words, quote, do not use our name in new york, close quote. so first, mr. bagley, didn't the european and middle east affiliates, um -- why would those affiliates, why wasn't hbus told? what possible justification is there for not telling an affiliate that key information to them so that they can comply with their own laws has been removed? >> it's a very fair question, senator. my understanding of the position was that hbeu was checking each one of those transactions to insure that they were u-turn

compliant, that i was always advised that they were u-turn compliant. when i first focused on this issue which was, i think, in mid 2003 although there were indications in e-mails before that, i am -- i emphasized there should be full transparency given to hbus so they could check the compliance with the u-turn themself. >> was it? >> it wasn't. >> so as exhibit 55 says so simply and eloquently, dramatically: your own people, quote, were being asked to fudge the nature of the payments to avoid the u.s. embargo and seizure. that's exhibit 55.

then you weren't the only one that was uncomfortable, mr. gallagher, with this piece of business. people in this bank, this global bank were being asked to fudge the nature of the payments to avoid the u.s. embargo and seizure. um, and it's pretty shocking stuff. um, now, from 2003 to -- 2002 and 2003, um, hsbc affiliates continued to send thousands of these undisclosed iranian transactions through hbus. exhibit 1c is a chart that shows the numbers.

so even though the hsbc group was on notice as early as 2001 that hsbc affiliates were sending these hidden iranian transactions through their accountses in the u.s., nobody did anything to stop it for years. mr. bagley, in 2003 you had recently become head of compliance for the entire hsbc group. um, earlier that month the middle east affiliate, hbme, sent hbus a memo laying out the business case for it to process iranian transactions. why were they processing them? because there was a substantial income opportunity, and here's what you wrote in 2003, exhibit 45: the business case includes a number of express references to practices which may constitute a breach of u.s. sanctions.

but then in october of 2003 -- this is exhibit 48 -- one of your attorneys in group compliance, john root, wrote to you that six banks were processing u.s. dollar payments and that these payments were being altered by hbeu before going to hbus. he said hbeu was removing the remitter's name. breaching these u.s. sanctions is a serious matter, and as the head of compliance you were making that poins point. when you learned that hbeu was removing the names of iranian banks, why was not the practice simply stopped right then? why did it take so long to fix? >> mr. chairman, that is an absolutely appropriate question, and with the absolute benefit of hindsight, this clearly took far too long to resolve. what i can say is that when it

came to my attention, i very clearly recommended that all transactions should be compliant, should be transparent and should be made in a way which hbus was comfortable with, and that recommendation went to the relevant parts of the group and ultimately was escalated to senior management within the group. >> how long did it take? >> um, i think as you have indicated there were then various discussions between different parts of the group, and i think we progressively started to introduce transparency into the payments in 2006. >> so that would be about, what, three years? >> far too long. >> but about three years? >> we. >> dr. coburn? >> if a u-turn transaction is fully client and fully transparent -- compliant and

fully transparent, i would make the point it's legal. and nobody here is claiming illegality. but if one of these -- and this is for you, mr. bagley -- if one of these u-turn payments was not compliant with u.s. law, who's responsible? >> um, ultimately, i anticipate that the transactions passing think the u.s. bank may expose the u.s. bank to risk, and if there was a maligned intent, then it could expose somebody else to risk as well. >> so in this great big organization called hsbc, is it fair for one profit center to put another profit center at that kind of risk? not only is it fair, is it the right thing to do? >> i neither think it is fair, nor the right thing to do which

is why i urged transparency so that hbus could satisfy itself. but i would like to stress that at all times we were told and believed that those transactions were compliant and lawful and that there was a process where people seriously tried to insure within hbeu that the transactions that were sent were client. >> so it's your feeling -- you can't know this for fact because you've not looked at all of them -- but it's your feeling that none of these transactions that hbus saw no transparency on, it's your testimony that you feel that they all met the intent that our government says if you're going to run it through u.s. dollar banks, that the you actually met that expectation? >> i don't think i can say that all of those transactions were. what i was always told was that

there were people who were seeking to ininsure they were compliant -- >> who are those people? >> the processing unit within hbeu. >> and who are those? who are the processing unit? >> i can't recall the name. >> who could recall the name? >> um, i'm sure we could find that name -- >> would you do that for the committee, please? it would -- i'd love to have that name during our questioning this afternoon because that's a key point. either they were legitimate u-turns, or they weren't. >> i believe that the results of the lookback that has been conducted by deloiottes indicates that most, if not all of those transactions were compliant. but a significant number i believe -- that's not the report i've seen, but that is my understanding. >> okay.

and who has that report? >> i believe the results of that report have been disclosed to the committee. >> okay. thank you. [background sounds] >> start here f i can. >> mr. long, on exhibit 78, if you'd take a look at that, you were interested in carrying on a business relationship with this bank to sell it banknotes as this e-mail shows. page 2 of the e-mail also shows that one of your compliance people wrote, i'm not trying to be difficult, but that she did not want to approve the business. what was your impression at the time why she would be concerned about being difficult?

>> um, the way i read her message, difficult refers to her reluctance to sign off the profile. and she's saying here that, um, she's not comfortable signing it because she doesn't know the compliant. compliant. >> did she feel like she was being difficult that somebody was pressing her to approve something she doesn't feel comfortable with? >> no, that's not my interpretation. it's just because she was canned and then she turned it down. that could be interpreted as difficult, i think that's what she's referring to. >> all right. she also states, i cannot answer questions if and when the name appears in the u.s. media. what kind of concerns were you aware of that would rise to that level? >> i know that this name had appeared numerous times in the papers, negative reports about

the family members and also of allegations. so it's a very, very, very controversial name. >> all right. you also on page 1 of this e-mail wrote, it's compliance that's the key. were you suggesting that you needed to convince somebody in compliance to approve the deal, or that you were willing to submit to whatever compliance said? >> um, the -- because this is a very, b very difficult case, it's not simple at all because when it was passed on to me by my colleague, on the one hand there were these negative news in the papers, etc., etc. but on the other hand, there was this very support i have report -- supportive coming out from the rms based in saudi

arabia. and at the same time the group compliance had reversed its decision and they were happy to let individual entities to resume doing business. so to me, it's a balancing act. you have some very, very bad news, but on the other hand you can't ignore the news that appear to be favorable. so that's why i presented this to the compliance, so that we can engage in a open dialogue, show it to a few more people for elevate the issue so that more people who know this thing a lot better than me can engage in and arrive at a decision. >> and, ultimately, you did not do this deal in. >> i'm sorry? >> ultimately, you did not complete this deal? is that correct?

>> i'm, no. no, i think after a very long period of time new york compliance had agreed to letting us resuming the relationship. i mean, the u.s. side. but it took a long time. because i have read this file before coming here. the dialogue first started in may and then a decision was made in new york that we could resume for trading, that this was in december '06. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. mr. gallagher, take a look at exhibit 50a, if you would. when denise reilly of hbus writes to teresa pesky, i believe the name is pronounced at hbus anti-money laundering director at the so-called eastwood memo which was referring to alterations to remove references to iran, that

memo was discussed at a meeting with you, mr. gallagher. so this is dated december 17, 2003. so the question is, when you learned that hbeu was sending these hidden iranian payments through their hbus account, you saw it as a problem, you said so, and the real question is, what tens did you -- what steps did you take to stop the practice? you objected to it, but what did you do beyond that? >> yes. thank you for that. i've reread these documents as well, and while i don't recall the specific meeting that's discussed there, mentioned there, i feel very

>> with the benefit of hindsight, that's exactly what i should have done, and i think we've all learned a lesson that we should have been louder sooner and more broadly in the organization. >> mr. lok, let me ask you about an exhibit, um, 84b. you were the head of hbus' global banknotes business that supplied physical u.s. dollars to financial institutions around the world. um, some of your clients, to put it mildly, did not inspire confidence and were either opposed by hbus' compliance, the

division there, or they sought to subject them to special anti-money laundering monitoring. but you often opposed those recommendations. here's a few examples, 84b is one. this is an e-mail exchange in 2005. this was about whether to classify a particular hbus banknotes client as a special cat -- cat goer client. that's a high risk client that undergoes additional scrutiny. hbus compliance described the foreign bank as one in which, quote: the bank's senior management and employees have been involved in numerous, significant instances of corruption, fraud and embezzlement over the past few years, close quote. and recommended that it be

classified as a special cat goer client, sec. you responded as follows. quote: yes, corruption can be rampant in this bank, but it is not unique to that bank. so you oppose the sec designation. now, the hbus compliance officer for banknotes, daniel jack, described a bank as, quote: government-owned in a high-risk country with a politically-exposed person which is someone who requires enhanced due diligence and reputational risk due to corruption, etc. this is now exhibit 84a. and he recommended an sec designation, and your response? quote: this is such a large

bank, hence malfeasance is expected. however, you wrote, i do not agree that just on these numerous breaches that the bank should be classified, close quote. so your position was that malfeasance is to be expected in a large bank. so don't even bother to do additional anti-money laundering monitoring. and then exhibit 82, this is from 2007. in this e-mail chain an hbus banknotes colleague asks if you and, mr. lok, we're referring to you, would be willing to help open a banknotes account for a bank in bangladesh which was partly owned by a saudi arabian bank whose account was closed by hbus in 2005 for terrorist financing reasons. although in part in 2007 because

of your urging hbus reopened that account. here's what you wrote. quote: i'm happy to be the relationship manager. if this is an account worth chasing. how much money can you expect to make from this name? and then when you were told the account would produce about $75,000 in revenues per year, you wrote, one, the money is there, and we should go for this account. two, i will jump in where the global relationship manager has, closed quote. so your test, apparently be, was first how much revenue it would produce, but what about the second test, mr. lok? what about a test that -- is the bank involved in wrongdoing? whether it's terrorist financing, corruption or malfeasance? why wasn't those factors enough for you to say we're not going to do it? >> mr. chairman, um, let me try to explain what had happened.

the 82b, that was about the classified particular client in china as the sec. the thinking was china is a different country from a lot of other countries, yes. it has its own characteristics. and this bank is actually share the same characteristics of the other big banks as well. so it's not just one, just on this particular bank. so my point at that time was if fig which is a unit within compliance was to say that this issue be sec, that means the other banks should also be subject to the same rating. and -- >> well, why not? why not all banks that, in your words, where corruption is

rampant, why shouldn't they all be subject to that rating? >> first of all, i have to apologize, sir. the colorful word i used there. it wasn't the appropriate -- >> apologize to whom? >> well, that's the -- the e-mail is out for giving impression that i was very tolerant of this malfeasance. that's why i said that. the word itself is not the right word to use. >> i'm afraid it was the right word to use, if you believed it. corruption was rampant at that bank. did you believe it was rampant? >> well, it's a very large organization. just like the other organizations of the world when you have such a large bank, yes, there are bound to be cases of malfeasance. um, another thinking that i was -- >> so you didn't really mean what you said, that it was rampant, is that what you're acing? that it was not unique to that bank, so you were inaccurate in your e-mail?

>> i'm sorry, again? >> did you express what you believed at the time? >> it -- well, looking back -- >> no. did that express what you believed at that time? >> at that time, yes. but i need to qualify that statement which is the e-mail came forward, i was overwhelmed by this feeling that if in this bank were to be sec, that means the other banks need to be sec. and at that time china was a country that the group itself looked at as a very important market. so i wanted to elevate the issue. that's why i copied my colleagues in london. bring in compliance, take a look at this. that is what i was trying to do at that time. >> and what about your exhibit 84a? here you're recommending you proceed despite the fact that the compliance officer for

banknotes, daniel jack, described this as a government-owned bank in a high-risk country with politically-exposed persons that require enhanced due diligence. and a reputational risk. that's to you, to your bank, due to corruption. and your recommendation was go ahead anyway. it's a large bank, hence your word "malfeasance" is expected. i don't agree you said that just on these numerous breaches the bank should be classified. in other words, given enhanced review. did that reflect your view at the time? did you believe what you wrote at that time? >> at that moment, yes. >> okay. and what about this bangladeshi bank? you seem to be interested in how much money will it make for us, how much money can we expect. there's 75,000 in revenues, and

then you say we ought to go for it. you'll be happy to wear the hat, the global relationship hat. what -- you know, you're head of the banknotes department, and when your employees see those kind of remarks in their e-mails from their boss, what kind of an impact do you think it has on their willingness to consider compliance issues when deciding whether to open an account for a potentially lucrative, but a high-racing client? what do you think the effect of those words are on your employees? >> mr. chairman, i agree that this is not portraying a right image, not even the right message. looking at the message now. >> dr. coburn? >> just for the record, the e-mail that mr. lok sent isn't say it was ram panel, it actually -- rampant, it actually said can be rampant. and some of the real imof the world we live in -- realism of

the world we live in, and this is not a defense, but if you look at their own bank in mexico, i would tell you it looked like it could be rampant there this as well. and i think mr. thurston certainly found that, that the corruption would be rampant in that. i think we've got a better understanding, mr. chairman, of what went on. someone taught me a long time ago that greed tends to conquer all technological difficulties, and so we're about anti-money laundering. that's what this hearing's about. and it's not the accusation of illegality, it's the accusation of poor judgment and mistakes and not good line authority inside a very large and very successful organization. i would just say, one, i

appreciate the candor of the witnesses today. very difficult issue. i'm till concerned even though deloiotte said there were 79 accounts they couldn't account for in terms of u-turns, i still think it's a difficult issue when the world's dealing with a terror state like iran, and we're allowing them the flexibility. so my hope is that we can learn some things, and i know hsbc certainly has, and i appreciate our witnesses' testimony. >> thank you, dr. coburn. let me -- i think i read the e-mail correctly, um, and i'll read it again. yes, corruption can be rampant in this bank, but it is not unique to the bank. and so i think it speaks for itself. if i at one point said that he

said it is rampant instead that, yes, it can be rampant and it is not unique, then your quote is exactly right, and the one i just read, i think, is also exactly right. but there's not much, not much difference between a condition rampant and it's not unique to what the point was of this question and mr. lok's answer. um, -- [inaudible conversations] >> which is that? [background sounds]

[background sounds] >> we thank our witnesses. and, again, we appreciate the cooperation with this investigation of your bank, and we will -- what time is it now? [inaudible conversations] >> just a few moments left in this hearing. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. senators today will continue work on a bill cutting tax for multi-national businesses that move jobs to the u.s. the bill's sponsored by michigan

democratic debbie stabenow. a procedural vote on moving forward with the debate on the bill is expected today at about 2:15 eastern. now live to the u.s. senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend elizabeth evans hagan, senior pastor of washington plaza baptist church in reston, virginia. the chaplain: let us pray. our gracious god, we thank you for being the source of all life, all wisdom and all grace in this world. and truly as your people we are so very blessed: we are blessed with breath as we rose to this new day.

we are blessed with communities of friends and family that support us. we are blessed with hope that our gifts and talents can be channeled into meaningful work. help all of us, o god, to remember the richness of our blessings so that we may work courageously for all of those you have given us to serve. to whom much given, much is also expected. may we give more into your holy work before us today. it is in thanksgiving we pray in your most holy 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 19, 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 move to proceed to calendar number 442. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 442, s. 3364, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to brings jobs back to america. mr. reid: mr. president, the first hour today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders, it will be divided equally, the republicans control the first half, the majority the final half. at 2:15 there will be a cloture

vote on the bring jobs home that i referred to. i'm fairly confident s. 3401 is at the desk for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to temporarily extend tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with regard to this bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, over the last decade american companies outsourced about two and a half million jobs, often to countries where they can hire workers for half the price and 21 million americans, including nearly seven millions manufacturing workers live with the fear their jobs could be shipped overseas tomorrow. more than 130,000 of those at-risk workers live in navy.

in the presiding officer's home state of new mexico more than 1 hoonlt jobs in the financial sector and other industries are in jeopardy. more than 300,000 jobs in the state of kentucky, the state of my republican counterpart, are also at risk. so i was surprised when the minority leader dismissed efforts to end tax incentives for companies that outsource jobs overseas. -- quote -- "he said why aren't we doing anything? it's time to bring up serious legislation to affects the future of the country close he -- quote -- ." at a time when millions of americans are looking for work, i'm not sure what could be more serious than protecting good-paying middle-class jobs. the bring jobs home act, the measure before this body, would end tax incentives for corporations that ship jobs overseas. every time an american company closes a factory or moves operations to another country, mr. president, taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill.

hard to comprehend, but it's true. the legislation before this body would end that senseless serious of tax breaks for outsourcers. and it would offer a 20% tax credit to help with the cost of moving production back to the united states. in just the last few years majors manufacturers like ford, cater pillar brought jobs back to the united states from japan, mexico and china. and as more manufactures like -- manufacturers like master lock have moved facilities home as well. let me remind the entire senate, the senate must break a record filibuster, again,, a record breaking filibuster, before it can begin debating the bring jobs home act. this is unfortunate but it's not surprising. after all, republicans' nominee for president made a fortune working for a yo co shshipped jobs overseas. yesterday my friend, senator mcconnell, said he wants to

debate serious legislation. if that's the case, he should urge the republican colleagues to drop their filibuster. the bring jobs home act is a commonsense strategy to protect american workers. to 21 million americans whose jobs could be the next ones sent to china or india, it's a very, very serious proposal and the 2.5 million americans whose jobs have been offshored, it doesn't get any more serious than this. the only ones not taking this legislation seriously be the republicans in congress. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: could i ask the majority leader one question related to the vote we're going to have later today. a number of my members are asking in connection with voting to proceed to the bill whether the bill will be open for amendments. mr. reid: the only amendments that i have seen, are three in number. that the republicans have suggested. to do away with the affordable

care act, to reestablish the bush tax cuts and then the hatch tax measure. that, mr. president, as has been the tradition here with republicans, has absolutely nothing to do with outsourcing. so unless republicans get serious about legislating on -- on the legislation we have, the answer would be very do you feel. -- very doubtful. mr. mcconnell: i would say apparently the bill will not be open for amendment and we'll take that into consideration in deciding whether or not to -- to support cloture on the motion to proceed. mr. president, earlier this week, senate democratic leaders made clear to the american people where their priorities lie. and in case you're wondering, the middle class came in pretty low on the list. at a moment when more americans are signing up for disability than finding jobs, listen to

that, mr. president, more americans are signing up for disability than are finding jobs. that's where the american economy stands today. democrats said they think it's a good idea to drive the country off what economists are calling america's fiscal cliff this coming january. you might call this thelma and louise economics. right off the cliff. but whatever you want to call it, democrats are evidently so determined to raise taxes on america's job creators that if we don't let them do it, don't let them do it they'd actually welcome an economic calamity that would not only rock the american economy but the global economy as well. they want to drive us right off the cliff, mr. president. threaten our own economy and the global enomy as well. needless to say, this isn't a program for jobs or economic

growth. it's an ideological crusade. an ideological crusade. following the president's lead, democrats are declaring ideological warfare and the banner they're marching under is emblazoned with a single word -- "fairness." fairness. here's the problem. fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and change. fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and change. you don't know what it means until it's put into practice. but one thing history, common sense, and basic economics tell us is that it doesn't mean what the democrats say it does. because when they say tax the rich, you can be sure the middle class isn't far behind. just ask yourself, when was the last time a government program stuck to its original mission?

when was the last time? federal income taxes initially were only supposed to apply to those with taxable incomes above $500 -- $500,000 a year, duval qawl to about $11.3 million in today's dollars. and even then the top rate was only 7%. today, the federal income tax starts to pinch as soon as you earn a dollar more than $9,750. the social security tax started out at 2%. what's more, americans were told it would never rise above 6%. yet today the social security tax stands at 12.4%. and all other things being equal it would likely have to rise above 20% to keep the program solvent. that's the condition of social security today.

the alternative minimum tax was designed to hit 155 households back in 1969. 155 households. today, it threatens to hit nearly 30 million households at the end of this year. obamacare was supposed to tax the rich, yet now it turns out the very core of the bill includes a tax on the middle class. in my view, that particular deception turned out to be the difference between the law passing and not passing. they said, oh, it's not a tax. the supreme court says it is a tax. 77% of it hitting people making $120,000 a year and less. and it passed by just a single vote. just one vote.

every single democrat who supported it is responsible for the law itself, and the middle-class tax at the heart of it. but the bottom line here is that a law we were told didn't hit the middle class, does. big-time. and the same goes for the president's latest proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a year. it may be aimed at the top 2% now, but just like every other program that supposedly aimed at a few, very quickly this tax will increase to apply to many. even the senior senator from new york has said this tax hike wit hit a lot of people who aren't rich. i agree with the senior senator from new york.

after all, the revenue from the democrats' tax increase will only cover 6% of next year's projected budget deficit. so who's expected to cover the rest? the middle class, of course. that's the fine print under every democratic proposal. they say they're coming after the rich, but the middle class is always next. and america's small businesses are already on the line. that's one reason republicans are so adamantly opposed to these proposals. yes, it is a terrible idea to raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn. yes, government is already way too big.

yes, democrats have absolutely no more intention of using this new revenue for deficit reduction than they have had in the past. yes, the president's latest proposal wouldn't even raise enough money to fund the government for a week. and yes, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the president wouldn't continue his crony capitalist ways, spending that money on pet projects of his political allies. but the larger point is this: not only is all of this terrible economics, it's completely and totally unfair. the american people shouldn't be on the -- shouldn't be on the defense when it comes to keeping what they've earned. the president may think those

who have succeeded in life haven't done so on their own, but anybody who has ever turned a dream into a reality knows he's totally wrong about that. they know the srabg tpaoeuss they've made for their -- they know the sacrifices they've made for their success, the hours of work they've put in, the time away from family, the constant worry about whether they'll succeed. and those who have made it know that what's really unfair is being told -- being told they have to now hand over even more than they already are to a president who's done nothing to show he knows how to spend it. so democrats may think it's good politics to play russian roulette with the economy. they may think it helps their

radical ideological goals for the country to go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. they may look down on any enterprise that isn't controlled by the government. but nobody -- nobody -- should ever attempt to pretend it's a good idea for the economy or for jobs or for middle-class americans, because it isn't. and that's why republicans think we should solve these problems now. that's what i've been calling for all week. it's what i and my colleagues will continue to call for until senate democrats realize we weren't send here to play politics. we were sent here to serve the american people. now, mr. president, on another issue,

it is with great sadness that i rise today to commemorate an honored kentuckian who has fallen in service to his country. specialist nathaniel d. tkpwar sreupb of rad -- gsrvin of radcliffe, kentucky died in afghanistan while in support of operation enduring freedom. he was 20 years old. for his service in uniform,

specialist garvin received special awards services and decorations including the army commendation medal, the army good conduct medal, the national defense service medal, the afghanistan campaign medal with bronze service star, the global war on terrorism medal, the army service ribbon, the overseas service ribbon, the nato medal, the basic aviation badge, and the overseas service bar. specialist garvin had a nickname "tater" given to him by his father cliff. that's because when he was born on july 4, 1989, he weighed a little more than five pounds. wow said cliff to his wife, nate's mother melanie.

he's not much bigger than a sack of taters. the nickname stuck. nate may have been on the small side but he did not shy away from risk. he was the daredevil of the family, melanie remembers. as soon as he was old enough to walk, he had no fears. as he grew, he would climb trees to the tiptop to get on top of roofs, scaring his mother, of course. one story goes to show just how tough nate was. when he was still just in grade school, nate's shoulder blade got dislocated and the school nurse called his parents to come pick nate up and take him to the doctor. they did, but somehow in the short time between picking nate up from school and driving to the doctor's office, nate managed to pop his own shoulder back into place.

he did it showing no pain at all, says melanie. the doctor was shocked, along with his dad and i. nate's toughness, including sticking up for his family. he grew up with three older brothers and a little sister. they may have at times picked on each other, but if someone outside the family ever picked on his brothers or sister, nate would say, "i'm not afraid. let meehan dell it," -- let me handle it," said medical knee. he would not back down. nate was smart, funny, loving and loyal. he could say something that in an instant could either make you laugh or have you laughing so hard, you would be crying. melanie remembers all that. nate liked to fish and he

enjoyed playing video games. he was so good at them, other people didn't want to play against them. he also could take apart and put back together the video game machines or almost anything else electronic. after nate met and married his wife brittany, both he and one of his older brothers decided to use the buddy system and join the military at the same time following in the food steps of another brother, garvin. nate felt it would be a good way to provide not only his wife -- provide for his wife but also his then unborn child. so nate entered the army in july 2008. he scored highly enough on his entrance skpapls to have his entrance exams to have his pick of any field he wanted.

nate chose avionics. he was assigned to b company, 101st airborne division based in fort campbell, kentucky. nate was able to come home from the army for christmas in 2008, and his timing was good. on december 26, 2008, his daughter, kaylee, was born. that was the happiest day in his short life. he loved her with all he had, said melanie. in the short time they had together, kaylee became her daddy's little girl. her grandmother melanie said she looked so much like him at that age, we say she is tater made over, just in address. she has -- just in a dress. she has his smile and her eyes light up like his did. she also has his daddy's stubborn streak and smartness.

nate would play video games and kaylee would sit beside him with an old video controller nate gave her pretending she was also playing the game. when nate bobbed, she did too. nate was deployed to afghanistan for operation enduring freedom in march 2010. as melanie put it, tater was due to come home for his r & r in august 2010 but unfortunately didn't make it. he lost his life one day before his mother's birthday and two days before his 21st. he never got to meet his son who was born april 9, 2010. we're thinking of specialist nate garvin's loved ones as i recount his story for my colleagues today. mr. president, that would include his wife brittany, his parents melanie and cliff, his

daughter kaylee jo, his son wyatt boon, his brothers, his sister and many other beloved family members and friends. the garvin family is thankful for the assistance given them by captain healy during the difficult events of two years ago. the loss of specialist nathaniel d. garvin is tragic and it is only appropriate that this united states senate pause to honor his service and recognize his sacrifice. i hope that his family, particularly his two young children, can take some comfort from the fact that both the commonwealth of kentucky and this country are grateful for and honored by the heroism and courage that nate showed both in and out of uniform and the

example he set for his loved ones and his country will not be forgotten. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. ms. ayotte: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to talk about an issue that is of deep concern to our country. one of the greatest national security threats facing our

country right now. and what that is is what's called sequestration. to bring at that down to plain terms for the american people, our department of defense is facing an additional $500 billion across the board meat ax in cuts in addition to the already planned $487 billion in reductions over the next ten years if we do not act as a senate, as a congress, and if the commander in chief does not act to come up with more responsible ways to cut spending. we all know that we have a, nearly a $16 trillion debt. we all know that that debt threatens our country not only as a national security threat, but also as a threat to the quality of life of my children. i'm the mother of a

seven-year-old and four-year-old. and future generations in this country. however, what we did last august is that we did a kick-the-can exercise where we left to a super committee to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings rather than sitting down and coming up with the savings we should have at the time. so where we are left is with a meat ax across-the-board approach instead of prioritizing our spending, and we are putting at risk the most fundamental constitutional responsibility we have to the american people, and that is to keep them safe. daniel webster, who is from -- born in new hampshire, served as a senator from massachusetts, was a great statesman, he said in 1834, god grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend

it. well, we know from our men and women in uniform that they have been there for us to guard and defend this great nation. not only the current men and women who serve, but generations of brave men and women have served our country. and where we are right now, we do a disservice to them not to resolve this sequestration, these across-the-board cuts by coming up with alternative spending reductions which we can do, and just to put it in perspective, one year of sequestration is about $109 billion. and that also covers the non-defense. if we come up with -- if we can live within our means within one month for this government, we can come up with the spending reductions, and we need to do that on behalf of our department of defense and for the american people. just some of the things that have been said about the impact of these across-the-board cuts,

our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said that we will face the potential for increased conflict. he also said we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, meaning right now, and i think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that and counterproductive. we also know that every leader of our military from every branch has spoken to both the house armed services committee, the senate armed services committee, and what they have said is shocking and should be a wakeup call to members of both sides of the aisle that we owe it to our military and to the american people to address, is just some of the things that have been said about sequestration. the chief of naval operations has said we will do irreversible

damage to our navy. it will hollow out the military and we will be out of balance in manpower, both military and civilian, procurement and modernization. the the chief of staff of the army has said it would be catastrophic to the military and we will be put out of balance in -- excuse me, reduce our capability and capacity to assure our partners abroad, to respond to crisis, and to deter our potential adversaries and threatening our readiness. the air force chief of staff said we will be left with aging equipment, and ultimately declining readiness and effectiveness. as i said yesterday on this floor, the assistant commandant of the marine corps has said the marine corps will be unable to respond to one major conflict on behalf of this country.

there are many things that we can predict. one of the things we know we can predict is what's going to happen with sequestration. we know if we don't address our debt now, that we are facing the fate of europe. but one thing we've been very bad at predicting is where the next conflict is coming for our country, where the next threat that faces our country comes from. and if our marine corps is unprepared to respond to one major contingency, our country is at risk. and that is why we need to address this. it is not only the impact on our men and women in uniform from the chief of staff, from the commandant of the marine corps of all the branches that have spoken, but i had a chance to participate in a panel yesterday to hear from the concerns of our enlisted about this. i heard from the former head top enlisted person in the marine

corps, sergeant major kent, and he expressed deep concern that we would be breaking faith with our troops, and our military leaders have expressed real concerns that we will not only undermine our national security but we will fail to keep faith with those who have sacrificed so much for our country and that we owe everything to. in addition to the dire national security impacts of allowing this irresponsible across-the-board approach to occur in january, we also know that there are nearly a million jobs at issue, and, in fact, yesterday before the house armed services committee, the c.e.o.'s of some of our major defense employers testified before the committee. in fact, the c.e.o.'s of lockheed martin, bob stevens, has said that i've spent decades of my professional working life

in the national security arena and i've never been as concerned over the risk to the health of our industry and our government as now. he said the effects of sequestration are being felt right now throughout our industry. every month that goes by without a solution is a month of additional uncertainty, deferred investment, lost talent, and ultimately increased cost. you see, it's not just our men and women that keep our country safe, it's those that work to make sure that they have the right equipment, that we have the best technology, that we have the best capability of gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks against our country. our defense industrial base is incredibly important, and not to mention a million jobs at issue. yesterday dave hess, the president of pratt and whitney, he's the chairman of the aerospace industries association, he said as an industry we're already seeing the impacts of sequestration

budget cuts today. companies are limiting hiring and halting investments, largely due to ton certainty of how sequestration cuts would be applied. and a small business owner, della williams -- it's not just our large employers, a lot of small businesses make parts for our weapons systems, for our equipment for our military, and they can't sustain this unconcerned we've created for them in congress and many of them will be forced to go out of business. and what della williams said, what is being billed as a stopgap budget fix will have lasting effects on our defense capabilities for years to come. the switch will just not get flipped back on to reverse that trend. moreover, the deep person yell and program cuts will threaten our national security, indeed the united states could lose our technological and strategic advantage and never get it back. and so this is why it is so important.

and, by the way, the defense yesterday, the c.e.o.'s of -- c.e.o. of lockheed martin had had to issue a memo to his employees and in that he said we believe sequestration is the single greatest challenge facing our company and our industry. defense secretary leon panetta has said that sequestration will have catastrophic consequences for our national defense. with little guidance from the government on the specifics of sequestration, it's difficult to determine the impact of these cuts on our employees. we do know that we have a responsibility to tell you that you could potentially be laid off, and that we have a duty to issue what's called warn act notices to you. because under federal law these defense employers are going to have to 60 days before january 2 issue potential layoff notices to their employees, and, of course, that will also create lots of uncertainty and

consternation in many american families which is unnecessary if we would come to the table right now and address this issue. we can find spending reductions that do not threaten our national security. and just to put a couple of numbers in perspective, some states just in job losses on this. virginia, according to i.a. --, a.i.a., issued by the george mason university, virginia, 136,000 defense industrial base jobs. florida, 41,000. pennsylvania, 39,000. my home state of new hampshire, just on the defense end, 3,600 jobs. and so we owe it to the american people to act now. this is too important to be used as a bargaining chip in december because people want to use it to put our national security at

risk because of other issues that they want addressed. we've always, always treated national security as a bipartisan issue in this chamber, and i would hope that we would not use our department of defense and put our men and women in uniform in this uncertain position. we need to let them know we have their back, and as members of congress we should be together right now sitting at the table, resolving this, coming up with alternative spending reductions, and i would also call on the president as commander in chief of this country to lead that effort, to stop sitting on the sidelines, mr. president,. this is too important to the security of the united states of america. and with that, i see my colleague from south dakota here today, john thune, who is a leader in our conference and someone i know has been very focused on this issue.

and senator thune, i would ask you, yesterday the house was focusing on this issue. we know there were hearings before the house armed services committee. in fact, the house, we should point out, through reconciliation has already passed a bill to address sequestration to make sure that our national security is protected. and they've done that, it has not been taken up in the senate yet, unfortunately, and the senate, i call on the majority leader in the senate to act now because the house has passed something, but yesterday they also held a hearing, the house passed another measure by 414-2 that's called the sequestration transparency act. it's the companion bill to one that you, senator thune, introduced in this chamber. i know how focused you have been on this issue and the senate passed a similar amendment to

the farm bill. one of the issues we saw from the c.e.o.'s that testified yesterday from our defense industrial base is department of defense, o.m.b., they've gotten no guidance on where these cuts will be implemented so therefore i know that yesterday the house actually passed this act to address that piece of it, and i would ask, does the senator from south dakota agree that the senate should immediately pass the legislation that you introduced, this bipartisan house bill that's coming over, a version so that we can know, the american people can know right away, have the agencies tell them specifically what the impacts of sequestration on, and, of course, most importantly, we need to address this before the elections because this should not -- we should not play political football with this. with that, i ask the senator from south dakota what you think we should do here in the senate

right mao. mr. thune: i thank the senator from new hampshire for yielding on that point, and more importantly, for the great work that she's doing as a member of the armed services committee, been a very active member of that committee, a strong and clear voice for new hampshire and for america's national security interests. and i might also add we serve together on the budget committee, where really this should have originated. unfortunately, since we didn't pass a budget, it's very hard to -- you know, to have a plan for how to proceed with spending the taxpayers' money and in is what you end up with. now, because we have this process put in place where if action isn't taken to avoid it, we have an across-the-board sequester that would occur at the first of next year, half of which would come out of the defense budget, we need to be able to find out exactly how these cuts would be -- would be implemented. now, the thing that we don't

know is how the administration plans to implement this. i think that's what the transparency act that passed in the house of representatives yesterday is designed to get at. and, by the way, it was an overwhelming vote, 414-2, the house of representatives in an overwhelming, bipartisan way, weighed in on the issue about whether or not the administration ought to spell out and clear -- in clear detail to the united states congress and to the american people how it intends to implement its sequestration plan. and i might say that it's going to be very difficult for us as members of congress to come up with an alternative replacement plan if we don't know what their plan is for implementation. we know that half of the reductions are going to come out of defense, at least that's the plan. the 0 other half out of nondefense discretionary spending but it's very clear this would have a profound impact on the defense budget on top of the half a trillion dollars cuts that occurred as part of the budget control act last summer. but i would say to my colleague from new hampshire and i think she has very clearly and very

well laid out the impacts as have been delineated and described by many of our service chiefs, by many of our military leaders in this country, what those impacts would be on our national security, on our readiness, also you've elaborated and i think extremely well about the economic impact, what it means in terms of jobs and the economy. but i want to just a moment come back for this fundamental point because it shouldn't be missed by people who are following this debate. and that is that if the budget committee and the senate -- in the senate had done its work in the first place and passed a budget, we wouldn't be where we are today. if we had actually passed a budget. now, this is tomp new hampshire's second year on the budget committee. i got on the budget committee this last session of congress so it's been two years since i've been on the committee. but it's a committee without a purpose, without a mission. if you're not going to pass a budget, i'm not sure why you

want a budget committee. the other thing that's really interesting about this, we're not going to pass any appropriation bills. not only do we not pass a budget, the appropriations committee here in the senate, there are 1 usually annual bills that come croog the floor of the senate, the majority leader said he's not going to bring appropriation bills to the floor. the house of representatives i think has passed nine appropriation bills, they passed a budget, and the appropriations committee here in the senate has been moving and passing appropriation bills out of the committee, but the leader of the united states senate has said we're not going to move proaftion bills this year -- appropriation bills this year. not a budget, not appropriation bills, so what you end up with is a budget control act like what we passed last summer that takes these draconian whacks out of the defense budget and puts america's national security interests at risk and in great peril. i would ask my colleague from new hampshire who sass -- as i said is a member of the budget committee, might this situation where have been avoided had the

senate done its work as it's supposed to do in an orderly way, followed the law, actually passed a budget, actually worked on getting appropriations bills on the floor of the united states senate, might we have avoided what is before us, and that is these devastating, disastrous and some have described as catastrophic cuts in our defense budget. it seems to me at least that's where you end up when you don't do your work in the first place. so my colleague from new hampshire, i would simply ask you as a member of the budget committee whether or not we might be in a different situation were it not for the fact we haven't passed a budget now for three years. ms. ayotte: i would say my colleague from south dakota is absolutely right. if we had done a budget for this country, and the senate budget committee function in the way it was intended to function, then we wouldn't in this situation in the first place. when we do regular budgeting, and do the responsible thing for

our country, like every business does, like every family does, on the annual basis we're supposed to do -- we are supposed to do it, it's been over three years since we had a budget, we wouldn't be in this situation right now where our department of defense is at risk. i know the senator from south dakota voted for a budget that the house passed. i did as well. that had that budget been passed, then the house did its job, and had we done that, we wouldn't be here with sequestration today. and because we're doing what we owe to the american people, if we can't do a budget for this country, how are we ever going to get the $1 trillion deficits in check? unfortunately, we know why we don't have a budget. because the majority leader of the senate has not shown the leadership that he should, because he said it would be foolish for us to pass a budget,

has not allowed the senate budget committee -- which you're right, i'm not sure why we have that committee. i've been on there now for a year and a half and we haven't marked up a budget. we haven't done it. and that's because the majority leader of the senate said it would be foolish for us to do a budget. why? because when you do a budget, you do have to make choices, just like families do, just like businesses do and prioritize where you're going to spend the money and the taxpayer dollars that are sent to washington by our constituents, by the american people. and that's unfortunate of where we are today because had we done that, i don't think we would be in the position where we are with sequestration. mr. thune: the budget control act which passed last summer and created this process which has led us to sequestration, to where we are today, it is a function and a result, a clear outcome of not having passed a budget. it's ironic in many respects because as the senator from new

hampshire has pointed out, the first fundamental responsibility we have as members of congress is to tell the american people, the taxpayers who pay the bills for this government, how we're going to spend their money. and this is now the third year in a row that the united states senate has failed to do that. again, i might simply add that the house of representatives did do a budget, has been passing appropriations bills, has been following the law in accordance with what has been the practice around here, at least up until the last three years, of actually working on a budget. when you're borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that you spend, it would strike me at least that it would be really important that go through an exercise of figuring how you're going to start exit telling away -- whittling away at that deficit, get that debt at a more manageable level and how you're going to spend the american taxpayers' dollars. but as the senator from pointed out -- and again, i don't think we can emphasize this enough

because we last summer already called for $500 billion in defense cuts, and that was half of the amount of reductions that were made last summer. it was about $1 trillion, a little under that overall in spending cuts last summer immediately. immediate spending cuts, half of which came out of defense, $487 billion already taken out of the defense budget. so we're talking about now another $500 billion over the next ten years on top of that $500 billion. in other words, $1 trillion out of our national security budget. what the secretary of defense, the president's own secretary of defense has said is that it would lead to the smallest ground force since 1940, since before world war ii, the smallest number -- the smallest fleet of ships since 1915, almost a century, and the smallest tactical fighter force, air force we've had literally in the history of the air force. that's what we're talking about.

that's the the dimension of the problem that you're referring to. it completely impairs our ability to project power in many of these critical areas of the world. the world is a dangerous place. it's not getting any less dangerous. it's getting more dangerous if you read the headlines every day in our ability to project power in the middle east, project power in asia, all these areas we need to keep an eye on is going to be in serious jeopardy. i want to make one observation about that because it is something to me that is very important. my state of south dakota is home to a bomber base. one of the key ways our nation projects power is through the use of the bomber fleet. our bomber fleet is aging. nearly half of the fleet was built before the cuban missile crisis of 1962, if you can imagine that. so it's highly important that we modernize our bomber fleet. and secretary panetta has stated that development of the next generation bomber would be

delayed by sequestration until well toward the middle of this century. so we're talking about dramatic reductions in ground forces, navy, air force, all the assets that we use to protect this country and to defend america's interests around the world would be at great risk if this sequester goes into effect. the number-one priority as the senator from new hampshire has appropriately pointed out, the number-one priority we have he is to defend this country. if we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. all the other things that we talk about are secondary to defending and protecting america and the american people. and so this is a very, very serious debate, and i would come back to the question that the senator from new hampshire posed in the first place, and that is that yesterday the house of representatives passed by a 414-2 vote, a piece of legislation that would at least require the administration to tell us how they intend to complement these cuts by --

implement these cuts by program project and activity level so we know with some detail and specificity how these proposed cuts are going to take effect. and that would allow us at least to come up with an alternative plan and perhaps be able to replace and substitute other cuts elsewhere in the budget for what are going to be disastrous cuts in defense budget. i have introduced companion legislation here in the senate very similar to what the house passed yesterday. i hope the united states senate will pick up the house bill and move it, pass it so that we can get the administration at least and the president engaged in this discussion about what they intend to do in terms of implementing sequestration and then perhaps work with us to avoid the catastrophe that we're referring to and talking about and which has been documented and validated by all our military leadership in this country in what would be a very, very serious and dangerous reduction in america's national security resources and in our

ability to keep our country ready and able to defend america and american interests around the world. to the senator from new hampshire, i appreciate so much your leadership on this issue. i know you've been very active in trying to get the administration to provide more information with regard to what the impacts are going to be on the defense budget as a member of the armed services committee. i also think that they ought to furnish all the information on these cuts not only on the defense part but in the nonnational security part of the budget. by the way, defense represents 20% of all federal spending but we're going to get half of the cuts. the proportionality of this is a real, is a real issue, in my view, because that happened last summer. half of the cuts that were made last summer came out of defense, even though it only represents 20% of federal spending. and half of the cuts would come out of the, in this particular sequester would come out of the defense budget even though, again, it repls only 20% -- it represents only 20% of all

federal spending. so i would hope that as my colleagues here in the senate continue to hear from people around the country, people who are impacted by this, not only our military leadership but also those whose jobs are going to be impacted by this, that there will be a new sense of urgency, a new intensity to try to resolve this issue. it starts with getting the administration to in a transparent way disclose how they intend to implement sequestration. i look forward to working with my colleague from new hampshire to make that happen and i hope we can get that done and i hope our colleagues on the other side, the democratic leadership will agree to moving that legislation. ms. ayotte: i thank my colleague from south dakota for his leadership on this issue, and i too hope that we will get that passed immediately in the senate, that we have clarity from our department of defense as well as the non-defense agencies so, a, the american

people can know what the real impact of this is. and also so that we can act immediately. and i can't emphasize enough that this needs to be done before the elections. we need to do it before the elections because we've already -- i talked about some of the testimony from the c.e.o.'s from our defense industrial base, and there will be, unfortunately layoff notices that will have to be issued because of responsibilities they have under federal law. let's face it, we really shouldn't have this cloud of uncertainty and feeling for our men and women in uniform, many of whom have served multiple tours for us and defended our country so admirably and so courageously. and that's why i think this is an issue that deserves action now, should not be used as a bargaining chip for other issues. and this is an area where we've

always on a bipartisan basis been able to, for example, i serve on the senate armed services committee, the defense authorization. we voted it out unanimously. well, this is an issue i would hope we would be unanimous on that we are not going to break faith with our men and women in uniform. we are not going to put our country in jeopardy. and i am hopeful that we will also see leadership. and i call upon the president again to be a leader here, to be the commander in chief of this country and to call us to action to resolve this before the election. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, mr. president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during

today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i do want to speak as chair of the agriculture committee about what is happening on the droughts across the country, but let me first take a moment as the author of the bring jobs home act to say that this afternoon we're going to have an opportunity to come together as we did on the farm bill, when we came together on a bipartisan basis to focus on growing things in america and the need to strengthen our economy, provide economic certainty around agriculture and the food industry in america. it really was a wonderful opportunity for us to get something done. this afternoon we're going to have the same kind of opportunity to come together and recommit ourselves to making

things in america. and the bring jobs home act, as you know, is a very simple, straightforward way to eliminate a subsidy that should have been gone a long time ago. and that is the tax write-off for shipping jobs overseas. when someone is losing their job because a plant is closing up and going overseas, to add insult to injury, they as a taxpayer get to help pay the cost of moving. it is outrageous. what we want to do is stop that. that's what the bill does. give a business tax deduction for the cost of bringing jobs home and then add another 20% tax deduction on top of it to encourage businesses to do that. so we'll be talking more about that later. but it is very important, and i hope that colleagues will come together and send a very strong message about america. buy america. american jobs. let's bring those jobs home.

mr. president, i also want to talk today about the terrible weather conditions across the country that, frankly, started with an early spring and then a returning frost and snow in michigan, in areas around the country that have orchards and fruit crops and has now gone from there to an extension of a drought situation that is absolutely terrible. it is a very serious crisis around the country. not since the days of the dust bowl have we seen this lethal combination of scorching heat and bone-dry weather across the production regions of our country. as i speak, 80% of the country is suffering from abnormal dry or drought conditions. 64% is suffering from moderate or severe drought, the highest percentage in 56 years.

as you can see on the map, any area that's in color here on the map has had some kind of a drought with the red, the black areas being the worst. but either from abnormally dry, moderate, severe, extreme or exceptional drought in almost every area of the country. this is extremely severe, and we need to take action to support our growers and ranchers. we have almost 1,300 counties across the country that are rated as drought disaster areas, and that's one-third of all the counties in the united states. and every day it seems that the secretary of agriculture is adding more to the list. more than 75% of the nation's corn and soybean crops are in drought-affected areas and more than a third of those crops are now rated poor to very poor. this is devastating our crop and our livestock producers.

only a third of our soybean crop is considered good to excellent right now, which is down by about 30% from last year. according to the department of agriculture's weekly crop progress report, less than one-third of the nation's corn crop is in good or excellent condition. nearly 40% is rated poor or very poor. so we're talking about a massive effect on farmers, on livestock producers and ultimately on consumers in america. facing higher food and feed costs in poostures that are withering due to the heat, ranchers and livestock producers could see significant losses. i had an opportunity a number of months ago with senator roberts to be in kansas and to see what was happening then, even before all of this, and i understand how very serious this is for our livestock producers. the livestock sector could face significant declines in margins, we could see a sharp

increase in consumer prices for meat and eggs and dairy. at a time when families all across america, middle-class families are trying to still recover from the great recession, paying more at the grocery store is not going to help. in fact, it's going to hurt a lot. the usda has opened up their conservation reserve program so that land will be there for grazing, but we know it's not going to be enough for producers. there's no crop insurance equivalent for livestock. more prowfers could lose their ranches because of this drought. livestock assistance expired last year and we need the farm bill to become law so that we can make this help available again. because in the farm bill we extend the livestock disaster assistance program permanently, and we make it available for this year.

this drought is a serious problem devastating all of our farmers and will come home to families and to the world, unfortunately, all too soon. and we can't control the weather. we know that. in fact, in farm,, ranching, is the riskiest business in the world, and i should say, mr. president, even though it is, we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world and it is part of our national security. but we can't control the weather, and the risks the farmers face, but this drought underscores the need for improved risk management tools, better crop insurance, and it underscores the need for a farm bill. we need to get a farm bill done. now more than ever. we have 16 million people that work in this country because of agriculture and food industries. almost one out of four in

michigan. we came together and it was a lot of work, a lot of bipartisan effort, and i'm very proud of what we did together in the senate a couple of weeks ago to pass a farm bill. we now have the house having acted in committee and passed a strong bipartisan farm bill. it's different, there are some things certainly we need to work out in a conference committee. our bill has more reforms in it. we certainly are concerned about the nutrition cuts. but i would say this: we need the house to pass their farm bill so we can come together in a conference committee and find the right balance that's good for families, consumers, farmers, ranchers, business people across the country. and i'm very confident that we can do that but we need the house to act to be able to make that happen.

weather disasters are getting worse every day, and it makes it even more important that we have our legislation, and that frankly we work together to add some pieces to it in a conference committee so that we can address what's happening. in our bill that passed, as i said, we extended a livestock disaster assistance program, made it retroactive to this year. we also included a provision that offered for fruit commodities that don't currently have crop insurance to allow them to be able to buy into a program that is a long --, actually strengthened it and made it better but for those who don't have crop insurance we said they could get help this year. so we do have some things in the bill that we passed, and we can work together to strengthen that even more. senator baucus, chairman of the finance committee, is working and we are working closely with

him on something that would be a more comprehensive disaster assistance program. but in order to be able to do that, we have to have a farm bill. and this is not as we know, a partisan issue, mr. president. we came together across the aisle, consumers, democrats, republicans, independents, people who vote, people who don't vote, people across this country care about a safe, reliable, affordable food system and that goes for our farmers and ranchers and their families in communities all across america who are hit so hard by the drought. let me say as i close, mr. president, that this drought is evidence that we need to come together and act. when we look at this kind of a weather map and what's happening, and the fact that the majority of communities in our country are facing disaster

as a result of the droughts and other things that have happened as it relates to the weather, we need to act. we need to act in a responsible, bipartisan manner. we can do that. we did it in the senate, the house committee did it and i commend them for that. we need the help and the support of the leadership in the house to be able to get this to the floor and get it passed so that we can get it done. thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me compliment senator stabenow for her leadership as chair of the agriculture committee. i want you to know, senator, i was on the phone yesterday with our soil conservation district managers talking about provisions in the senate bill and i want to personally thank you for reaching out to all of us. negotiations were tough but were fair, and the reforms that you have in i believe will help our region and all the regions of

our country deal with the underlying problems of agriculture in america. so i particularly want to thank you for that. the process is how the legislative process should work. very open process, very bipartisan process. we have a good product. and i hope that the house will bring forward a bill, get to conference so that we can continue to the dialogue. it's important we give the predictability to our farmers that a five-year reauthorization bill can do. i wanted to first thank you for your extraordinary leadership in this area, for the agricultural community of my state of maryland. but i really came to the floor to talk about another one of your efforts today, and that is to bring jobs home act. i thank you for -- thank senator stabenow for her leadership there. i tell you, senator stabenow understands that outsourcing is devastating to our country. americans understand that. marylanders understand that. when we're outsource, we're losing jobs. families are devastated by

outsourcing and what is most shocking is that our laws should not encourage companies to take jobs out of america. our tax code should encourage companies to keep their workers here in the united states. so we need to make it in america. i think we were all shocked to hear about the u.s. olympic team and the fact that they're going to be outfitted by clothing manufactured in china. that's outrageous. never should have happened. we can make it in america. i must tell you, i hear from people in maryland all the time, i'm sure you hear the same thing from new mexico and my colleague from colorado, when you get a call from a call center and you think a person is in your neighborhood talking to you about a local issue, and then you discover that person is halfway around the world. pretending really to be your neighbor and friend or

representing a local business. when reality, we've outsourced that service -- not we, the company has outsourced and don't even tell you about it. they're misleading the consumers and i know we have some legislation here to correct that. but that's outsourcing. that's costing america jobs. and it's wrong. we can compete. americans can compete with any other work force in any other country as long as we have a level playing field. so we want to make it in america, yes, we can. and let me just tell you first some success stories. not too long ago i visited marlin steel in baltimore city. this is a steel wire manufacturer that uses raw material from america and manufactures their product in america, in baltimore city, a high-quality wire steel product, sells their product in

america, exports their product to other countries, and creates more jobs here in america. that's a success story, mr. president. and that's the type of story, i've given up on -- a lot of people have given up on steel. we can't give up on steel. we need to make it in america. let me tell you about another success story. tomorrow i'll be at english american tailoring which is located in westminster right near baltimore in maryland. well, they manufacturer suits -- they manufacture suits in america. they make it in america. we're able to do it. all they ask for is a level playing field, and, mr. president, we took some steps in the senate finance committee yesterday to give that level playing field by what we call the wool trust fund which deals with inverse tariffs. we need to make sure our laws are fair. the shocking thing about clothing, it actually have higher tariffs on the raw

material making it impossible to manufacture in america than the finished product coming into america. we correct that with the wool trust fund, and we need to make sure we have a level playing field. let me tell you another success story. the pacific trade international, this is a success story, this company was located in asia, an american company located in asia, making candles that were known as the chesapeake bay canals, being made in -- candles, being made in asia. this is a success story. they're back in maryland, in glen burnie, maryland, in the united states of america making those candles, selling them to kohl's and target and other retailers, creating jobs, a hundred jobs that are now in my state of maryland as a result of this company bringing jobs back to america. in the last 28 months alone we've seen 500,000 new manufacturing jobs in america.

we've talked about the u.s. auto manufacturing industry and how we've seen that industry take off because we can make it in america. well, that brings me to the efforts of senator stabenow and others to bring jobs home act. it is shocking -- and i think the people in maryland and around the nation are shocked to understand that our tax code actually encourages companies to take jobs overseas. american taxpayers are actually footing the bill. because under current law, if an american company decides to take its jobs and export them overseas, the moving costs are deductible from our tax code. why do we allow that? why do we ask the taxpayers to subsidize moving jobs overseas? well, the bring jobs home act says let's get rid of that tax deduction. instead, let's make sure that you bring jobs back to america,

yes, we'll consider that necessary expenses. we don't consider it necessary business expenses to export your jobs. and we'll give you some additional help with a 20% credit. that's what we should be doing. policies that encourage keeping jobs here in america. make it in america. yes, we can. we're going to have a chance to bring this bill forward and i hope my colleagues will support that and then let's try to move this bill quickly. look, this is a pretty simple bill. does three things. eliminates the deduction for moving jobs overseas, makes sure we had that deduction, if you bring jobs back home and provide a credit for part of the cost to bring the jobs back home. very simple. why don't we keep it that way, why don't we just pass that bill by itself and do something about saving and creating jobs here in america. i would urge my colleagues, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. we all know we've got to keep jobs here in america. this is a simple bill. let's get it done. let's not confuse it.

let's not pix mix it up with other issues. let's show the american people we can act in the best interests of our country and with that, mr. president, i would kneeled the floor -- yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: let me commend my colleague from maryland with his single-minded and crucial focus on jobs here in america. and i rise to speak about another opportunity to make stuff in america, and that has to do with the harvesting of the weu7bd that -- wind that we can do here in america and keep jobs here in america. i have been rising every day the senate has been in session, mr. president, to talk about the necessity of extending the production tax credit for wind power. and every day i come to the floor of the senate to talk about a different state and how important wind energy is to

supporting economic growth and job creation in those individual states. today marks the 11th time i've come to the floor to urge all of us, all my colleagues, to act by extending the p.t.c. for wind, and today i'm going to talk about my ninth state out of 50. and i want to say in case anybody's wondering, i'm not tired yet. i'm committed to coming to the floor until congress does what our constituents expect us to do, and that's to extend the production tax credit. it's simply that important. if we fail to extend the p.t.c., mr. president, our economy will suffer, jobs will be lost and our clean energy leadership will truly be in jeopardy when you look across the world. so where are we going to travel to today, mr. president? we're going to go to the great state of georgia. the wind industry in georgia has

quickly multiplied over the last few years, nearly 1,000 wind energy jobs have been created. and equally important, there's real potential for significant continued growth. i want to focus on z.f. wind which invested nearly $100 million in a manufacturing plant in the city of gainesville, georgia, which is located northeast of atlanta. this new plant will manufacture gear boxes for wind turbines, and that will bring several hundred really good-paying jobs to georgia. z.f. wind is a german-based manufacturer. they made the decision to invest in georgia and in america. so i have to ask my colleagues if a foreign company can see the potential for wind energy in america, why can't we here in the united states senate? do we really want to turn these jobs away? if congress doesn't decide to invest in america by extending

the production tax credit, i have no doubt that these jobs will be shipped back overseas. but if we continue to support the wind industry, the wind energy industry, mr. president, z.f.'s gear boxes will be shipped all over our country. in fact, in the interest of full disclosure, i would say z.f. is a major supplier of gear boxes for vestus which has a large manufacturing presence in my home state of colorado. the point i want to make is this is one small example of the supply chain, the wind energy supply chain being built up all over our country and extends in every direction. let me share another example of what's happening in georgia. there is a small town of tibee island located on the northeastern coast of georgia. if i have my geography right, that would be in this area, mr. president. they have taken a stand to show how important wind energy is to

their future. their council passed a law recognizing the importance of it. tybee said let's encourage the development of wind energy projects. they say georgia has enough offshore wind potential to power over a million homes. a million homes could be powered solely from georgia's offshore wind potential. that's significant. and, mr. president, we need -- all of us all across our country, all of us elected officials, to stand up for the future of american manufacturing and energy. it's an economic and environmental imperative. and the choice, frankly, is really stark. if we don't act, if we don't act to extend the production tax credit -- and it expires, 37,000 jobs may be lost around our country. however, if we extend the

p.t.c., conservative estimates suggest 54,000 jobs would be created. that's the choice: job loss or job creation. i can tell you what i know the answer will be in colorado. extend the p.t.c. and without the p.t.c., foreign countries will extend their energy advantage over the united states. manufacturing jobs that could be created here should be created here, will go instead to china and other foreign competitors. mr. president, there is just simply no reason to do that. instead, we need to extend the p.t.c. the p.t.c. equals jobs. we ought to pass it as soon as possible. i want to end on this note. this is not a partisan issue. the production tax credit's long been a bipartisan idea. senator grassley from ohio, our colleague who served for many years here with great distinction in the senate,

supported this idea, brought this idea forth almost 20 years ago along with others. so now more than ever the american people are asking us to take action and to invest in clean, renewable, made-in-america energy. let's not let the production tax credit be a casualty of election-year gridlock. now is the time for us to do the right thing. extend the p.t.c. i'm going to keep coming back here until we do so. i'm enjoying the tour of our great country in the united states of america. every state has a wind energy stake in the future. let's extend the wind p.t.c. as soon as possible to protect american jobs before it is too late. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: 4 4

quorum call:

who are more mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. more mr. president, thank you.

-- mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. koch industries ^s a company which is headquartered in wichita, kansas and employs 2,600 citizens of my state. the corporation, a long-standing manufacturing company, employs over 50,000 people with good-paying jobs across the country, including around 15,000 employees who are represented by unions. depending on the year, koch industries is either the first- or second-largest private-health companies in america with about $100 billion in revenues. i am pleased by its presence in the state, where the company and its owners are respected corporate citizens. the koch family, the owners of koch industries, have made a statewide impact through foundations and charitable work which has given millions of dollars to help the education of the poor, at-risk youth, the arts, and environmental causes. the investments they make

primarily goes to kansas and to kansas citizens, and i'm grateful that this country has chosen to invest in our state's economy and its people, and i'm pleased that they're a corporate citizen of kansas. during the debate this week of the disclose act, koch industries and its owners were mentioned numerous times. and while i could come to the floor and complain about the lack of balance -- if we're having a debate about the disability of disclosing contributions to political causes -- certainly the debate i heard on the senate floors the rhetoric was about those who contribute to what are described as conservative causes, free-market causes. and i could come to the floor and complain about the lack of balance in that discussion. but, in my view, if we're going to have a discussion about the disclose act, what we really ought to all stand up for is the opportunity for free speech, the opportunity for those of a variety of political points of view to be able to express those

views in the political process, and those positions, the ability to do that -- perhaps not the positions, but the ability to promote your position ought to be something defendinged by all. we need more participation in american democracy, not less, and in my view the discussion that we had this week was a distraction from the real issues that our country face faces mosy related to the economy and job creation. so rather than spending our time on the senate floor discussing the disclose act, in my view, we should be on the senate floor creating policies that put in place those that koch industries have distributed -- have indicated, have shown in my state to create jobs rather than arguing about political contributions of those job creators. so, mr. president, i come to the floor today to suggest that, one, koch industries is a great corporate citizen of the state of kansas, contributing in many

ways to the economy and to the well-being of our citizens. to suggest that if we're going to have a debate about the disclose act that there be some balance and that those who believe in free speech and participation in democracy ought to always rise to the occasion to defend those who engage in the political process, and finally to suggest that rather that having a debate about the disclose act, what we should be doing is finding ways to replicate what the founders and shareholders of koch industries have done in kansas, the united states and around the globe: create jobs for americans in our country's economy. we're off had track here. it is time for us to get back on track and focus on what matters: a growing economy, that we can help families put food on the table, save for their education, promote a free-market enterprise system that does just that. mr. president, i yield the floor. before doing that i notice the absence of a quorum.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: i ask that privileges of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, steven kirby, who is serving as

an intern for the summer for the balance of today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, because the senator from ohio is in the

chair, i would just like to say that i'm very pleased that we have been able to pass a bus safety bill that was a response to two tragic bus accidents, one in ohio and one in texas, and the many other bus accidents that have happened because the buses that often transport people in our commerce are not safe, but i think that we have strengthened those safety regulations working together and appreciate very much the effort that the senator from ohio made. mr. president, i rise today to speak about the looming tax cliff that will affect every american who pays taxes at the end of this year. the senate must be clear with the american people about what our priorities are and what the ownership of the money made by

hard-working americans is. does this money belong to the government to decide what will be done with that money, or except for our responsibility to add to the things that our federal government should do, should that money belong to the people who earned it? and i think that is one of the key issues that we are facing right now in this congress and most certainly in the campaign. the american dream is that anyone, anyone who is willing to work hard in this country can start from nothing and through hard work and sacrifice become a success. it is the defining characteristic of our country and it is what has made us a shining example of people all over the world. but that dream is under threat if at the end of this year all of a sudden, because we don't

address the major tax hikes that will affect all americans, that hard work and sacrifice will simply result in giving a larger portion of people's paychecks to their government. if we do not enact relief, every single person who pays taxes faces an increase on january 1. every single person. every person will move into a higher bracket and face a higher rate of taxation. if we do not enact relief, small businesses will be hit with higher taxes, entrepreneurship will be discouraged, owners will not invest to grow their businesses and hiring will remain in a deep freeze, and there can be no argument in this country that hiring is in a deep freeze. we have had unemployment rates above 8% over the last three and a half years. that is stagnation and it is

certainly a freeze. if we don't enact relief, marriage will continue to be penalized at a greater rate than it is today. higher burdens across the board, strangled growth and job creation and an inexplicable punishment for married americans, these are insurmount able obstacles to what will free our economy to grow and create jobs that will bring that unemployment rate down. the marriage penalty, which is a -- an issue that i have championed since i came here and we were able to do something about it, the marriage personality pushes people who are working and single and get married into a higher bracket. if two single people paid taxes on their own earnings, it would

be at a lower rate than when they get married. one of the highest priorities that i have had in the senate has been to relieve americans from this punitive burden. after years of fighting for fairness, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts included my bill as an amendment. it made great strides toward eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering the tax rates, doubling the standard deduction which had not been the case before, and simplifying other elements of the tax code. with this tax relief, an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married, say in 1999, of approximately $1,400. just by doubling the standard deduction, we have been able to give relief since 2001, but if

we don't do something by the end of this year, that marriage penalty goes back, so we will not have the standard doubling of the standard deduction. so let's say a houston policeman with a taxable income of $50,000 and a san antonio schoolteacher with a taxable income of $40,000 are getting married this year. how would their taxes compare if they were filing as a married couple or as two single taxpayers? for this year filing jointly as a married couple, they would save $500 because we have marriage penalty relief. however, when the relief expires at the end of this year, they would pay $800 more -- not save $500 -- because they're filing jointly. this is the time when they need the money the most.

they're starting a family, they'd like to buy a house, maybe get started with that, and yet we would penalize them for entering the institution that makes our culture more stable and certainly work in the best way. in this economy, every dollar matters, and many households do rely on two incomes. so how is it that congress has decided that we should penalize people who are working extra hours extra-hard to begin their lives as a family? my bill, senate bill 11, provides permanent relief by raising the standard deduction for married couples, doubling it. two single people get made, the standard deduction should double. increasing the 15% tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. that's very key because that 15%

bracket is the people making the lowest amount who are paying taxes. so if we double before they have to go into the next bracket, that's going to give them significant relief. and we also extend the earned earned-income tax credit marriage penalty relief. so if you are actually not paying taxes but you make such a low salary that we are rewarding you for not going on welfare, it would also double that relief. now, i offered my bill as an amendment last week, but we were not able to vote on amendments last week, so i'm going to continue to offer this as an amendment, as we consider a myriad of options for tax relief for our countrymen, because if we don't do something by the end of the year, not only are these

taxes going to go into effect, but many, many others. i urge my colleagues to work with me in extending this relief. now, we have an outsourcing bill that is going to be coming to the floor for a vote today. and we must create a job creators bill, which is what this bill purports to do. it is very important, though, that we look at some of the major issues facing corporations, who are our job creators in many instances, and see what they really need for relief. today we have the dubious honor in america of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. and we used to be second, but just recently japan changed their corporate tax rate and lowered it so that they would not have the confiscatory taxes

that would discourage japanese companies to invest in japan. so now america has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. so, on top of punishing businesses with that high tax rate, our home front looks even less business friendly when you consider the mountain of regulations, the burdens of the president's new health care mandates, and the lack of a long-term, comprehensive tax plan. the bill that the senate is now considering would be another punitive attack on companies and will hamper business growth. instead, with unemployment rates above 8% for 41 straight months, we should be doing everything in our power to spur hiring in the private sector, and we need for the president of the united states, the leader of the

greatest nation on earth, to recognize, respect, and encourage the job creators who are investing in our country, which helps everyone get a shot at success. unfortunately, last friday the president shocked many americans with his comment, "if you've got a business, you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen." this highlighted, mr. president, the fundamental difference in the way the president and many of us in congress view the hard work that americans put into achieving the american dream. the american is that somebody can come to this country, they can start with nothing, they can build and work and sacrifice and give their kids a better chance

than they had. that's why people have been coming to this country for over 100 years. my office received calls and letters from all over texas when they heard the president's comment last week. and i'm going to give you some excerpts from one small business owner in beaumont, texas. "i have 10 that i that i'm a-- i have to say that i'm appalled by president obama's recent statement b about small business not being responsible for their own success. i am a small business owner, and i can assure you that i built the business from nothing. i sure didn't get any government help. i gave my all to grow this business. i was not given the idea or the plans for building a successful business. an idea, a dream, and a risk -- that's what mine and all of america's small businesses have been built on." he goes on to say, "i put

everything on the line, including my wife's wedding ri ring. with over 20 years of hard work, my wife and i have grown the company from four employees to 40. when we first began our venture, she worked a full-time job to supplement our income while i ran the operation and together raised our children. nobody did that for us. we worked hard. we take pride in customer service and the quality of our work as well as giving back to our community. this has created customer loyalty and allowed us to expand, not a government handout." mr. president, our goal should be to spur the growth, encourages hiring, and support the millions of small businesses that have served as the backbone of our economy, not to

extinguish the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that built this country. that is what -- it just doesn't seem like our president relates to that. what built this country is innovation, taking risk, and entrepreneurship. and we have established an education system, and at least we used to have a regulatory system that encouraged business, that encouraged the private sector. you know, a few weeks before the president said that these small business people didn't do it on their own, he said, you know, the private sector isn't in trouble; it's the government sector that's in trouble. oh, my gosh. you just think, who is he talking to? who is he relating to?

because it is small business people and big business people and all business people that are creating the jobs that create more jobs that make a vibrant economy. it isn't government. government sometimes gets in the way and, sometimes worse, it takes away from the vibrance of our economy. so it is time for the leaders of our country in congress and in the white house to get a perspective on who can create a vibrant economy and "who" is nt the government; it is the business sector and especially the small business sector, because they're growing. and if they grow, they create jobs for more people. so, mr. president, i hope that

this congress at some point will start working on tax reform and regulatory relief and relief from the oppressive health care system that is going to also take a major effect at the beginning of next year and say, what can we do together to spur private-sector growth that will create jobs in the private sector that contribute to the economy, not withdraw from it? i only hope that we can all pursue the american dream and be the leaders that can make it happen for more people. i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. hutchison: mr. president? ferraro the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter from which i read in my statement, to follow my statement. the presiding officer: if there is no objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: thank you very much, mr. president. i ask -- are we under a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you. i come to the floor to address several issues. first, i want to talk a little bit about the disclose act. earlier this week we had two votes on whether to end debate on whether to debate the disclose act. the disclose act is a very simple concept, and it's that folks who make very large donations to the political system disclose who they are, so that the citizens of america can know where that money is coming from. is it coming from this particular sector or that particular sector?

is it a group that is opposing as but skies for healthier america duel -- as blue skies for a healthier america actually working for something else? is it trying to weaken the pollution control standards and put more pollution in the streams in citizens have a right to know where the money is coming, especially very large contributions, because right now what we have are folks who are putting millions of dollars in. now, i ask you, how many americans can put $1 million into a campaign? i would tell you, in the world i live in, $100 is a lot of money. people can't connect that there are folks out there that are saying they're going to put $1 million in. and they certainly can't connect with the folks out there who are saying, i'm going to put $100 million in. i think the koch brothers have

been bragging across in country about how they're going to buy the elections so they can control where this country heads. that is perhaps the most ill-conceived notion that there is. but at least they're willing to stand up in public and say what their plan is. at least they're willing to say we are not going to hide and do it secretly. they're going to tell us they are a putting their money in. now, where they put that money and who that money is used to attack, we may not know. so even in their case, we need the disclose act. it is confounding that so many members of this body argued for the fact that disclosure is the disinfectant. so many members of this body argued that citizens have a right notify so many members of this body said this is fundamental to fair debate in a democracy. then when the time came to decide whether or not this would happen, they