in and of itself. what really matters is

individual well-being and opportunity for everybody to succeed. this is best achieved, then, through pro-growth policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by targeting certain unpopular groups for tax hikes. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask unanimou unanimous cot the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the disclose act of 2012, legislation that will sign a bit of needed light into the flood of secret money in our elections. i'd like to start with particular thanks to senators chuck schumer, michael bennet, al franken, jeff merkley, jeanne shaheen and tom udall for their hard work on developing the legislation, and i look forward to joining them as this debate goes forward. the majority leader this morning moved to proceed to this vital piece of legislation. i thank him. i and many of my colleagues are looking forward to the opportunity to make the case in this chamber for this important

piece of legislation. but in a sense, that case has already been made. as anyone who watches television knows, our airwaves are filled with negative political attack ads. the organizations that pay for these negative political attack ads all have patriotic sounding names dotted with words like "prosperity," and "freedom" and "future." the names sound harmless but they're phony. all too often the ads are paid for by secret special interest interests -- billionaires and wealthy corporations seeking special secret influence in our democracy and drowning out the voices of middle-class american families. as "usa today" put it just last week in an editorial supporting this disclose act, "everybody's

watching what's expected to be by far the most expensive presidential campaign in history and not without a dose of horr horror. freed by the supreme court by spending limits, all manner of special interests are opening the spigots to buy influence." that's exactly right. "all manner of special interests are opening the spigots to buy influence" and because their money is secret, the american public doesn't even know who is behind the negative political attack ads other than the phony name. here's how my home state paper, "the providence journal" reacted to the original citizens united decision that has unleashed this torrent of secret special interest money. "the ruling will mean that more than ever, big-spending economic

interests will determine who gets elected. more money will especially pour into relentless attack campaig campaigns. free speech for most individuals will suffer because their voices will count for even less than they do now. they will simply be drowned out by the big money." "the providence journal" could not have been proven out more correctly by the events that have taken place since. senator john mccain said earlier this year, "i predicted when the united states supreme court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down his mccain-feingold campaign finance law, that there would be a flood of money into campaigns not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening." senator mccain, you were right, sir.

campaigns are no longer waged by candidates and parties fighting over ideas. they are now waged by shadowy political attack groups posing as social welfare organizations run by political operatives, linked to specific candidates, and fueled by millions of undisclosed dollars from secret special interests. when these secret special interests take over our elections, it puts in jeopardy the key supports of a strong middle class, supports like social security, medicare, pell grants, a progressive tax syst system, things that have paved the way for generations to achieve the american dream. why do i say that? i say that because these special interests have motives to spend this kind of money.

and, mr. president, if those motives were good for america, would they be so desperate to keep what they're doing secret? i don't think so. americans who worry now that washington listens too much to the special interests, strap in, look out and hang on to your wallet, because a secret special interest avalanche is underway. according to a study in april, 90% of the money being spent by super pacs, nonprofits and other outside groups to elect the president of the united states, 0% ostates,90% of the money beig spent by those groups, is coming from secret sources. secretive corporations and billionaires whose names, whose motives the voters may never know and who will have no accountability for how that money is spent.

when there's no accountability for how money is spent because the phony front organization that purports to be spending it isn't real and the real party and interest has hidden behind a vail of -- a veil of secrecy, then there is no limit on what people will say. it is accountability that keeps public dialogue in reasonable check. that's why you and i, mr. president, are obliged at the end of our campaign advertisements to say, "i'm senator whitehouse, and i approved this message." "i'm senator coons, and i approved this message." well, relieved from that accountability, about 70% of the ads in this election cycle have been negative. 70%. 70% have been negative. up from 9% in 2008.

70% up from 9% as this flood of secret special interest money has hit. even worse, if you look at the top four spending political 501-c-4, the secret organizations, the ones that hide their donors, if you look at the top four and what they've done in the last six months, an estimated 85% of their election spending was spent on ads that contained deceptions, according to a recent analysis by the annenberg public policy center. so you unhinge any real person from accountability for the spending, the special interest behind it remains secret, the ads become virtually exclusively negative attack ads, and they are riddled with deception. this is what the supreme court

thought free speech looked like. this is all the result of that disastrous decision by the supreme court in citizens united v. federal election commission, which opened these floodgates of secret, anonymous special interest money. i think it was a deliberate decision but that's the discussion for another day. for today, our purpose is to pointed out that the campaign finance system as a result is broken and it lends itself to corruption in new and unprecedented ways. the supreme court in the citizens united decision, in its

in to meet the congressmen and doesn't spend $5 million in secret funded negative attack ads but threatens to. but threatens to. and if the threat works, they buy the vote, nobody ever sees an ad and the institution of government is corrupted. and it's one thing if you're a company and you say, well, you know, i'm going to be against you and my c.e.o.'s going to have a party and raise money in $5,000 increments against you and our pac is going to give a $10,000 check to your opponent and we're going to tell our workers that, you know, you're not a good person for our industry. okay. that's not great but it's nowhere near as dangerous as being able to say, we're going to put $5 million into a secret

campaign of negative attack ads against you. nobody's going to know it's us. if you play right, if do you what you're told, we'll lay off. but otherwise, look out, we're coming after you and we'll be hidden and it will be negative and it will be nasty. that's no way to run a democra democracy. so today the majority leader has moved to a bill that will bring at least transparency and accountability to our elections. at least these big special interests will have to say who they are. and then we as americans can evaluate what their motives are, what the deal might be, whether we're actually aligned with their interests or not, and we can evaluate what they're saying about candidates. we will have more information. we will have a better quality of free speech. this is not a democrat or republican issue. and, in fact, disclosure has never bendana a republican or

democratickish -- been a republican or democratic issue. this is about protecting our democratic process as americans. and i really look forward to debating this important measure with my colleagues in the upcoming days. i am joined by americans of all political stripes who are disgusted by the influence of this secret money, this unlimited secret money pouring into our elections. we're disgusted by campaigns that succeed or fail, that last or don't a lot of, depending -- last or don't last depending on how many billionaires they have funding through their campaigns through these special organizations. more and more throughout this country, particularly in rhode island, people feel the government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests. they feel that the middle class can't catch a break, that nobody is listening, that everything is done for the big guys. they see their jobs disappear,

they see their wages stagnate. they see bailouts and special deals for the big guys and they lose faith that their elected officials are actually listening to them. if you thought that was a problem before, when at least it was public, at least you knew who the registered lobbyists were, you knew who made the campaign contributions and you knew there were reasonable limits on that, all those gates have been knocked down. it is the wild west now, and it's secret. six in ten americans say the middle class will not catch a break in this economy until we reduce the influence of lobbyists, big banks and big donors. guess what? with these fountains of secret money behind them, their influence isn't being reduced. it's going to be dramatically increased and increased in ways that lend itself to corruption. one out of every four americans actually say they're less likely to even vote because they

believe that big donors and superpacs have so much more -- super pacs over elected officials, so why bother? that is a terrible blow to american democracy. nearly seven in ten americans, including a majority of democrats and republicans, agreed with this proposition. new rules that let corporations, unions and people give unlimited money to super pacs will lead to corruption. you would think that is a blindingly obvious proposition. it escaped the five conservative members of the supreme court who decreed that that was not going to take the case -- be the case. seven out of ten americans disagree with them. i disagree with them. the closer you get to elections, the more you see that that proposition is foolhardy. so we have the disclose act, a

bill that republican former federal election commission chairman trevor potter said is appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional, and desperately needed. i hope very much that we can join in this debate, that we can get this bill passed here in the senate, that we can clean up our elections and begin to do something about this foul avalanche of negative attack ads. again, 85% of them containing deception that is now polluting our public discourse. prior to the citizens united decision and prior to the floodgates actually opening up, there was a long and rich bipartisan tradition in this senate of demanding disclosure of spending in elections. many of our republican colleagues in the senate have

loudly and clearly supported disclosure in the past, and i hope that they will join us in passing this important piece of legislation. the fundamental principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a government that will listen to the people. not just to the big special interests who can afford massive secret money. i urge my colleagues to support the disclose act of 2012. i thank the presiding officer. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: