and the fact that the persuasive effects of ads are fleeting and decay rapidly, i think, is becoming less important. even as scientists we are more and more able to demonstrate it because of data, because of technology. and going to people and having them rate these advertisements is a way to keep the information from the ads in the media, um, which we have demonstrated does effect people. and so i think that the effects of ads may in themselves be bleeding and decay rapidly, but their enduring effect through the media is important and is happening more and more as the news hole gets larger to fill. and in this kind of material gives reporters something new to talk about instead of just is this ad truthful, what does it say, um, how does that play into the horse race and the strategy. and so i think there'll be lots of interesting stories to come about how the public reacts to both positive and negative ads,

um, and hopefully, we will get some stories about these positive promotional ads that, as john mentioned, often contain massive exaggerations on behalf of the candidates promoting themselves. >> okay. thank you, lynn. you're asking the question, why are there so many ads, and, of course, there's the old line from campaign consultants saying 80% of the money we spend on advertising is wasted, the problem is we don't know which part it is. ken, you have all of the data on ad buys. so what are you seeing this year in terms of new and interesting developments? >> thank you, and thanks, everyone, for having me here. um, let me, let me speak about that and also sort of more generally give you my take on how this all matters. why we still even in this age of i think you called it nanotargetting, why we still see tremendous amounts of must money spent on local spot television, why it's so negative and then

let me take a couple secs and agree with lynn about why this is a particularly exciting project for geeks like us. [laughter] you're not include inside that, jeremy. jeremy's the cool reporter person, the rest of us are the political science nerds up here. >> actually, at brookings we consider geek a positive word. [laughter] >> lynn was sort of talking about florida. listen, the fact of the matter is, this is -- it is phenomenally difficult to measure with precision what the effect of advertising is. and the person who bought george w. bush's ads in 2000 always used to say with a big smile on his face that it was the most efficient ad buy in history in florida. he didn't waste a single dollar on florida. now, obviously, with a big smile on his face and joking. what he meant was a little too close for comfort for the bush people, but if you're looking at it as a complete economic efficiency, they didn't waste any money in florida because they won by 530 votes, whatever

it was. anything they would have spent more than that would be a waste. but they, obviously, don't think like that. they're obviously not trying to get efficiency in that particular way. but advertising very, very much matters at the margin. i mean, we look at the 2000 election, phenomenally close. the 2004 election, also, phenomenally close. 70,000 votes go the other way in ohio, and we're talking about president john kerry. 2002, big republican victory taking back the u.s. senate, very narrow victories in minnesota and missouri. 2006, 2008, 2010, swing elections, and advertising clearly wasn't decisive in those. so can i tell you whether it's 1.2% or 1.4% or 1.6%? no. but what i can say is in elections where the margin is likely to matter, and 2012 is looking like an election where

the margin can matter, those ads, those ads can be decisive. now, what are they trying to do? i think you sort of have to unrstand the fundamentals of an election which help you understand what effect the ads are going to have and why they're going to be so negative. presidential elections are clearly a referendum on the incumbent. we all have our geek political science cards, and we have to say that, and we actually believe it and believe in that brilliant political science -- i'm always a little embarrassed to say this, tom. tom has the university of michigan roots as does jeremy, big finding in political science, right? democrats vote for democrats, republicans vote for republicans. that's our major, huge, huge finding. but there's something that -- that's reality. so you take party id, you take the nature of the times, that doesn't leave much room for advertising to have an effect. even if this election, like previous presidential elections, is going to be a referendum on the incumbent, the challenger

still needs to reach that threshold level of credibility. nice not teaching freshmen, i actually see some people who might remember the 1980 elections unlike most people who i usually talk to. all the fundamental factors were in ronald reagan's direction, but that race didn't pop until very late when he reached that threshold level of credibility. so the reason why we're seeing such intense, negative advertising for obama is obama knows there's not much he can do to change his own numbers, and he's trying to define mitt romney. why do we see so much on local television? yeah, campaigns can nanotarget and talk about that left-handed cat owner who might be cross-pressured on a particular issue in columbus, ohio. but those people who they are able to target tend to have already made up their minds. so if you think about why the internet is such a great thing for commercial advertisers, why does it work for google? because google, if you search on television or washing machine,

it'll then serve you lots of ads for cars or washing machines. normal independent swing voters don't go search on obama and romney. you know who does that? you. us. partisans. mostly people who have already made up their mind. mostly people who have already made up their mind are watching fox news or msnbc or listening to rush limbaugh or rachel maddow or going to the niche internet sites, are identifiable on voter lists. so those campaigns, ultimately, are looking for people who are going to be exposed to a message and not have any predispositions. so that's why you see intense amounts of money. i estimate that there's going to be over $3 billion just spent on local spot television this year. someone's watching jeopardy, someone's watching wheel of fortune, someone's watching the local news to get a school closing or see the high school sports score not because they have any predispositions where

someone's watching fox or msnbc or is on those voter lists is on those lists precisely because they do have that predisposition. so i think we are going to see, um, like john geer over here, i've spent must have much of myr going, oh, no, it's not the most negative ever. i actually checked it this last weekend. there are two positive spots on the air that have aired a total of 42 times, and there's been something like 14,000 spots that aired this last weekend. they are both spanish-language spots. [laughter] those are the only two positive spots in rotation now. one spot by obama which i think has aired 21 times, another spot by romney which has also aired a handful of times are the only positive spots that are on the air now. so it's not 100%, but it's pretty darn close. i think you're going to continue to see an intense negative focus

by the obama campaign on romney. it's going to be interesting to see if the romney campaign changes that up a little bit, because they're also going to need to introduce their person. last point why i'm very excited about this, um, and i guess i can say this now because i have tenure, right? the big mistake in all of my work on political advertising and the big mistake of many people who cover it is we were just counting bombs. this many ads, this many ads. where, of course, different ads we might think have different qualities and different effects. one ad could be worth more than another ad. and so in all the geeky models i used to do, an ad was an ad was an ad was an ad. and i see someone out there who used to code those ads for me. [laughter] and this gives us the potential to make that a little bit more nuanced. and we certainly have the

tonnage, and as someone who's now running a company that does the tonnage, we also have the creative. so the ability to say this particular ad aired this many times but is rated on these various, different ways like john was showing, um, is very interesting and not only going to be very interesting, um, for political scientists trying to figure out the impact of advertising, but i would check your web site. i bet you'll get some hits from boston and chicago. >> so it's interesting that you say the only two positive spots are being run in spanish. i just wonder what that tells us about what the candidates are thinking about latino voters. you don't have to answer that now. jeremy, you report on the media and advertising, and this is an interesting election because we have an incumbent president who on the one hand is likable, but the economy is bad. and then a challenger who comes from the business community but is really rich and hasn't released his tax returns yet.

so i was wondering if you could talk to us about a couple things; the messaging wars and what you're seeing, and then when we were watching this america the beautiful ad, you were distinguishing to me memorable versus effective and saying the ad might be memorable, but does that mean it will be effective? jeremy. >> right. and i think that that is the key question when looking at that ad. i think by the murmurs i heard in the room when that ad was shown on the screen here, a lot of you knew what it was, a lot of you probably thought it was pretty funny. but one of the things that i thought immediately when i saw that ad was that ad is not for the people many this room. that ad -- it's supposed to be for the people who are persuadable voters. and in that sense i think john's research showed that ad seemed to be very polarizing. and in that sense i wonder if it was very effective at doing what it was supposed to do, and that being persuading voters. um, it's -- i think voters tend

to recoil when they see a candidate being mocked, and those ads while being very humorous and entertaining to partisan, are not particularly effective to swing voters. and that brings me to a point that i think is very different about this election. when you're talking about marketing or selling any commercial products, what you're not doing is trying to convince people that they hate the product they already have so, therefore, they want to go out and buy a new product. when ford is trying to sell you a car, they're not trying to convince you that you hate your chevy. but with political advertising, so much of it is meant to -- at least it seems this way -- is meant to make you hate the other candidate. and that, i think, in this election is a very different thing. when you talk to republican pollsters, one of the things they will tell you is that for all the hatred of barack obama

on the far right swing voters don't hate him. in fact, they find him still to be kind of a very magnetic, alluring figure. and those who voted for him in 2008 still feel very much wrapped up in what he represented as a candidate, that he was a transformative political figure that they feel more of an emotional attachment to than they would for an ordinary candidate. that's very different from what we've seen in recent elections. john kerry was easily mocked, michael dukakis, george w. bush. barack obama is not as easy to caricature. and when ad makers do try to caricature him, they run the risk of offending swing voters. not just offending them, but they also kind of run the risk of wasting their money on the message because the ad is going to fall flat. so what you're seeing in this election is what i've sort of been calling the soft kill. going after barack obama in a

much more subtle way. and the way that a lot of republican ad makers have devised their message there is by trying to figure out what it is that makes barack obama a less appealing figure than he was in 2008. and when you ask people that, what they'll say is, well, he hasn't delivered on his promises. he wasn't what he advertised. i feel dispinted. disappointed. so it's that playing on a sense of disappointment that is the most common sentiment in a lot of the superpac ads and many of the ads on the romney side. reminding people that, okay, this guy isn't somebody who's loathsome, isn't somebody who's an evil, horrible politician who's ruined your life. he's somebody who let you down. and i think that going forward that's the narrative we're going to see play out more and more many republican ads. >> i have a follow-up question for john and doug. when i was looking down the

different dimensions you're measuring from voters, you had words like hopeful, happy, disgusted, angry and worried. and i'm just wondering if the reason you chose those words, are you assuming that this is going to be an ad where emotion really is important, is really going to dictate things and might even outweigh kind of the reason aspect of voter decision making? either one of you. >> well, i mean, our purpose in asking, we did ask these five emotions, and there's a vast literature in psychology and political science that, actually, has a five-point scale that you ask about each of these particular emotions, so how does this ad make you feel, you know, extremely disgusted, quite a bit, goes down to not at all. they've been battle tested, so to speak, in the academic literature, and we wanted to have these as standards to go forward. so we wanted to get emotional reactions. we also wanted to get evaluations like fair or unfair.

we thought that was important. so we put together a series of variables that would allow people to sort of these ads. we also have measures of effectiveness. so, for example, the america the beautiful ad actually does move swing voters. romney has a 16-point lead in the, in his positive ad ready to lead, that shrinks to three points among the pure independents when he faces this attack. it's not a pure experiment, but again, we can get some leverage that the polls have been pretty steady. so this is showing these things matter. in fact, of all the ads it's not a big surprise, obama, you can't move his numbers very many with positive or negative ads. and that's not a surprise, in fact, we were just talking about that. but you can move romney's numbers through attacks. and that's, again, speaking to what other people said. so we have this ability and, basically, you know, we're going to develop the store of information that allows us to make a judgment. so let's say there's a swift boat ad, the equivalent of a swift boat ad that comes out.

we want to know, how does it really disgust the american public? because we don't know what the public's real reaction to those ads were. we do know that it aired in 1% of the markets in 2004, and by september according to gallup poll, 80% knew the term. that's through media commentary. and so what you want to do is make sure this media commentary is as informed as possible. so here's a chance to democratize the process, get reliable, valid indicators as doug demonstrated about what the public thinks, and we have these various measures, and we decide to go with a bunch of them so people have got to pick and choose. and, you know, we have time constraints, we couldn't go on for a long period of time for the survey. so we were interested in getting these. again, it's the baseline. we can compare positive to negative, swing voters to partisans, we can also compare particular ads. it just gives you, gives us a lot of leverage to go beyond kind of seat of the pants assessments to actually have real data to be able to make these judgments. and some of these judgments will

be surprising. people are surprised that positive ads are viewed as untruthful as negative ads. that's what the data say. >> one point, you know, we attempt to get into the field and get reactions to these things as quickly as we can before the ads have actually been exposed to very many people out in the real world. um, and that's the big problem with trying to figure out the impact of ads because in the real world except when you're up by 25 points, you don't allow some political scientists to randomly allocate your ads. so, you know, what we normally see in the world is ads are put in places where they're thought to be effective. so you can't tell whether they're actually moving anything. the design of this project is such that the groups that see different ads are comparable, and so if we measure their attitudes after they see the ads, we a are getting at least a reasonable indicator of what the effect is. >> okay. for our other three panelists, i have a question about unfair and/or misleading ads.

because it seems to me like in the past there were times where the media were strong, and if they came out in fact checks and otherwise saying, you know, this ad really crosses the line, candidates would feel timid, would pull the ad and so on. this year it seems like candidates are not being shamed, and certainly the superpacs are not being shamed. so my fear is this year we're going to see a lot more misleading and unfair ads probably from both sides. so i'm just curious for each of you, your view in terms of what risk are voters facing this year from unfair and/or misleading ads, and what can voters do and what role can this project play in kind of helping to highlight ads that cross the line? >> one of the most interesting statistics that i've heard this entire election was in, during the florida primary. and the romney campaign ran this

ad that was just, basically, a clip of the nbc nightly news take treason the night that newt gingrich was found guilty of ethics violations by the house of representatives. and it was just tom brokaw saying that newt gingrich has been found guilty. and that ad statistic showed us ran more than any other ad in the entire florida primary. but when you talk to google, what they said was that the most commonly-searched term in all of the political terms that were searched that week was newt gingrich, ethics violation. so i think people are now much more sophisticated about what they see in political ads, than they have been in the past. and now that they are often sitting down on a couch watching television with their computer, they can very easily google something that they they see in an ad. i think one of the things that is different this time around or at least seems more prevalent to

me is this use of news reports that seem to be generated by campaign opposition research. using what the findings of those news reports in ads almost immediately, and you saw this most recently with "the washington post" report on outsourcing that called -- mitt romney and bain capital were quote-unquote pioneers in outsourcing. as soon as that report hit, the obama campaign was ready with an ad. immediately. it went up on the air citing the washington post report saying that romney was a pioneer in outsourcing, and that drove a lot of the conversation for the week. so i think t actually, it's not just, um, using attack ads, it's using the media to create fodder for your attack ads. >> and i want to echo something that ken said because i don't think that we can say this enough times or loud enough, that most people are not

interested in politics the way we are. and they're not paying attention right now. and you asked the question what should we be worried about in terms of all of these attack ads and voters, and what ken said about the local news is it's an astonishing pattern. if i could show you the graphic, you would gasp just at seeing where political ads are run. and they are run around the sort of late fringe, that early evening news, the local news. and what's great about that is that you're hitting a part of the population that typically isn't interested in politics. so a lot of people -- the people who see political ads, how do i want to say this? the person who is exposed to the most political advertisements is a person who is not that interested in politics and may not even be thinking about voting. just because they have the

television on from 4 to 7:30 in the afternoon while they're doing something, and they're seeing all these ads. so for people who are really interested in politics who are searching out information, it's a completely different experience than this mildly-engaged voter who's watching the late -- early and late evening news. so i think it is interesting that the content and styles of these advertisements now differ, and the web only adds look and sound and feel and contain different information than the broadcast ads. and i'm not really sure that we have -- we don't have a lot of research on things like that. and doug was asking me earlier about what do we know about political creatives and how different creatives effect people differently, and the answer is we don't know a lot about that. but i think, you know, that is going to be a really interesting thing to watch, is the broadcasts versus these more what you call it nano or narrow casting or whatever kinds of ads

are put out there for people who are searching. >> but, ken, if it is the inadvertent audience that's going to decide this election and if there are a lot of unfair or misleading ads, isn't that a recipe for disaster just from the standpoint of democracy regardless of who wins? >> you've got a little bit of a stacked deck up here because many of us on this stage are ones who are in the non-whining about negative ads camp. [laughter] >> here, here. >> and we can cite a bunch of research that folks up here have done and that others have done showing that, yeah, we can all point to that outrageous ad or the ad that we think is unfair, but that on average people who are exposed to advertising in general and negative advertising in particular are more likely to be engaged, more likely to have factual information and more likely to turn out. not the case every time, it doesn't always have positive

effects, negative ads having positive effects. but in the research of folks on this stage we've really never been able to find, um, a negative effect. now, there's other political scientists who are in, who are in another camp, and there's certainly lots of punditry that is always saying this is the most negative campaign ever. don't do this because i once started a book going back and searching the new york times for the last 25 years and having every election "the new york times" reporter saying this is the most negative ever. [laughter] >> jeremy, it may -- >> you could actually be right this year. [laughter] but going back, you know, adam klein in 1980 and rick burke, every two years someone was saying it's the most negative ever. >> i'll be right. >> but you'll be right. [laughter] listen, if ads were the only source of information that people have and if one side had complete control of the megaphone, i would be more

concerned. you can look at what happened in the wisconsin recall election, you can look at what's happening in the election now. incredible amounts of money. mitt romney or barack obama is not going to win or not going to lose because they didn't have a chance to get their message out. john kerry didn't lose because he didn't have a chance to get his message out. one interesting thing, i want to sort of talk about -- combine two things that jeremy and lynn talked about, this new strategy or new content it will be very interesting to see what john and doug find in the data about this, of using news reporters to deliver the negative hit. and that, i mean, many of you saw -- i'm sure all of you saw it was just tom brokaw, 27 seconds straight to camera, and then mitt romney dragging a hand through the bushes there which is their, you know, i take credit for this message. but 27 seconds, straight out,

tom brokaw. and then we saw it with john harwood on another negative ad. what's interesting about that is and to -- i always speak like a geek, but maybe to even speak more like a geek -- ads have to be both credible, have people who are delivering a credible message, and they have to be delivered at people who can actually be influenced. so if you think about someone like tom brokaw, incredibly credible person. he could say these things, but swing voters aren't watching him on the nbc nightly news. people who are junkies, people who are fans, who goes and reads the green bay packers' blog all day? a green bay packers' fan. not someone who's not a football fan. the person who pays attention to political news has a faircht team. so if you have a favorite team and you're seeing these news sources on it, yeah, that might be a credible hit, but you're not going to be influenced because you already have your mind made up.

but it's that combination of taking a reporter or a newscast which has that air of credibility -- we're going to be coding for jeremy, we'll see if you end up in an ad -- [laughter] having a news reporter who has that credibility but able to target them at that person who's watching jeopardy or wheel of fortune or the college football game who's not watching that because they have those predispositions. and i think that has potential to be, to be powerful. because you can mention, you can measure lot of ads that are credible among your general sample of independents, but if independents aren't actually seeing them, it's not going to have an impact in the real world. but they can target some of these independents with the, um, with the paid media. >> it's an interesting -- >> i think jeremy should be insulted if he doesn't end up -- [laughter] but i think your point is well taken that, you know, we need to pay attention both to the message and the messenger because in an era of massive public cynicism, using

third-party validaters that have more cache with voters is very important. why don't we open the floor to questions and comments from our audience. if you can raise your hand, we have a question right here. i'm choosing you because you have the word "vote" on your t-shirt, and we encourage people to vote here. [laughter] if you can give us your name and organization. and if you can keep your question brief so we can get to as many people as possible. >> bob proctor, johns hopkins university, student. i was wondering what effect do you think advertisements have on the base and turnout in elections? i know there's a lot of discussion about how much the base turns out in the elections. does advertising have any effect on that for either party? >> i think ads drive interest in elections, and i think they do that for the base as well as people who are not committed. and i think positive and negative ads do that. and particularly negative ads generate a lot of interest, and i think that translates into participation. >> right here on the aisle. >> i had a question about your

project. >> with actually, can you speak right into the microphone? >> oh, i'm sorry. my name is kay, i'm a retired county -- department of labor employee. and when you have participants rate as disgusted, i could end up disgusted with the candidate who was running it, i could end up disgusted as his opponent or disgusted at the political system in general. do you measure for that? does it make a difference in your study? >> well, we just ask, um, does this ad make you feel disgusted, and so there's a bunch of different targets that it could be. so one of the first results we had was that republicans, for instance -- true for democrats as well -- but partisans when they see attack ads from their own team, so to speak, they don't like the ad. they say it's disgusting. but what that means, informs, john convinced me of this pretty quickly -- well, actually not

that quickly, but he convinced me -- [laughter] the disgust is aimed at obama. they see the attack, and that's what's going on. so we don't have the exact target, but we do have, again, the standard by which we can judge because it's being asked the same way every time. so that imagine the scenario where there's an ad that supposedly is going to disgust people, right? and it's turning people off. well, we can measures of that, and we can then take that data and compare it to other ads. this is, in fact, you know, a standard deviation unit higher among -- and then we can break it up to different groups as among the pure independents, among the democrats, among the republicans. so we have the ability to measure this in a way that is systematic and speaks to it, but we can't speak to the specific target because that's not the way the question is worded. ..

>> i'm wondering if you can tease out any difference beten candidate as any particular, whether there has been any effect from the stand by your ad provision, where the candidate expenditure ad has to say i am barack obama and i approve this message? >> i don't think, i would be curious to hear -- i think i have paid attention to these more closely than the average voter but i remember being in iowa during the caucuses and the most common sentiment that i've heard from voters is they had no idea who was running any given ad.

i think the disclaimers at the beginning, more and more at the beginning than there used to be at the end and i don't know if there's a tactical reason for that or not. more and more people are giving those out and if they see the ad, it's often -- that they missed that and it's very difficult for them to tell where the ads are coming from and furthermore the troops because they all have similar sounding names, i even think that is lost on them and they are not able to differentiate between one super packed to the next. >> i once did a superb -- focus group and immediately asked him a few questions in one of them was who ran this ad? only 60% of the people could identify the source of the ad they had just seen 10 seconds before. john, can you distinguish a candidate versus a super pak? >> in the 10 baseline as a behalf, there are two super pac negative ads, one attacking romney and want attacking obama. so right now we don't have many

ads but over the course of the campaign the game changers, or ones that people like fred davis think we should run and maybe some of you in the audience we should have enough super pac as to be able to answer question mark the end of the campaign season then right now to be able to compare some of those. it won't necessarily be a test of the tagline but a test of collectively generating more emotional reactions or were they viewed as more and fair so we will be able to get a little bit of leverage. not perfectly what we will be over tell a little bit of the story. >> right here, this gentleman has his hand up. again if you can give us your name and organization. >> free speech television. it seems to me that you might be able to collect additional data based on quantitatively how many ads are put out, about how much the expenditures are independent of them making their own expenditures and with the --

to declare these expenditures as part of free speech you may be able to determine the amount of influence these buyers have on policies, in the administration's. >> do you want to answer that because you have ad by data. >> certainly, one thing that academics and scholars have done in the past and people will do in the future with the advertising data, which we have had in advertising projects which we now have with the media project and a number of media sources used now from kantar is to to go gohmert spat with election results and public opinion surveys. >> okay. jeff if you can get the microphone over to him.

>> a quick comment. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> a quick comment and then a question. all the data presented so far has to do with presidential campaigns, but the title from today's event is new ways of evaluating campaign ads and this implication -- >> the question? >> implications that your findings are relevant to the other 499,000 elections that go on in campaigns in the united states. clearly there are significant differences like logical negative advertising early, completely different for presidential versus a local campaign but my question has to do primarily directed to ken to insider access to political ad lies so this valuable competitive intelligence to know what the plan is. i don't see this in presidential campaigns but it's a big problem in local campaigns were lead we the local tv station, the sales

guy we have advanced knowledge and it's often part of one of the candidates political piece is. we are talking about the marketing side. it's advising the candidate on how to buy in at selling them and wreck in -- so it's a clear potential for a problem. i don't know in the new media round if this is a problem but i imagine that campaigns try to guard themselves against giving away their negative ad campaigns ahead of time. how to campaigns guard themselves against tipping off their opponents which is very valuable information and to what extent do you sense this might be a problem? i don't think it's a problem at the general level but i do sense that it's a problem for say etiquette level of congressional campaign. >> yeah i really don't think it's a huge problem.

you have people at television staples -- stations whose job is to sell ads and i don't know if they are members of one campaign or the other. i have certainly not heard about that but they are interested in selling ads and they will certainly tip of people whenever there is an ad buy and they don't evolve everybody when there is a ad buy which is how jeremy can get information about what is going to be bought down the line. because they are a second whether it's the romney campaign, the obama campaign or the person running for dog catcher having enough money to run advertising in the second that salesperson gets off the phone they are calling everybody else about that by. so, they may be leaking the information, but and they certainly are but not any sort of partisan way where it's the secret republican or the seeker donnacrat who is the guy in the sports jacket at wk rp telling

the other side what's going on. >> they tell everybody. >> my colleague has a question up front. >> one of the working hypotheses that was in this election year was that super pac money, together with their 501(c) affiliates will have the greatest potential of impact beneath the presidential level, house, senate and other races, partly because of the possibility of dropping a lot of money late in the campaign, with the other side not prepared to respond. what do we know about the impact of spending patterns, the use of ads at this level of government and is there something we can garner from the new project that

would help us think about these advertising parachutes in the house and senate elections? >> you let me take a second part and maybe somebody else can deal with the other. the project is actually -- and this speaks to the other question. there is no reason why we can't throw in any ad so for example i'm from tennessee so the call me add in 2006 that was so controversial via the republican party against the congressman, we could put that so to speak in the hopper and we could take a look at it. there is obviously limited resources and the difficulty is we do want to have the baseline and the would have race line presidential ads which i'm not sure how that would necessarily work but it is possible to be able to do it. the additional difficulties are that let's say that the ad, a controversial ad is run in missouri. why would people in arizona have much stake in reacting to these

ads so there's a lot of different problems but you know there is no reason to think we can't and in some cases some of these ads began to take on a national flavor so we could he able to run it. the real value of just this project is when, let's say that some reporter and some commentator or some academic says that ad is going to turn off the american public and its terrible. that may be true but at the presidential level we will be able to have data that will give us a handle on whether or not that is the case and that is the real advantage of this is that we are moving beyond the leap discussion as a term i use early to try to democratize it and to make it systematic and reliable as well. >> it so important because we have just relied way too long on assumptions in this area. the herald for the ad is a great example, you know, if he won, people would have written that election into history and said you know this inflammatory

attack ad backfired. it's a race baiting critical attack ad that change the election at the 11th hour. and we don't know which one of those things is actually true, and we don't know if that ad turned out voters so i think you know what john and doug are doing here is really important. i have been counting the number of people on the panel who said rings -- we believed in these assumptions for so long, and there have been five or six comments that your data could actually speak to and might prove that we are just wrong about the baseline things that we assume about attack advertising and promotional advertising. can a group parachute and in the last couple of days in the last week of a coven -- governor or house-senate election and change the outcome of the election? absolutely, in those last two days but i think to other things are interesting here. the first is we know that source credibility can matter when

people know who the sources are. so, the trick is i think, will they reach a point whether it's in this election or a future election, where voters figure out if the advertising is not from the candidate, then i'm going to discounted heavily. and i think that day may be coming. choir candidates putting the tagline on the front of a hat, i am barack obama and approve this message is research that shows that is the -- becoming more attack oriented and you don't want to play your ad, barack obama is the worst president in american history and then say i approve this message. do you want to say that as a front before you say anything inflammatory so it's not a people's mind and then you can e.'s into an place in music and show images and get to the barack obama source as the ad when you are not in your own voice in taking accountability for it. but i think the source

credibility and also you have to have the right message to do that. i think that is neat about what these guys are doing and bringing side davis on board. i think he has a lot of lift on this kind of moment where the party calls him at the last minute and says -- and he goes and went with a creative and does it so he is a real addition to the project that he can help us figure out what these ads are doing. >> you asked about the impact on what these ads can have on elections and you're absolutely right, one of the things they have already started doing is forcing candidates to spend money early on. the classic example that brings to mind claire mccaskill in missouri. crossroads, american crossroads the super pac founded with the help of karl rove and other top republican strategist have been hammering her relentlessly with these ads to show her in a very unflattering picture that makes her look much heavier than she actually is and arm in arm with

barack obama like the famous 2008 campaign with mccain and bush with their arms around each other. what they did is they force claire mccaskill to go on the air earlier than she normally would have. in an election that's going to be this close or expected to be that close, spending that money early on is not something that she wanted to do. the other thing with the super pacs, there was a story that house democrats have had to get in combatants who they would assume would not be contributing to the dccc and representive cooper basically said hey i don't know what's coming down the line. there could be somebody who drops a couple million dollars into my race and i want to hold onto my money in case they needed so they are not giving money to the party organizations at the levels that they have done in past races. >> to quit points about that because -- two quick points.

a longtime campaign reformer and the other is a social scientist, but going in at the last minute, one of the reasons why it has been difficult to figure out campaign effects is typically in a competitive election you don't have one side out advertising the other so there might a part of you that has concern and there may be no answer because it does set up that possibility. one of the reasons why it's so hard to find the presidential level is because unlike 2008 presidential elections are typically pretty equal. the last point the darrell made also a something very interesting about the outside groups and the super pacs. if you are candidate and you've raised 12 million bucks and your election doesn't end up being competitive either against you are for you, you still go and spend all that money out. these outside groups in super pacs make very hardheaded decisions and triage decisions and they will come in and out very quickly so it gives them

the flexibility to go in and maybe try and light up a race, advertise for a week, see if it moves numbers and if it doesn't unlike a candidate who was raised all that money is going to stay and they will pull it out immediately and go elsewhere. so it's going to be a big, if you're a poker player, a big tell, when these groups go when and out of these races. >> but there actually could be some last-minute surprises this year based on that type. in the very back, if the gentleman would stand up. >> curtis gans. we have worked together. [laughter] >> thanks for joining us. >> my question is essentially an elaboration of what tom raises, which is to say ads in presidential elections are less important than they are at every level below that.

by the time the most overcovered event in american politics, you know, has concluded, you have your debates and you have your traveling entourage and you have your front-page stories, you know about who the candidates are and your choices. you have none of those things below the level of the president and the ads have much more effect they are and cannot be counted there by him partial sources because they won't do it. the mccain allen debate this last week and no television station covered it. we did a study of general elections, gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional campaigns and we found that 82% of broadcast outlets covered none of it. and those who covered it, none covered it in prime-time.

what you don't have in races below the president is any super ego. >> okay. we have a question in the back, right there. >> i am john from georgetown. first of all i want to say this is a really great project and the data can be really great. that one question i have is i wondered whether, looking at some of the data, i wonder whether a lot of it seems to be a lot of self reports of things, particularly i was concerned about things like memorable and other things like that. i am sure you are all familiar with literature and social psychology and political science and we are all skeptical a bit of self reports. i am sure there are strategies you can use to get around that, by asking people in a little

while about -- these other ways. i am sure you have thought about this so i wondered if you would talk a little bit about strategies for getting round around this problem of asking people about the fact, even asking about emotional impacts and things like that which may be good measure sometimes and maybe not so good measures at other times. >> the concern about recall often as you see this ad and what did you think of it and there is that whole problem but in this case everybody has seen the ad so it's not a matter of recall but it's about what is their emotional reaction? my position is i put up the emotional questions for example anger and disgust, they are reaction words to these particular spots. they all have seen them so that was just simply a strategic decision to get that -- is there an effective at?

lynn was talking about those kinds of data but again because we are comparing all kinds of ads, we get leverages, was the initial reaction different and a few if you have a swiftboat ad is there in fact a big shift? that is what we are trying to get ad, and you are right, there are a variety of issues like what exactly does memorable main? we actually do by the way, which we have not coded, we asked people what did you remember about the ad and they write it down in an open-ended format which is going to be great for folks like you and i after the election when we sit down and try to write up some results but you know i could try to do something with it but given the quick turnaround time in the media, holding open the comments seem something for you and i to do after the election, not a for it but we will let dugway and. >> john promised not to say the word in dodge and is but i will say it. [laughter]

>> i had that in the pool by the way but you said it first. [laughter] self-reports or what you have god in the contemporary -- contemporaneous studies. they are all members of the panel and they take surveys so we can actually go back and measure memorability later on, by ability to identify which ads they saw or did not see. so i think there may be analytical data around that. >> we have time for a couple more questions. right here is one. >> thank you. my name is matt saunders and i'm a student at princeton university. my question looks at social media. first how effectively are these campaigns using them especially with the type of nanotargeting that you were talking about where people like to give all this information. you can single out those people who would be really interested

in some sort of ads and also the fact that they have choice, that they really don't have to go click on that ad. the second one is, does the effect of an ad once it is placed on social media change? we see all of these ads on tv and then you see it on youtube when a friend, who you do trust as an independent critique her of these types of things twisted up and you see this. does that change your mind at all? so i just generally want to see where new media is leading the charge on all of this? >> well i know the campaign considers that, what you were just talking about getting a video on someone's facebook to be a very valuable form of communication. they tried to do that. because as you say it's a group of friends and people and if they see it has much more impact than if something they can click on on the side of their facebook page or whatever.

i am skeptical over all of using social media to persuade anybody. i think what is more important is the get out the vote effort and i think the obama campaign has been particularly good at this and don't count romney out either. they have a very sophisticated on line effort and they have been doing this exact same kind of thing trying to get their video out through facebook and i think when november comes around it could be something that tips the scale. >> but the social media, it's a terrific way to communicate with people who are already going to vote for you. perhaps to mobilize them and definitely to raise money. at the risk of sounding like a luddite -- [inaudible] but bill gates and even the obama campaign in 2008 was all internet, 2012 with very sophisticated digital social media presence.

they use all of that new media to raise a bunch of money or good do you know where they spend that money? local television on the old media. and then you know, i am very careful about guarding my partisanship but i am a -- committed democrat who is watching us now. she gets an ad insensate all to her friends. but all of her friends and massachusetts get all upset about it and i think that is one of the problems with targeting campaign. >> a great shout out to ken's mother. [laughter] >> thank you mr. west. i'm a producer here in television in the city so i will speak for news, going to some of the questions that were put up earlier. before i go any further i started at nbc as a local and i wanted to give a great reading

to eleanor clift who is with us today. when i started television, i did the morning show and we would have to do a run down and that is essentially dropping in commercials to make up the time which is what you see in commercial television and add basement is competitive and it was so to the extent than that opposing campaigns would have spots during the same commercial break and they do try to go for the prize, ad placement for the prize program, a cut in for "the today show" and four, five and 6:00 broadcast and during the 11:00 newscast. they are very targeted and specific efforts to convince people especially people in this area at the time to vote one way or another in a campaign. my question on that is your perspectives on how ad placement is today for the senate race in virginia and in an effort to

move swing voters in the commonwealth toward one campaign or the other? thank you. >> he add placement is crucial and ad campaigns pay attention to that. quite frankly there is so much volume that if you are going to be watching local news in virginia this fall, all you were going to see as political advertising. i think we were talking about and i take credit for this ad, when you are going back-to-back it is hard to know who is taking credit for what. it literally can be six, 32nd ads in a row and i know jeremy goes to approach out -- project where you can watch me live and you can tell when one starts and another ends. >> people are also confused. there is this one ad that opens

with a barack obama speaking to i believe it was the speech that made him famous in 2004 at the national convention. and it's actually an attack ad against obama. the people who are watching it start out thinking, oh my got this is great. from the democrats this is fantastic and of course it turns and you watch the line on the screen just plummet. >> it does not turn out that way. >> i think it's an exciting time for political advertising because all these things are going to force the creative people in the field to get more creative and thinking about this panel i went back and watch a lot of my favorite political ads from the last 50 or whatever years and one of the things that was great about reagan's reagan's ad in 84 is that they really did make this big effort to change the type of advertising that they wanted to put out there, and so everybody

remembers this morning in america for what it said in a visual but what is also interesting about that ad is the pacing of the voiceover. sort of these long silences in the ad where you just hear music and i think those kinds of things, people are going to have to do more and more of it, the sound of bats is going to have to change to signal that this is a different ad or maybe just the lack of sound. you know silence will make people to turn to their television because we never hear that anymore so those kinds of created things are going to have to happen for people who love advertising like we all do, it's a thing going to be a very interesting 15 years. >> humor often is a great distinguishing quality so i predict some on the ad somewhere along the line but i want to re-with len, it's going to be a fast-moving election and an interesting test of the 3m message, what matters the most and under what types of circumstances. i want to wish john and doug

rivers great success in thank you for sharing your work with us and jeremy peters and ken goldstein thank you for joining us as well. [applause] >> the u.s. senate gaveling in on this tuesday morning. yesterday majority leader harry reid filed a cloture motion on a bill that would extend for one year tax cuts for families making under $250,000. unless an agreement is reached today a vote on whether to proceed to that measure would not occur until tomorrow. from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. the

chamber will recess for their weekly party lunches. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, awe and wonder grip us when we reflect upon your majesty. you are the source of our strength and provide our hope for years to come. guide our senators today. may they seek your marching orders and have the courage to

follow the cadence of your drumbeat. give them the courage to act as well as to think, to do as well as to talk, and to accomplish your will on earth in all their work. lead them, oh god, to think with clarity, to love with honor, and to see the stamp of your image in all your creation. we pray in your sacred 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 24, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, 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 467, s. 3412, which is the middle-class tax cut act of 2012. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 467, s. 3412, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families. mr. reid: mr. president, the first hour this morning will be divided and controlled between

the two leaders or their designees. the majority controls the first half. the republicans the final half. the senate will reinvestigate from 12:30 to -- will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for caucus meetings. at 3:40 there will be a moment of silence in honor of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john gibson who were killed 14 years ago today in the line of duty defending the capitol protecting visitors and staff against an armed intruder. i filed a motion yesterday on cloture. if no agreement is reached that vote will be tomorrow. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: a bill to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to provide alternative minimum tax relief and repeal the estate and

generation skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the ph-b will be placed -- the measure will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: republicans claim to share our commitment, our commitment, to keeping taxes low for the middle class. it's very strange that if that's what they believe they repeatedly block our proposal to cut taxes on 98% of american families. two weeks ago republicans seemed eager to have those votes. that's what the republican leader talked about on the floor. they wanted to vote on our proposal to cut stacks for families -- to cut taxes for families and vote on the repeating proposal which would raise taxes on families while handing out more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

democrats tried to give the republicans what they wanted. we offered to skip the usual procedural delays and hold up or down majority votes. so far they refused. mr. president, the offer still stands. they want to vote on theirs, vote on ours, do it with a simple majority. so i hope republicans don't insist on doing this the hard way. and why are republicans delaying votes that they asked for in the first place? they know a majority of senators and a majority of americans support our plan to help middle class families. our plan gives 98% of american families certainty their taxes won't go up and it reduces the deficit by almost $1 trillion by ending wasteful tax breaks for the rich. senate republicans, their proposal takes a very different approach and that's an understatement. it extends tax breaks for the top 2% of americans but fails to extend tax cuts to help

middle-class families. their plan would hike taxes by another $1,000 for middle-class families while handing out an extra $160,000 tax break to every millionaire. democrats will simply never agree we should hand out more tax breaks to the richest 2% of americans while this economy is in the situation it's now in. but that shouldn't stop us from protecting the other 98% of americans and do it today. mr. president, another subject, one that's extremely important, i've had a number of briefings lately from people in the administration. we had them in a facility in the capitol; about cybersecurity. over the last few days some of my republican colleagues suggested the senate should delay action on what national security experts have called the most pressing threat facing this country.

instead of considering bipartisan cybersecurity legislation, they say we should first consider the annual defense authorization bill. i argue we need to move rapidly to address a gaping hole in our defenses against cyber attack. the director of the f.b.i., robert mueller, said that cyber threats will soon overtake terrorism as the most significant threat to our national security, and in the minds of some, mr. president, it's difficult to separate cybersecurity and with a people are trying to do and try to do every day, it's the same as terrorism. it's just a different form. a bipartisan group of national security experts led by former executive homeland security michael chertoff -- by the way, a republican -- and former director of national intelligence mike mcconnell appointed during the republican administration said cyber

threats -- quote -- "represent one of the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age." the ranking member of the armed services committee, senator mccain said -- quote -- "we must act now and quickly develop and pass comprehensive legislation to protect our electric grid, our air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more from cyber attack." that's a direct quote from john mccain. and he's right. we need to protect our electric grid. mr. president, you participated. we had over in our classified room, we had a demonstration of how cybersecurity would work, taking down your state in the northeast part of this country. and they could do it relatively easily and it would take weeks and weeks to get it back up. we all watched that. but john mccain said -- what john mccain said is really true. we must pass comprehensive legislation to protect our

electric grid, air traffic control system, water supply, financial networks and defense systems and much more. any one of these things would be devastating to our country if a cyber attack was successful. john mccain suggested this a matter of months ago, almost a year ago. but the threat has only grown worse in that time. and failing to act on cybersecurity legislation not only puts our national security at risk, it recklessly endangers pheplgs of our -- members of our armed forces and missions around the world. service members have been repeat lid targeted by cyber attackers. in one hack last year more than 90,000 military e-mail addresses and passwords were stolen and tphof -- another half of the tricare system, medical records from our military were stolen. if we're serious about protecting our troops we must protect them against cyber

attacks. acting to secure our critical networks doesn't mean we won't do other things to help the defense industry. of course. there are some specific concerns about the defense authorization bill and i've talked about them. we can't allow the defense bill to end around the bipartisan budget control act which has been so important to this country. and if we're going to debate the defense bill, house and senate republicans need to make it clear that they're willing to abide by the budget level set by the law that they all voted for with rare exception. and we must also ensure that the defense bill is not used as a platform to advance irrelevant partisan agendas. mr. president, i want to take just a minute and talk about agent gibson and officer chestnut. it's been 14 years ago and it's really hard to comprehend it's been that long ago. officer chestnut, i knew by saying hello. but we had an event in virginia

where my wife became ill, and i'll never forget agent gibson running from the headquarters where the capitol police was based and administering aid to my wife. that was agent gibson. i remember that so clearly. he was a wonderful, wonderful man. i knew him -- i felt i knew him so well because of his helping my wife. last week this nation was reminded how fragile life is with what happened in colorado and how quickly it can be taken away at random, as we learned in colorado. senseless acts of violence. 14 years ago the capitol community was similarly reminded we must never take life for granted. on this day in 1980, two dedicated united states capitol police officers, special agent john gibson and officer jacob chestnut, gave their lives while

protecting this building and the people in it. and their lives were not spent in vain, mr. president. as a result of their sacrifice, we now have a capitol that's much safer than it ever was. it was the result of their having been killed that we were able to finally get the visitors center done. we were able to get it done. we speeded that up. now we have people coming into this capitol, they are safe in the building. their security is as good as it is anyplace in the world. it's a much more pleasant visit now coming to the capitol. so their lives were not given in vain. while guarding the capitol, agent gibson and officer chestnut were shot to death by really a mad man, no other way to explain it. with the facilities we have now, that would not happen. while nothing can erase the pain of losing a loved one, i hope their families take some measure

of comfort knowing agent gibson and officer chestnut are not forgotten. even 14 years later those of us who work here in the capitol -- mr. president, this is a side note. i take special pride in the fact that i was a capitol policeman. i worked in this building. i carried a pistol. i worked the swing shift as we called it from about 3:00 to 11:00 when i was going to law school. so every year that we give this special recognition to this event having happened, i think of my days here and what a different place it was. of course this were things we had to look out for, but mr. president, as i said before the most dangerous thing i had to do was direct traffic. but that isn't the way it is now with these men and women who take care of us here in the capitol. not just the senators, not just

the staff, but all the millions of people who visit this facility every year. so i honor their service and their sacrifice. and of course i'm forced to think back on really the days of my youth when i was walking around these, this facility mostly at nighttime, a lot of times quite lonely in this build building now for someone where i came from walking in these halls most of the time at night alone. i have to reflect back on that. so we're grateful for the brave men and women who safeguard the people's house. they do it today. they do it every day. we take them for granted and we shouldn't. they are gallant in the work they do. the capitol police is a wonderful, wonderful organization, and i'm proud, every member of the senate is and everyone in the country

should be of the work they do to make this building safe. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start this morning by remembering another deadly shooting, one that hit very close to home for most of us. it was 14 years ago today that officer jacob chestnut and detective john gibson of the capitol police were shot dead in the line of duty right here in the capitol by a lone gunman. their deaths serve as yet

another reminder not only of the reality of evil but of the precious gift of life. and so today we honor them for their lives and the final act of heroism that ended them. a plakin side the capitol commemorates their sacrifice and the capitol police headquarters now bears their names but it is appropriate that we also pause in the midst of our other duties to honor these men and every member of the capitol police force who work so hard to ensure our safety. our officer chestnut was a veteran of the air force. detective gibson also had 18 years of capitol police service and until the day he died had never, never drawn his weapon. both men left behind wives, children, and friends.

today the senate honors both of these good men once again and all of those they left behind. now, mr. president, on another matter, as the senate resumes its work this week, americans are hungry for leadership. the senate debt hovers around $16 trillion. the federal government is on track to spend $1 million more than it takes in for the fourth year in a row. and democrats haven't done so much as pass a budget in nearly four years. president obama meanwhile isn't even talking about us about p what to do about any of these

things. the taxpayers are basically paying him $400,000 a year to hold campaign rallies and show up at fund-raisers. his latest proposal on taxes has more to do with helping his campaign than in reviving the economy. and if you want proof, just ask yourself why democrats don't want to vote on it. republicans will head into tomorrow's vote guided by a simple principle: do no harm. this our view, the best approach to taxes right now is to let every american and every american business know they won't have a higher income tax bill at the end of the year. we think everybody in america should have that certainty. the democrat guidin guiding prie to extent they have one is quiet din. to them, the goal isn't so much

relief for struggling americans or reviving the economy, it's sending a message. and their message is that some people deserve relief and some people don't and they'll decide who those people are. regardless of the effect it has on the broader economy or on jobs. it is an approach that isn't based on any economic outcome but on ideology. and americans are really quite tired of it, because it's been disaster for our economy. think about it. if democrats cared more about helping folks and reviving the economy, then they wouldn't be calling for a tax huge yet throughout this entire debate, democrats haven't offered a single credible argument about how their tax will help strugg

struggling middle-class americans. surely they didn't think this tax increase was the fiscally responsible thing to do. after all, even if they got it -- let's assume they got this tax increase -- it would only generate enough money to fund the government for five days. if they got the tax increase they want, it would only generate enough money to fund the government for five days. the larger point is this: the senate should be in the business of actually making a difference rather than just making political statements. and that's why we think we should have a vote on all three proposals tomorrow. the president's proposal, the senate democrats' proposal and ours. show the american people what's really behind their proposals and what we all stand for. the democrats believe the

president's rhetoric, they'll vote for his proposal. and he'll work to get their support. now, my guess is that democratic leaders won't allow a vote on the president's plan. and that should tell you everything you need to know about the democratic approach to the problems we face. they're either out of ideas, not serious about solving the problems we face, or both. to them, this is more about messaging or passing the buck than it is about helping anybody or preventing an comical lament at the end -- cal lament at the end of -- calamity at the end of this year. the president has proposed a plan he thinks about help him on the campaign trail. now, democrats propose a plan they think helps them here in the senate. what about a plan that actually helps the american people?

it's all politics and positioning to our friends on the other side of the aisle at this point, and it's really quite disgraceful. the time to act on the problems we face is right now. the fiscal cliff draws closer with each passing day. and i think most people think the party in power has some responsibility to do something about it. 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 and their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. conrad: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: mr. president,

before i talk to the matter at around i would like to remember officer chestnut and officer gibson. i do not have a chance to know -- i didn't have a chance to know officer gibson,gy have a chance to know j.j. he had a the house of representatives. i wasn't familiar with where the room was and j.j. took me right to it. and a delightful man, and it was tragic that his life was taken. i'll never forget the funeral. it was one of the most remarkable outpourings i've ever seen. we remember with enormous respect officers chestnut and officer gibson. mr. president, i come to the floor this morning -- first of all, i've got to respond to the republican leader. what a fountain of misinformation. what a fountain of

misinformation. he repeat repeats this canard to budget action has been taken here for four years. well, what about the budget control act that was passed last year, with more than 70 votes here in the united states senate? that was passed instead of a budget resolution. it was a law. anybody that's had even a little bit of civics knows that a law is stronger than a resolution, and indeed that law cut spending by $900 billion over ten years and put in place this sequester that we now face to cut another $1.2 trillion over ten years for a total spending cut of over $2 trillion, the biggest spending cut in the history of the united states, and the republican leader acts as though he never heard of it. it never happened. now, let's get real. we took objection action in the house and the senate, and it was

signed into law by the president. mr. president, the last time our friends on the other side were in charge, their policies brought us to the brink of financial collapse. have we forgotten the economy was shrinking at a rate of 9% in the last quarter of the previous administration? and in their last month in office, we lost 800,000 jobs in one month. that was their record. this administration has turned things around. we're no longer losing jobs, we're gaining them. we're no longerrer shrink in the economy, it's growing. not as strong as we would like, but a remarkable turnaround. after the other side and their policies led us to the brink of financial collapse. mr. president, let's talk about the legislation before us. it assures 98% of the american people they're not going to have

a tax increase, extends expiring provisions on income taxes and income tax relief for everyone below $250,000 a year. it includes incentives to promote work and support families, and it provides relief from the individual alternative minimum tax for one year, a tax that is increasingly affecting the middle class. now, our friends on the other side say, whoa, wait a minute. that means you're going to have on those over $250,000, a top rate of 39.6%. that's true. what happened the last time we had a top rate of 39.6%? that was during the clinton administration. what was the economic record then? the longest period of uninterrupted growth in this nation's history, 24 million

jobs created. that's what happened the last time we had a top rate of 39.6%. mr. president, why is it important that we begin doing something about these growing deficits and debt? because we are on an unsustainable course. this is one place where the republican leader and i would agree. we are on an unsustainable course. we have been since the previous administration. have they forgotten they tripled the debt during that administration? tripled foreign holdings of u.s. debt, doubled the debt. mr. president, we are on an unsustainable course. we are headed for a debt 200% of our g.d.p. if we don't act. and this is a spending and a revenue problem. this chart shows clearly

spending over the last 60 years is the red line. the green line is revenue. as you can see, we are at or near a 60-year high in spending. we're at other near a 60-year low on ref unanimous it is true we've got a spending problem. it is also true we have a revenue problem. revenue at or near a 60-year low. and our friends on the other side, well, let's just have the historic average for revenue. the problem with that, mr. president, it's not a useful benchmark. this is spending going back to 1972, the red line, 40 years. the green line is the historic average for revenue. you can see, if we just had the historic average for revenue, we never would have balanced the budget in a single year over 40 years. that's what the other side wants

to do. mr. president, the fact is, the five times we've balanced the budget since 1969 in 42 years -- the five times we've balanced the budget, revenue was nearly 20% of g.d.p. 19.% in 1969, 19.9% in 1998, 19.8% in 1999, 20.6% in 2000, 19.5% in 2001. mr. president, facts are stubborn things. former republican budget committee chairman judd gregg said this about revenue: "we also know revenues are going to have to go up if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have this huge generation that has to be paid for."

it's the baby-boom generation. and that's not a forecast. that's not a projection. they have been born. they're alive today, and they are going to be eligible for medicare and social security. mr. president, in 2010, we saw some wealthy people paying no federal income tax. none. people with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million in 2010, 14,000 paid nothing. zero. those earning over $1 million in 2010 that paid nothing were 4,000. is that fair? is that fair? it's outrageous. 4,000 people earning over $1 million paid absolutely nothing.

14,000, between $500,000 and $1 million paid absolutely nothing. and our friends want to defend that system? shocking. mr. president, here's what's happening to so-called tax expenditures. we are now spending more money through the tax code than through all of the appropriated accounts, and who are the big winners? the top 1% in income on average get a benefit of $255,000 a year by the so-called credits deductions, exclusions, preferences that are shot through the tax code. mr. president, we have a little five-story build in the cayman islands that claims to be home to 18,000 companies. they all say they're doing business out of that little five-story building. are they doing business out of that little build?

or are they doing monkey business out of that building? 18,000 companies. in a little five-story building in the cayman islands evading and avoiding the taxes due in the united states. other friends on the other side say no change. shouldn't touch that. really? that's fair? i don't think so. mr. president, let's get real. let's get serious. let's take on deficits and debt. let's make certain that everybody has a chance to contribute, even those who are at the top rungs who are now paying nothing. i thank the chair and yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i thank my colleague from north dakota, senator kent conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee. and unfortunately for this country, he's retiring because he's brought to this chamber and to the national debate on our deficits an insight and knowledge of the subject that is unequaled. he has become a close and dear friend of mine, even closer over the last couple of years, while we labored shoulder to shoulder in the simpson-bowles deficit commission and in efforts afterwards, bipartisan efforts in the senate to deal with the deficit. i am disappointed and somewhat troubled by the argument made from many in this chamber that the deficit is the most serious problem facing america, and then in the same breath they call for extending tax cuts to the

wealthiest people in this country. what we are proposing is a tax cut for those making up to $250,000 in income. that will certainly include all -- all -- of the middle class and working families across america. the taxes will be higher for those in 2% of the highest income categories, and i think it's fair. i think those who have done so well and have been so fortunate in this great nation should be willing to pay their fair share of taxes. i support the middle-class tax cut the president's proposed. we want to bring it to the floor for a vote. i support it with the notion that we still have to keep our focus on the economy and creating jobs, number one. and deficit reduction and debt reduction, number two. we can do both. we've got to take care that whatever we do to the tax code does not jeopardize our economic recovery. we are on a positive path, 28

straight months of job creation in the private sector. we want to continue it. but we also need to change a reality, a reality that we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend in washington. that is unfortunate, unsustainable. we've got to make sure that the working families across america who continue to fall further and further behind each year and live pay check to paycheck will have a helping hand from our tax code. i think it's fair. those of us in a higher-income category should pay more. those who are struggling paycheck to paycheck trying to care for their children, they need a helping hand in the tax code. that is not only just and fair, it is good for the economy. those in lower incomes are going to spend their money and do it in a fashion that invigorates the economy with the production of more goods and services. the republican plan that calls for tax cuts even for the highest-income categories, as senator conrad just noted, means

a tax break of $250,000 for millionaires across america. i'm sorry. the people who are making $20,000 a week -- that's what a millionaire would make in the course of a year, $20,000 a week do not need that tax break. they haven't asked for it. they don't need it. and they should be contributing towards reducing this deficit and saving america from deeper cuts in medicare and education and other expenditures that are critical to so many american families. according to a recent analysis, the republican plan would actually end up raising taxes on working families. if you give a tax break to those who are at the highest level of income categories and still go after deficit reduction, then the working class families actually would have to pay more. i asked a number of my constituents to respond to this notion about cutting off the tax cuts at $250,000 in income and several of them responded.

mary from rockford, illinois, said i oppose any extension of tax cuts for the top 2%. i'm the mother of a developmentally disabled adult. i've seen more budget cuts each year for 30 years for the special-needs population. however, for the 30 years we've been involved with this trickle-down theory there have been no conclusive reports showing that theory is working. john, a veteran from plain field and he writes we fully agree with the president. the rich should pay more for their snare. the we the middle class are fading away. we worked most of our lives only to watch corporations take over from fraud and financial markets. jennifer writes i'm appalled congress would consider cutting food stamps and other vital services for poor people and their families. wealthy people can afford to live on a little less. poor children cannot afford to do without food and shelter. when we talk about tax policy and debt reduction, les do it

sensibly. let's help working families. let's fix the tax code in a way that gives them a fighting chance. let's ask the top 2% of wage earn torres pay their fair -- earners to pay their fair share. let's make sure working families are protected. mr. president, i note senator murray was coming to the floor to speak on this tax issue but she has been delayed. and i would like to ask consent that she be recognized to speak after i finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i also ask for consent that if i go over the allotted time in morning business for the majority that i be given an additional -- and senator murray be given an additional period of time and a like amount of time be given to the republican side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that this statement that i'm about to make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, it was 11 years ago, 11 years ago that i introduced a bill called the dream act, a piece of

legislation that would give a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this country the chance to earn their citizenship if they were of good moral character and if they are prepared to serve in the military or complete at least two years of college. the young people who would be eligible for the dream act came to be known as the dreamers. these are young people brought to the united states as children and infants. they grew up in this country, overcoming great obstacles. they will be our future doctors, our engineers, our teachers, our lawyers, our soldiers. they will make america a better nation. they didn't make the decision originally to come to this country. it was a decision made by their parents. and if their parents were breaking the law in that decision, i don't believe that the children should be held responsible. that's not the american way. like the civil rights activists of past generations, the dreamers are speaking out. they are telling their stories publicly even though many of

them know that they risk deportation, deportation from the only country they have ever known as home. they have organized rallies and mars where they advocate for the dream act and they declared their undocumented status. they wear steurts and carry -- t-shirts and signs that carry their slogan undocumented and unafraid. these dreamers have been by my side fighting for the dream act for 11 years and i'm proud of it. in 2007, the first time the dream act came to a vote on the floor of the senate, there were a few dreamers sitting right up in the gallery. we had 52 votes that day. it was a bipartisan majority. frankly, we've always had a bipartisan majority. but we've never had the 60 votes we need to overcome the republican filibuster against the dream act. three years later, in december of 2010, the dream act was again considered on the floor of the senate.

this time it was different. the senate gallery was filled to capacity with dreamers wearing graduation gowns and caps. it was an inspiring sight. that day 55 senators voted for the dream act. again, another bipartisan majority but again fell short of the 60 votes we needed to defeat a republican filibuster of the dream act. i made a commitment that day, after that vote was lost, to the young people who would be eligible for the dream act that i wouldn't give up, that i'd keep on fighting for the dream act as long as it takes to make it a law. since that vote in december of 2010, i have come to the floor of the united states senate to tell the dreamers' stories. i think it's the best way for people to understand the dream act. today i want to tell you about another dreamer. her name is erica andeola. erica was brought to america from mexico when she was 11 years old. she grew up in arizona and

enrolled in arizona state university but then arizona passed a law prohibiting public universities from giving public aid to undocumented students. hundreds of students were forced to drop out of school. erica persevered. she graduated with honors from arizona state with a bachelors degree in psychology. she's been active in advocating for immigrants and the dream act. she is the founding president of the arizona dream act coalition. her dream is to be a school counselor. i story i told of erica andeola is the 50th dreamer whose story i told on the senate floor. it's an amazing group. it includes dreamers who grew up in 17 different states, from oregon and washington and the pacific northwest. and i see my colleague, senator murray on the floor, to illinois and michigan in the midwest, to north carolina and georgia in the southeast. these dreamers came from all over the world to america, from 19 different countries: europe,

asia, africa, south america and central america. yet all of them had something in common: their home is america. they're just asking for a chance to give back to this great country. to mark the occasion of this, my 50th dreamers story on the floor of the senate, many of the dreamers that i featured on the floor have made a trip to washington and have gathered in the gallery. they're here this morning and i'd like to take a few minutes to recognize them. let me start with the person who started the dream act, theresa lee. theresa was brought to the united states when she was two years old to the city of chicago. she received her bachelors and master's degree from the manhattan conservatory of music where she's currently pursuing her doctorate. the next person i'd like to refer to is eric belldaras. eric came to the united states from mexico when he was four years old. he was valedictorian and student council president at his high school in san antonio, texas.

he's now a student at harvard university where he's majoring in molecular and cellular biology. his dream is to be a cancer researcher. the next is man well barch. manuel came to this country from germany. he graduated with a minor in history and wants to pursue a career in government and politics. the next is kelsey burke. kelsey came here from honduras when she was ten years old. she graduated from florida atlantic university with a major in public communications. she'll begin law school this fall. she dreams of becoming an attorney. the next is huliana garabay. came to america when she was 11

years old. she graduated from the university of texas with a bachelors degree in nursing, has been a registered nurse since 2004. she tkraoefpls serving in our military -- dreams of serving in the military as a military next. the next is maria gomez, came to the united states when she was eight. graduated from ucla with a bachelors degree in sociology and master's degree in architect sure. she dreams of being a licensed architect in america. the next, hangelica, graduated from arizona state university, came here when she was nine, an outstanding senior in the mechanical engineering department. the next is olla caso. olla was brought to the united states from albania at the age of five, a premed student in the

honors student at the university of michigan, her dream is to be a surgical oncologist. the next is sahad lemon, brought to america from bangladesh when he was nine years old, graduated from east carolina university with a bachelor's degree in biology. next, john magdaleno, came to the united states from venezuela when he was nine years old. he is an honor's student at georgia tech university where he is a biomedical engineering major. next, tulu olabume brought to the america at the age of nine p. she has never worked a day as a chemical engineer because she can't be licensed. that's her dream to be a licensed engineer. here is gabby pachecko, came to the united states from ecuador

at the rage of seven, now working on a bachelor's degree. wants to teach you a cities particular children. she has become an extraordinary leader in this movement. pedro pedrosa came to the united states when he was five years old, grew up in chicago, graduated from car necessarily university with a b.a. in spanish literature and a minor in latino studies. his dream is to be a teacher. now two brothers in the gallery, carlos and rafael rojos, carlos dreams of being a teacher and may get his chance at palatine high school, rafael dreams of being a licensed architect. next is novi roy, came to the united states from india, graduated from the university of illinois with a bachelor's degree i, his dream is to help

provide affordable health care for all americans. next is philippe suza rodriguez came from brazil when he was 14, recently graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree in business studies rand a minor in economics. his ambition is to be a teacher. the last is cezar similar gas, another good friend who was brought to the united states when he was five years old. he graduated with honors, dreams of serve in the judge advocate corps in our military and serving the nation he loves. i want to thank all the dreamers who are here trade and have gathered in the gallery. they have come a long way. it took an extra effort for them to come to washington, to step forward and to allow me to share their stories with the people who follow this debate. today i'm launching american dreamers, a new web site featuring the dreamers' stories

i have told on the senate, including those here today. you can find it www.durbi www.durbin.senate.gov/dreamers. this is a hopeful time for the dreamers. it is better than it has been in a long time. this president and his administration recently announced that we will give the dreamers temporary legal status to be here in america. this status will allow them to live and work legally without fear of deportation. the status needs to be renewed every two years, but they get their chance. it gives these young immigrants an opportunity to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they've ever called home. the obama administration's new policy will make america a stronger and better nation by giving these dreamers a chance to be part of our future. this policy has strong bipartisan support in congress. my special thanks to senator richard lugar of indiana who

joined me in cosponsoring this bill and asking for this status on immigration years ago. it took extraordinary political courage for him to do that. and i thank him once again, as i have before. according to recent polls, the american people think the president is right in giving these dreamers a chance to earn their way toward legal status. bay margin of almost 2-1. a future president could come along and change this policy, so the dreamers are still at risk, but they are prepared to step up, to follow the law, and to become part of america's future, with permanent residency someday and perhaps citizenship, which is our ultimate dream. the president's new policy is a step in the right direction, but ultimately it is congress that must act, the house and the senate, to pass the dream act and give these young people who have gathered here todd and thousands more just like them the path to citizenship in america. i with aens to give special thanks to majority leader harry reid. the last time we called the

dream act, he took a lot of grief for t they said, it's just a political thing p but it is not. he believes it as so many of us do, and he was prepared to guide the senate through a week-long debate to get to a vote. we didn't have enough votes to break the republican filibuster, but we demonstrated again a bipartisan support for a sound, good idea for america's future. i also want to give special thanks to joe zagi, sitting on the floor here, an attorney on my staff who for 11 years has battled side by side with me to pass the dream act. and vashi yodondi on our staff as well has been terrific in helping to prepare these floor statements and continuing this battle forward. said to the dreamers the last time it was brought to the floor and we didn't have the votes, i'm not going 0 give up on you. don't give up on me. we're going to do this. i'm dedicate indicating to -- i'm dedicated to them and the fact that many of us who are the sons and daughters of immigrants -- and frankly that includes almost all of us in in country

-- understand that the diversity of immigration has made america a stronger place. these dream students will prove once again, as generations have before, that i have goin' a chance they will make america a better country. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the extension of tax cuts for 98% of workers and 97% of small business owners. this should be a no-brainer. democrats do not want taxes on our middle-class families to go up, and republicans claim they want that, too, and they also say they want these tax cuts extending. so, mr. president, this should be easy. when 100 senators agree on a policy, we should be ail to pass a bill. but unfortunately republicans are not focused on the 98% we agree on; they are preoccupied with the 2% that we don't.

and they are prepared to take our country over the edge and into the new year in an effort to prevent millionaires and billionaires from paying a penny more in taxes. republicans are so opposed to having the wealthiest pay the very same rate they were paying during the clinton years that if they can't force through more tax cuts for the rich, they would prefer taxes to go up on middle-class families. they want 98% of workers to pay the price if millionaires are asked to pay a penny more. this is unbelievable, and a deeply cynical position to take. it doesn't make any sense. mr. president, we have a fundamental difference of opinion between the pro parties about -- the two parties about the bush tax cuts that have added trillions of dollars to the deficit and debt. i am not asking republicans to set aside their values. it is clear they are deeply committed to putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy. all i'm saying is -- all

democrats are saying is that we shouldn't let that disagreement on tax tax cuts for the rich cause taxes to go up for the middle class. we can certainly have a debate about the merits of extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i'm confident republicans are ready to stand here on the floor, make their case-on-. i'm prepared to make mine. but i urge our republican colleagues now not play political games with the tax cuts that both sides believe should be extended because, mr. president, holding these middle tax cuts hostage is bad policy, it is bad economics, and frankly it is bad politics. poll after poll show the american people support ending the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. republicans know they're in an unsustainable political position. they know they can't be seen as holding middle-class tax cuts hostages for more tax cuts for the rich. and last week see saw how they

reacted when they got called. stomping their fist, trying to muddy the water, trying to change the subject. they do everything but admit it is time for compromise. in fact just this morning the republican senator from pennsylvania gave a speech about his plan for even deeper tax cuts for the rich, down to just 28% for the wealthiest americans. it's stunning, while democrats are fighting for tax cuts for the middle class, republicans are not only holding them hostage to continue the tax cuts for the rich, they're also scheming for ways to cut taxes for the wealthiest americans even more. but their rhetoric is not going fool the families and small business owners in america. you know, i recently heard from a constituent of mine -- his name is rob robinson, from wa walawala. he owns a small construction company, finished work on the

local police department. he said to me, "i've been a small business owner for over 25 years and it is outrageous to me that some members of congress would hold up middle-class tax cuts for the sake of protecting the wealthy from paying their fair share," and he went on. he said, "the fact that they justify cutting taxes for the wealthy by invoking the name of small businesses tells me they are simply out of touch with the economic reality of the majority of small business owners in the country." i heard from another small business owner. his name is alan willis. alan opened up his small business, tri-city music in 2008 and he wrote to me say, "i'm like a lot of main street small business owners. i open the shop in the morning, close it down at night, i vacuum the carpets, i clean the bathrooms, i strive to provide my customers with an incredible

level of customer service after the sale. i work hard, and i'm blessed that i make enough to pay my fair share of taxes." lain told me, "when republicans hide behind the name of small business to support their agenda for lower tax cuts for the rich, they don't speak for me. let's call it what it is: political identity theft. they are stealing the name of small business as a smoke screen for tax policy that benefits millionaires." that is a quote from alan. mr. president, i also heard from a constituent of mine named dallas baker. he told me he loves serving his community and making a difference. but he said, "my daughters and i are all making sacrifices now. we are comfortable but we are losing ground. if taxes went up for middle-class families like his, it would only get harder.

mr. president, rob and alan and dallas are among the 98% of workers the democrats' bill would extend our tax cuts for. those are the people i'm fighting for. them and millions across america. middle-class families who have been struggling, who have sacrificed so much, who shouldn't see their taxes go up. but, mr. president, my republican colleagues don't seem to be focused on people like rob and alan and douglas. they are much more concerned about the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, many of whom happen to be their biggest campaign and super pac donors. they may claim to be here talking about small business orientation but they aren't speaking for the small business owners i hear from. not small business owners like rob and alan or the 97% who democrats are here fighting for tax cuts for. fighting for people like joseph

craft. he is a call industry billionaire. mr. craft is worth an estimated $1.4 billion according to forbes and republicans are fighting to cut his taxes. they're fighting for people like harold simmons. he made his billion on corporate buyouts. harold is worth an estimated $9 billion and republicans are fighting to cut his taxes, too. and they're fighting for people like harold hmmm amm, an oil and gas billionaire. he is worth an estimated $11 billion. and republicans are doing everything they can to make sure their taxes don't go up a penny. mr. president, the vote on the middle-class tax cut extension is going to be very -- it is going to highlight some stark contrasts and give american people a clear view in the priorities of our two parties. democrats are here focused on middle class. we want to extend the tax cuts for 98% of our workers and 97%

of small business owners. people like rob, alan, dallas and millions more. but if republicans do not vote for our tax cut bill, it will demonstrate clearly they don't care about certainty, they don't care about the economy, and they certainly don't care about the middle class. rather, they care about extending those tax cuts for the rich above all else and use every bit of leverage they have to do it, and they're prepared to let taxes go up on every family if they don't get their way. so, mr. president, i hope they change their tune. they say inaction is not an option. well, here is their chance to act for 98% of workers and 97% of small business owners. all they have to do is stop playing games and stand with us to pass our bill this week. and if they do, i would be happy to have an honest debate about extending the bush tax cuts for the rich that they're so passionate about. if they don't and taxes go up on every american because republicans insist on protecting

and extending the bush tax cuts for these guys, then they're going to have to explain that to rob and alan and dallas and the millions of families and business owners just like them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i thank the president. the senator from washington said republicans often change the subject. that's exactly what we intend to do. we intend to change the subject from raising taxes to creating jobs. in terms of taxes, according to the congressional budget office report recently, this is hard to believe. you have to go back and read it again. but 20% of americans who pay individual taxes pay 94% of all the taxes. 20% of americans pay 94% of the taxes. and the president and his allies

are about the only ones in the country right now who are going out across the country to say the way to solve this five years of recession and bad economy that we've experienced is to raise taxes on the people who create millions of jobs. that's their argument, that the way to deal with the bad economy we're in is to raise taxes on the people who create millions of jobs. we don't believe that. we're prepared to keep the tax rates where they are while we deal with what we need to deal with, which is the fiscal cliff that the chairman of the federal reserve board talks about, which he says if we do not deal with at the end of the year we'll produce, according to the congressional budget office as well, a recession in the first six months of 2013. more loss of jobs. so the subject we're here to talk about this morning is how to avoid that, and the question we're going to ask is why not bring up the appropriations bills and do our job under the

constitution to limit spending and get a head start on the business of putting the fiscal problems we have behind us. nothing could create jobs more rapidly than for us to bring washington into some solvency, create some certainty. people have said we're not going to invest, we're not going to hire until we see whether congre can act. as far as the appropriations bills, here are the basics. we have 12 of them we pass every year. a bipartisan group of us went to the floor a few months ago and praised the majority leader and the republican leader for their agreement to try to bring them to the floor and pass them. that's only happened twice in 12 years. so we worked hard to do that. nine of the 12 appropriations bills are ready for the senate to consider. in other words, they have been all the way through the process. they're ready for the senate to consider. only the majority leader can

bring them to the floor. yet he said two weeks ago suddenly no appropriations bills this year. that's 38% of the budget. that's more than $1 trillion. that's our job to do. it's the way we control spending. yet we're not even going to deal with it, mr. president. so this morning we're going to talk about the consequences of that and hope that the majority leader will change his mind, bring these bills to the floor. the house is doing its job. 11 of theirs are ready for house action and the house passed six. while they may be at a different spending level than we are we have a procedure for dealing with that called the conference, which is the way we deal with tk-frpbss between -- differences between the two houses. suddenly we're saying no budget, no appropriations bills. that's why we're on the floor today. i'd like to begin by asking the senator from georgia, who is a former leader of the republicans in the georgia legislature and

who's been here for a number of years and who's been one of the leaders in this body of working across party lines to try to cause the senate to do its job, whether he can think of a good reason why we shouldn't be dealing with appropriations bills this year. spoeup -- mr. isakson: i khafrpbg -- thank senator alexander for the recognition. i think back to what happened sunday night. my wife went to my son and his wife's house to cook out hamburgers on sunday night. three of my nine grandchildren were there. elizabeth, sarah catherine and lee. elizabeth had been to a birthday party the theme of which was dressing american dolls. she sat by me and said grandpa i want to talk to you about my american girl doll and some accessories that i want to buy. and so she went over to me how

much money it would take to buy the accessories and how much money she made for her chores. we budgeted how many chores it's going to take to make the amount of money she needs to buy the american girl doll. riding home that night i commented to my wife, i just spent more time talking about budgeting and appropriating with my granddaughter than i've spent the entire year in the united states senate. this morning i was with bud peterson, the president of the georgia institute of technology. you can identify this as a former president of university of tennessee. he was talking about how tuition hasn't gone up that much but the amount of state supported to subsidize state tuition has gone down because states are having to live within their means, having to cut. i thought to myself here we are in washington, the leaders of the country, the people who should be setting the example, yet my state and my granddaughter are doing a better job than we are. and that's an indictment of the system. i joined with you when we

commended senator reid on saying he was going to bring appropriations bills to the floor. and i will come to the floor and cheer him again if he will bring them to the floor. we're running out of time but also running out of patience of the american people. senator alexander's remarks about jobs, appropriations are all about jobs. right now we're operating for the third year in a row under what's known as continuing resolutions. you know what that means? that means we're continuing to do things just as badly as we did the year before because we are not facing the music, not prioritizing our expenditures, we're not talking about the appropriations of the american people and their tax dollars. senator murray was talking about taxes as one part of the equation. it's only one pending is the otf the equation. you only address spending by taking up appropriations bills, by having debate and by moving forward. skwruftd by way of -- just by way of example in my state, my state is having a referendum in two weeks on a $7.4 billion increase in sales tax dedicated for ten years to roads and

improvements in infrastructure because our state needs it and the taxpayers are going to vote on it. president obama just announced a couple of weeks ago a prioritization of the port of savannah and georgia in terms of deepening and widening of that project. if we're not doing appropriations bills on wrda, not doing appropriations bills on highways, those jobs aren't going to come or we're not going to have the jobs and velocity of investment we need to have. it's an indictment of the greatest democracy on the face of this earth. the leader of the entire free world that at a time when we're in difficult kwraoerbgs a time of increased debt, a time of great challenges, we're talking more with our grandchildren about spending and saving than we're talking to each other about the money of the taxpayers of the united states of america. i commend the senator from tennessee and the senator from missouri on their dedication to this subject and the leadership he's shown on appropriation and subcommittee work. senator cochran, all the members of the appropriations committee. the bills are ready.

all it takes is for somebody to say bring them to the floor. i hope senator reid will reconsider not bringing them to the floor and instead bring them to the floor. let us talk about the american people's money, talk about jobs, talk about investment in the greatest country on the face of this earth. i yield back to the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from georgia for his clear statement about how solving the appropriations problems, solving the fiscal problems create an environment in which the private sector in this country is willing to create more jobs and how failing to do that would create, in the words of the chairman of the federal reserve board, would be destructive, in the estimate of the congressional budget office, would create a recession in the first 12 months of 2013. now the senator from missouri is a former number-two leader in the house of representatives, and now he's a part of the senate republican leadership, so he has some special knowledge about how the two houses work

together. the majority leader gave us his reason why he couldn't bring up the appropriations bill. one, that it didn't fit the budget control act. well, the budget control act which we passed -- i voted for it -- set a limit on appropriations. and the senate is marking up our bills to that number. the house is marking up to a number a little below. and the majority leader said, well, they're at one number. the senate is at another number. so we just won't do anything. when i asked the senator from missouri, i thought it was a pretty normal procedure for the house of representatives to do what it thought it ought to do and the senate to do what it thought it out to do, and there -- thought it ought to do and there is something called a conference for the senate and house to work out the differences. mr. blunt: that's exactly right that that's the way the process is supposed to work. i think the observation you made on the budget control act is that's the maximum amount of money we agree to spend, and the majority leader's view is if the

house decides to spend less than that, somehow we just can't move forward. now the truth is that's the excuse for this year. in the six years that the current majority has controlled the senate, they haven't passed a budget three times, and three times haven't brought a single appropriations bill to the floor. i don't know exactly what the excuse was the other times, but this year it's, well, the house has a different number. the house is a different institution. it's the house of representatives. they get elected every two years. they bring bills to the floor. in fact, they have had a budget the last two years, and we haven't. i think the house the last year that the other majority controlled, the year that -- the last year that nancy pelosi was speaker, didn't have a budget. that may be the only time ever since the budget control act that the house didn't have a budget. but the senate -- i mean since the budget law in 1974.

but the senate hasn't had a budget for three years. you know, there's an old saying, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. and clearly, the budget's a plan. and the parliamentarian says we don't have one. the parliamentarian says that the senate has failed to obey the law for three years now because we don't have a budget. we're not prepared to tell the american people what our budget is. and even in spite of not having a budget, the senate appropriations committee has gone ahead and figured out a number that they could use as the number to appropriate to, and those bills are ready. the only problem is those bills aren't allowed to come to the floor. and just a few days ago -- i can't remember what the waste of time of that week was on the senate floor, but i said, and

the leadership stakeout, why aren't we doing the things we're supposed to be doing that give us a plan, that tell the american people what we're for and then at the next moment, the next press opportunity, the majority comes out and they asked the leader why aren't they doing that? and the majority leader says, well, because the house has a different number. so we're not going to mark any -- we're not going to have an appropriations process until the election is over. now, it's particularly interesting to me, senator alexander, that the majority's view is that they don't want to tell people until the election is over what they're for. the house is saying what they're for. they have had 11 bills of the 12 ready to go to the floor, more than half of them have been voted on. they voted on a budget. but in the senate of the united states, we're not prepared to tell people what we're for. and another thing -- and this is old. this is 38% of the budget. you mentioned this earlier.

what about the other 62%? the other 62% now gets spent if we don't even show up. if nobody takes any action because we've already defined the so-called entitlement part of the budget. a lot of that is medicare, medicaid and social security. 62% -- and, by the way, that was all of the money that came in. and while we've not had a budget for three years, while over six years we've only brought appropriations bills to the floor three times, our national debt has nearly doubled. it went from $8.67 trillion when the current majority leader became the majority leader to $15.867 trillion now, six years later. we've doubled the debt. we have failed to plan, which i guess the old adage is true. if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. and our big failure is we've allowed the debt of the country,

the debt that was accumulated in over 200 years, we've now doubled in six years. and during that six years we have just simply been unwilling to do our work. the american people are upset about what's happening in washington, and they should be. i'm upset about it, too, and we could be talking about spending on the floor of the senate and that's the only way to ever get spending under control. and the appropriations bills, the most basic work that the congress is supposed to do -- and by the way, we ought to get to where we're talking about more than 38% of the budget when we talk about the appropriations bills. we have to get that back in the right category as well. but, you know, we've got to make the senate work. the best way to do that is to do the job that the congress is supposed to do, the house and the senate, and when only the

house does it, there's no chance to have that conference that -- yeah, that's how legislation works back to the original point. the house passes a bill. you know, any of us that had the basic civic course remember how that chart looked. the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, then you go to conference and talk about the differences. but the current majority wants to -- is saying, well, if there are differences, we could never work that out, so we just won't do our part of the legislative process. we just won't have the debate in the senate. we won't tell the american people what we're for, and we'll let them go to the polling place on election day guessing if they want to -- what we might be for, but we're certain float going to let them find that out by bringing legislation to the floor. the senate is not doing its work. this is the fundamental work that needs to be done. i mean, imagine when you were the governor of tennessee or when you were the president of

the university of enten if you just decided we're not going to have a budget or this interesting argument that some of our colleagues make that the budget control act is the budget because it sets the top line. that would be like when you were governor, senator alexander, if you'd gotten your advisor and that you are cabinet together and said, here's the amount of money we're going to spend. now let's just see how it's going to work. that would be the budget? of course that wouldn't be the budget. and it would be disaster, and the six-year deficit numbers of $8.67 trillion to now six years later $15.87 trillion, that proves that the disaster truly has happened. and i just can't imagine. your thoughts -- how would you possibly have run a state or run a university or run a business if your budgeting process was, here's the top number we're going to spend. now let's go and see how it works out. mr. alexander: this is such a

breathtaking assertion by the majority leader it's hard to grasp it. i mean, here we are in a fiscal mess. i mean, everybody says that. now, they'll say it's for a limp reason 0 p that side -- for a different reason on that side than we do. but everybody acknowledge that. everybody acknowledges as well that while the rest of the world is in trouble we're just in a little less trouble. and that we can get out of our trouble more easily than the rest of the world and that the whole -- not whole but the single-biggest decision about whether the united states deals with its fiscal crisis and gets the economy moving again is whether the president and the congress can govern. that's what everyone says and we know that it's true. so, in other words, this isn't out of our hands. this isn't out of our control. in fact it is within our hands.

all we have to do is come to some agreement about how much money we can spend, reform the taxes, reduce the debt, control entitlement spending, and this country will take off like a rocket. the retiring head of the world bank last month told a briefing of about 35 democratic and republican senators, all of whom are concerned about this, all of whom are committed to working on it, that people who are making decisions about whether to hire people or whether to invest more money in the united states have stopped. they've stopped because of the uncertainty. and what are they waiting on? they're waiting to see whether we can function. they're waiting to see whether we can govern. they've stopped to wait to see. this is not an encouraging indication about whether the united states can govern. we had some encouragement earlier in the year. that's why we came to the floor, several of us, on both sides of

the aisle, complimented the majority leader, complimented the republican leader. we applaud your decision to do the budget agreement. it says in section 9 of article 1, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. in other words, this is our job in article 1. the people say i use the grand ol' opry as an analogy sometimes. but why would you join the grand ol' opry if you didn't want to sing in if yo? if senator blunt has a flood problem out in missouri, he can make the argument that he made last year: put some more money in to take care of the flood victims. or if we want less of this or more of that, the way we do that is going through the appropriations process, coming to the floor, offering amendments, representing our --

the people who recreate elect us and sent us here. what are we supposed do when we go home and they say, well, we think there should be more money for the dam or more money fo for the levees down along the mississippi and there ought to be less money for loans like solyndra? are we supposed to say, well, sorry, we're not in business in the senate because the one person who can put an appropriations bill on the floor has announced suddenly that he's not going to do it? it is not because we don't have time to do it. here we are. we could be doing it today. i bet we don't even have a vote today. we've been wasting the entire month. we could have taken up every one -- almost every one, most of the nine appropriations bills that are ready to be enacted and put them on the floor to vote. i would say to the republican senator from missouri, you are a

part of the republican leadership. you have that honor. and there's a different way to run the united states (i mean, we -- and maybe that should be a major factor in the election this year. maybe people who would like to see the senate work on the trillion dollars that is part of the appropriations bills, bring amendment bills to the floor in a bipartisan way, let senators from every state vote on those, vote them up or down, that would be one way to run the united states senate. and i wonder if that kind of discussion has been going on in the republican leadership about how, if we were fortunate enough to have a majority move a few desks from that side over to this side as a result of the election, how do you think senator mcconnell and the republican leadership would conduct business in the senate? mr. blunt: i do think we are having that discussion, particularly about the budget. there have never been 60 popularly elected republican senators, so anytime republicans

control the senate, it was with a number that was below 60 and the budget became incredibly important, because you can do things that involve spending money or collecting money during the ten-year budget window, during a decade, and at that decade can be extended every single year if you want it to so you can always be talking ten years in the future of solid policy. and by the way, in a democracy, ten years of knowing what the policy is , is a the love time. we have to have a budget. our friends in the majority now, there are 53 of them. they can do anything in the budget or at least set out to do anything in the budget that 53 of them said they wanted to do. they could change tax policy for ten years if 53 of them wanted to do it. they could change how we implement the president's health care bill, if 53 of them wanted to do it, because that's spending money, and we would have to do that.

i don't think there's any doubt that if our side was in the majority, we would have a budget because frankly it's the biggest tool that our size majority has ever had. we couldn't rely on 60 for everything. mr. alexander: i've heard senator mcconnell, the republican leader, speak in both our republican caucus and in meetings with democrats in committee, and publicly. i believe he has made it absolutely clear that if he were fortunate enough to be the majority leader, he would be appropriations bills to the floor and that he'd see that a large number of amendments from both sides of the aisle were offered and that we would be working longer, working later, getting more done. mr. blunt: i think you're exactly right. he's made that pledge at press conferences. i think some of that has been said recently on the floor here of the senate. let's get our work done and if we were in the majority, we

would pledge we would get our work done. that means that republican senators and democrat senators would wind up having to take some votes that they'd just as soon not take. but that's always been part of being in the senate, that you're here to say what you're for. and you are here for six years to say what you're for. the last six years -- if you've served in the senate, the only time in the senate, as it would be the case for some of our senators in the senate, the last six years you haven't had chance to say what you are for. we've added to the legislate tough dialogue normal phrases that didn't use to be quite as normal like the continuing resolution, and what's the continuing resolution? that means you basically can't get your work done for the next year, so you're just going decide to put a couple of band-aids on whatever the rules were for last year and move forward. when you talk about continuing resolutions, that's a failure. and when we come back in

september -- we're going to have a few more days here in july, early august, then as congress has always done we'll go home and hear a lot of complaints in august this year because we're not getting our work done. we're going to come back in september. the fiscal year -- the spending year ends the end of september. and what are our choices going to be? we're not going to have good choices. we've had no appropriations bills, so the choice is to either let the government stop functioning on october 1 or continue spending money at the level that we decided who knows how many years ago to spend that money in many of these programs because we've really nod talked about these -- not talked about these programs. so we go from no goodies an even worse choice. mr. alexander: what makes this especially disappointing -- and i -- we're all good friends here. i mean, people sometimes talk about lack of civility in the (the fact is, the senate is

probably the most civil place in the united states. we're excessively nice to each other. we have disagreements, but we're nice to each other. what's disappointing is it's not functioning. the senate is not functioning like it's supposed to do. it would be as if the president announced, well, i'm not going to the office for a month or two. or in the supreme court said, well, you know, it's gotten to be february, and we think we'll stop deciding cases and go home, go on vacation. what would the american people say? well, that's what's happening here, and it's not that we don't have the time. we have it right now, this minute, that we could doing it and what makes it especially disappointing was that earlier this year there was what i would call an outbreak of good government. i mean, we had the majority leader and the republican leader saying, or, let's bring up a the a-- or, let's bring all -- okay, let's bring all the appropriations bills to the floor. people on both sides applauding them. suddenly we had bills coming to the floor that made a difference

in the lives of americans, the f.a.a., which is about airline safety, and the farm bill and the highway by and the postal service bill. and thanks to suggestions by the senator from michigan, senator levin, and others we began adopt an agreement that, let's allow all relevant amendments to the bill, so we began to vote a lot. one of those bills had 73 votes, i think, and then there were even some amendments that weren't relevant. it began to look like the time in the 1980's when senator byrd and baker ran the senate and senator byrd or baker would come to the floor and say, all right, here's a bill, it's supported by the democratic chairman and the ranking republican, or vice versa. they put it on the floor, they had sea for amendments, they might get 300 and then they'd say, i ask unanimous consent to have no more amendments. of course they'd get it because anybody that had wanted an amendment had offered one. then they'd start tovestment the majority leader would say, we're going to stay until we finish

and they did. that never was perfect. it's always a little messy. that's the way the senate is. but they got a lot of work done. that's what makes this so disappointing. mr. blunt: it is disappointing in that as you say it is not even that hard to figure out what we could be doing or what we should be doing or what's the fundamental work of what we should be doing. you know, there are things that the constitution says we can't do, like initiate a tax bill. so we spend a the love time on tax bills that even if we passed one would be unconstitutional and the house would say, because they have the right to start those bills, we're not going to deal with that because it is out outside the constitution. it the not like this is a hard formula. and how do you get spending under control? the number-one domestic priority in the country should be more private-sector job creation. but the number-one priority for the federal government would be how do you get spending under control? how do we begin to pay off debt rather than add to debt? the only way you can do that is

debating spending bills. once we do that you mentioned the former head of the world bank a minute ago. i heard you mention a few days ago, you know, several years ago after you left the governship, you spent some time in australia and made good friends there. one of the former prime ministers of australia, i'll let you tell that so, but everybody in the world knows the best and the strongest economy and workforce in the world is ours if we just do the right thing and the right thing is not that hard to figure out. but y but you were telling me, one of the former prime ministers just returned to the government after some time away, but his comment about what it takes for our country to reassert itself as the economic place to watch and place to be and place to want to be. you remind me exactly about that story. i thought it was very telling that people all over the world

understand what it is we ought to do, we're just not doing it. mr. alexander: i would be happy to do that, senator. actually, bob zelick, the retiring head of the world bank, reported the story that there were 35 or 40 of us of both parties who were meeting to try to do what we're talking about, which is to deal with all these fiscal cliff issues coming at the end of the year. he repeated, bob carr, the new foreign minister of australia, saying in washington the united states is one budget agreement away from reasserting its global parameters. all of us believe the united states is the preeminent country in the world. but that comes from a great friend of the united states who wants us to succeed, who knows that we can't. he knows we want to economy moving again and they want to get their economy moving again. the main thing we need to do is make this fiscal agreement deal with the debt, deal with tax reform, deal with the payroll

taxes, deal with the scweefer sequester, deal with the appropriations bills. this is the single most important thing we can do to get our economy moving again instead of head norwood a depression. he put it that way to reassert, establish, claim, renew, whatever adjective or verb you want to use to -- to maintain america's global preeminence, the way to do that is to get a budget agreement at the end of the year. we're off to such a promising start this year, and now we slid backwards. so it's my hope -- and we will conclude with this. i will let the senator from missouri make the final remarks on the colloquy, but it would be my hope that the majority leader would decide we could use the rest of our time this week and next week to deal with appropriations bills, and that when we come back in september, that we could deal with more. it doesn't take long. just put them on the floor and let's get to work.

we can agree on a reasonable number of amendments, we showed we can do that before. and the american people would appreciate us doing our job. remember, there are nine of the 12 ready to go. it affects 38% of the budget. that's more than $1 trillion in sending. that would be one more indication that we're capable of governing ourselves, which is the single most important signal that those who invest and create jobs in america need to see and hear from washington, d.c. so i thank the senator from missouri for his leadership, and i thank him for coming to the floor. mr. blunt: my only thought as we're standing here finishing up this discussion is that as people hear this, they say senator alexander, senator blunt, they are just talking about how the federal government can spend the money and that being the most important thing. if you're going to get spending under control, of course it's the most important thing. it's not a desire to spend money. it's a desire to debate how we

spend the money. it's a desire to plan how we spend the money. it's a desire to give as much notice as we can to the country, to the states, to people who are trying to make job creating decisions that the american government is going to do the right things, that the american government is going to plan for a future that makes sense rather than fail to plan and stumble into a future that continues just to do the wrong things. we have seen the debt of the country almost double now in six years. surely that's enough indication that what we're doing is not working, and more of the same is not the answer. getting back to the real responsibility of the senate to do its job. the house is doing its job, and they're going to take some criticism about the programs they said should be cut or redefined. we need to do our job.

that's the way this process has to work. it's disappointing that it's not working. we're going to come back here in all likelihood in september with bad choices that will be made. one is to shut the government down. one is just to somehow continue spending money just like we have been spending it as the debt of the united states of america doubled in about six years. and i yield back to my friend from tennessee. mr. alexander: we yield back the remainder of our time. i notice the -- well, mr. president, i see the senator from nebraska here, and i -- i would -- would he be willing to be a part of our colloquy or is he here to make another statement? mr. johanns: well, i am here to make another statement, but i do want to associate myself with what the two gentlemen have said, the gentleman from missouri and the gentleman from tennessee.

i look at our assignment between now and the end of the year, and we have some monumental issues to tackle. in fact, so monumental that many are referring to the work that needs to be done as a fiscal cliff. some are talking in the vein of we are going to cause another recession unless we come to grips with these issues, and i look at this week and so many weeks that have passed this year and nothing is done. i'm going to guess when this week is all said and done, we will probably take three votes. that seems unbelievable for the united states senate. it doesn't have to be this way. it doesn't have to be this way at all. we could be addressing the important issues that face our nation. there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be addressing those issues. let's debate bills.

let's vote on them. let's do the right thing for our country. i thank the two gentlemen for their comments. i'm pleased to be able to associate myself. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. i would like the following comments to be reported separately. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to remember a fallen hero, u.s. marine corps lance corporal hunter h.d. hogan. lance corporal hogan was killed in action while supporting combat operations in afghanistan on june 23, 2012. lance corporal hogan cultivated a desire to serve our nation at an early age and followed in his father's footsteps when he enlisted in the marine corps on

october 26, 2009. he, like so many young marines, could have pursued other students outside of the military, but he instead chose to take an oath of service to our great country. he was rightfully proud of that oath and remained faithful to the commission -- mission and to his brothers in arms. the hogan family laid their marine to rest in york, nebraska, on july 6, 2012. lance corporal hogan served with honor and valor, having been awarded the purple heart, the combat action ribbon, the c-service deployment ribbon, the afghanistan campaign medal, the global war on terrorism service medal and the national defense service medal. hunter is mourned by his wife

brittany, his father, mother, grandparents and so many others. i know his family is proud of him and will always remember his spirit and his quick wit. his sense of adventure and his enthusiasm for rodeo, hunting and fishing will also be fondly remembered. hunter's passion for life and those around him allowed him to be the best marine that he could be, but strong marines are not possible without the support of a family. hunter's family chose a quote by senator paul h. douglas to describe their young marine's passion for the corps. quote -- "those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the marine corps value our experience as among the most precious of our lives. the fellowship of shared

hardships and dangers in worthy cause creates a close bond of comradeship. it is the basic reason for the cohesiveness of the marines and for the pride we have in our core and our loyalty to each other." unquote. we hold our heads high when we speak of the strong tradition of military service in our great state of nebraska. we are honored to call him one of our own, and i know that nebraskans across the state will provide his family with care or love during this very difficult time. may god bless the hogan family and all of our service men and women both home and abroad. lance corporal hunter hogan, forever a marine, forever a cowboy. semper fi.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise this morning in strong support of the middle-class tax cut relief act that would extend tax cuts for 98% of the american people while letting the bush tax breaks for the healthiest 2% expire at the end of this year. mr. president, i also want to express my strong opposition to the mcconnell-hatch bill that

would provide tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks next year to millionaires and billionaires who today are doing phenomenally well. really, this is not a complicated issue, mr. president. the united states now is seeing growing wealth and income inequality. the middle-class is disappearing. poverty is increasing. the people on top are doing very, very well at the same time as the effective tax rate of the millionaires and billionaires are the lowest that they have been for many, many decades. this country has a $16 trillion national debt. we have a $1 trillion deficit this year, and to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires i believe makes no sense to me and i believe makes no sense to the american people. mr. president, the republican -- our republican friends have made it very clear that when they say

that they don't want to raise taxes on anyone, that's just code for saying they don't want to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. and i should add that if governor mitt romney becomes president, he has proposed even more tax breaks for the very wealthiest people in this country while at the same time cutting social security, ending medicare as we know it and slashing investments in education, transportation, childcare, nutrition and a variety of other programs that benefit working families and the middle class. mr. president, this morning i want to say a few words about social security, and let me be very clear that when we talk about social security, it's imperative that we understand

that social security has not contributed one nick toll our deficit or our national debt, so when people say we have a national debt problem and that we have social security and they fuse the two together, that is simply incorrect. as all americans know, social security is independently funded through payroll tax contributions from workers and employers and up until last year, it has received no funding from the federal treasury. despite the rhetoric that we hear from republicans and those on wall street, social security is not in financial crisis. social security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. social security according to the social security administration will be able to pay out 100% of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.

although the american people now take social security for granted, we should never underestimate the incredibly positive impact that social security has had on our country. sometimes we do forget it, especially when those people coming up here, "let's cut social security, let's cut social security." let's talk about what social security has accomplished. iness its inception over 75 -- since its inception over 75 years ago, through good economic times and bad, through terrible recessions, social security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary with minimal administrative costs. this is an extraordinary accomplishment. nobody has ever received a letter from the social security administration saying sorry, we're in the middle of recession, we've had to cut your benefits in half. every eligible beneficiary has received 100% of the benefits owed to him or her.

during this 75-year period, social security has succeeded in keeping millions of senior citizens, widows, orphans and persons with disability out of poverty. before social security existed, almost half of america's senior citizens lived in poverty. today that number is too high but it is 10%, not 50%. mr. president, more than 55 million americans now receive social security benefits. i would contrast that record with the situation we recently saw on wall street when millions of americans lost significant or all of their retirement savings because of the collapse of wall street and the financial crisis that we went through. but, mr. president, despite this success, despite this incredibly strong record, my republican

friends and too many democratic friends are calling for cuts in social security. for example, we know where mitt romney stands on social securi security. mr. romney wants to begin the process of privatizing social security. i disagree with that because i think that would benefit primarily his friends on wall street. because if you privatize social security, where are people going to get their retirement benefits? from all street. and those guys on wall street will end up making huge amounts of money by charging the average american a significant commission for their services. mr. romney wants to gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. i don't agree with that. at a time when 23 million americans remain unemployed or underemployed and when the long-term unemployment for senior citizens is skyrocketing, you tell me, how many employers out there are going to say to a

68-year-old person on a 69 yerl person, we'v69-year-old person,a great job for you? especial physical you're in the construction trades, or if you're a nurse or if you're somebody who stands on your feet eight or nine hours a day, a waiter or waitress. i don't think those jobs are going to be there if we raise social security retirement age. i don't know what those folks are going to be doing for income. finally, mr. president, the romney campaign has put on his web site the following -- and i quote -- "mit believes that social security benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes." well, what does that mean in english? while mr. romney has been somewhat vague about his intentions and has not spell out the exact details of this proposal -- spelled out the exact details of this proposal, some of my republican friends in the senate have provided what i believe is the road map that mr. romney is talking about. last year, senators lindsey

graham, rand paul and mike lee introduced a bill that would, among other things, reduce the future growth rate of social security benefits for the top 60% of earnest. 60% o0 of earners. by establishing what they call a -- progressive price index." who are these so-called higher-income individuals that my republican friends are talking about? under this republican bill, a worker making about $45,000 a year today retiring in 2050 would receive 32% less in annual social security benefits than under the current formula. how much is a 32% cut for this middle-class wage earner? it's about $7,500 a year. and that, my friends, is a lot of money for a retiree. mr. president, it should come as no surprise that republicans in washington and governor romney

want to slash social security. the truth is, republicans have never liked social security and they have been attacking social security since its inception. that is not news. the question, however, that millions of americans are asking themselves today is where president obama stands on social security. unfortunately, he has been largely silent on this issue since he has been in the white house and during the current 2012 campaign. he made a very strong statement recently in correctly attacking the republican proposal, the so-called ryan proposal, to move medicare toward a voucher program. but unless i'm mistaken, i did not hear a word from him on the future of social security. and that is a shame. that is a shame because candidate barack obama, when he was running for president in

2008, made it very clear to the american people that he would be a strong defender of social security. so let me remind the american people exactly what barack obama said on the campaign trail in 2008. on september 6, 2008, barack obama told the aarp the following -- and i quote -- "john mccain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on social security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. let me be clear -- i will not do either." candidate, senator barack obama. on april 16, 2008, senator barack obama said -- and i quote -- "the alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people making less than $97,000 a year, which today would be $110,000 a year, those are not good policy options."

on november 11, 2007, candidate barack obama said, "i believe that cutting social security benefits is not the right answer and that raising the retirement age is not the best option." and in order to address the long-term financial challenges of social security, candidate barack obama came up with an idea that i believe hit the nail on the head. it was exactly the right approach. and i have applauded him for come ucoming up with that idea. what he said is he would apply the social security payroll tax on income above $250,000 a year to make sure that a millionaire and a billionaire pays the same percentage of their income into social security as someone who today makes $110,000 a year. bottom line is you lift the cap on taxable income, billionaires

and millionaires above $250,000 a year start contributing into the social security trust fund fund.doing thi doing this -- and recent reports have confirmed this -- would ensure that social security would remain solvent for the next 75 years. mr. president, in 2008, candidate barack obama was exactly right, that is the solution to the long-term financial needs of social security. and that is why i introduced candidate obama's concept into legislation. it was the right approach. i introduced it into legislation and it now has ten cosponsors. sheer how the "economic times" reported on the subject back on june 14, 2008. quote, "barack obama would apply the social security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000 which would affect the wealthiest 3% of americans.

the presidential candidate told senior citizens in ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the social security tax on every dime they make while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only a very small percentage of their income." that is what barack obama said when he was running for president in 2008. i agreed with him. he was very clear. i suspect that millions of americans voted for barack obama because of the strong stand he made in defending social security. unfortunately, since he has been in office, he has been much less clear about his position on social security and there were reports last year that he was considering cutting social security as part of a grand bargain with the speaker of the house, john boehner. so, mr. president, what i simply want to know, and i think what the american people want to know, is where do the president stand on social security.

is he going to keep faith with the american people? does he continue to believe what he believed when he ran for president? is he going to say to the millions and millions of seniors out there who are struggling every single day to keep their heads above water that we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and the children and the sick and the poor. that we're not going to continue to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who are doing phenomenally well and cut social security as part of some grand bargain when, in fact, social security has not contributed a nickel to the deficit situation. now, mr. president, as you well know, in terms of social security, there's a lot of discussion here in the senate about moving toward a chained c.p.i. a chained c.p.i. now, nobody outside of this room

understands what a chained c.i.p. is, but i'll tell you what it is. what it is are significant cuts in social security colas, and it rests on the theory -- if you can believe it -- that colas for seniors on social security are too generous. and when i tell this to people in vermont, seniors of vermont, i say, please, don't laugh. but they always laugh. they say, bernie, in the last two out of three years, while our health care costs have been going up, our prescription drug costs have been going up, last two out of three years, we haven't gotten a cola at all. how could they possibly believe that the colas -- that the formulation for coming up with these colas are too generous? but that is what the billionaires and the millionaires want. that's what our republican friends want and what is what -- and that is what some democrats want. they want to come up with a formulation which will cut social security benefits so that if you are 65 today, when you become 75, you will receive $500

a year less. and when you are 85 and you're trying to get by on $15,000, $16,000 a year, they're going to cut a thousand dollars from your social security benefits. well, i think when this country has the most unequal distribution of income and wealth, when the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth of this country, when in the last study that i saw, 93% of all new income in 2010 went to the top 1%, mr. president, i don't think you balance the budget by cutting social security for people who are trying to survive on $14,000 or $15,000 a year. that is not the formulation. that's not the way we should go. so, mr. president, i want to conclude my remarks by simply saying that i'm going to do everything i can to defend social security. i am going to do everything that i can to see that given the fact

that our deficit is largely caused by unpaid wars and tax breaks for the rich and the recession, which was created by wall street greed, i'm going to fight any effort to cut social security, medicare and medicaid. but today, i think the american people want to know -- we know where the republicans stand on social security. we know where governor romney stands on social security. now is the time for the president of the united states to tell us where he stands on social security. is he going to keep faith with the promises that he made in 2008? is he going to stand with the senior citizens of this country and say, no, we're not going to balance the budget by cutting social security? so i look forward to hearing what the president has to say. this is an issue which is enormously important to the seniors, the veterans in the state of vermont and i'm going to continue dealing with it. thank you very much. and with that, mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: