mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. today i want to talk about a bill that will reduce taxes for 97% of all small business owners. i want to talk about a bill that will keep $2,200 in middle-class pockets next year. i want to talk about a bill that will extend tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per

year. i want to talk about the middle-class tax cut act and why it should pass with overwhelming and bipartisan support. my colleagues across the aisle have said they want to get our country back on its feet. well, i know our prosperity has always stemmed from and been measured by the success of the middle class. they're the ones who get in early and stay late, they take on a second job to make it just a little bit easier to pay for college, they wait to retire to save more to help their children and grandchildren. under no circumstances should middle-class people be worried about their taxes going up, particularly at a time when median income, middle-class income is declining in america. to raise taxes at a time when the middle class is struggling to raise taxes on them makes no sense whatsoever. under no circumstances, no

circumstances should the middle class have to worry about their taxes going up. so what we're proposing here is a one-year extension of the bush era tax cuts for all americans on the first $250,000 in income they make. now, let it be noted that that tweak will go to everybody. you could be making $10 million and will get the same tax break on the first $250,000 that someone making $200 or $220,000 or someone making $80,000 makes. so it does not discriminate and, by the way, mr. president, we are lucky in america that we have people who have made a whole lot of money. through starting businesses and employing people. we -- we refusal in -- we revel in the fact that america does that. we admired well-to-do people. we don't think they need a tax break when that money could go

to deficit reduction. country say that for the middle class because the middle class obviously has less money and is struggling. so that's why we choose 250 as the line. in addition, there are three more very important tax cuts signed into law by president obama that working families across america rely on. the american opportunity tax credit, the expanded child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. our proposal would extend these tax cuts as well. so under our plan, the middle class will be secure in the knowledge that their taxes aren't going to go up over the next five months while we all debate the fiscal cliff and all the things we have to do to prevent our deficit from growing. this should be priority number one, to secure the middle class while we have this debate. i want to focus for a moment on

a glare difg between our -- glaring difference between our plan and the republican plan. we all know how hard it is to pay for college. we all know how important a college degree is. study after study after study has shown if you get a college degree, you'll make more income. you'll have a better life. some of the recent studies show you even live longer. having a college degree is so important to memorials. to ever american families. and yet at the same time the cost of college is rising. whether you go to a private school, a religious school, or a public university, the cost is going up and up and up. and so it's been a passion of mine since i've come to the senate and even before that we give middle-class people a tax break to go to college. we help the poor already with

pell grants and things like that. that's a very good thing. i'm proud we do it. but, you know, mr. president, you can be making $50,000, $70,000, $90,000, $110,000, and if your kid is going to college and that costs $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a year, you can't afford it. and as a result, we have millions of parents stretching and stretching and stretching to help their kids, and millions more of students taking huge debt loads on because they know college is so important. but, mr. president, it's vital for us to help them. you know, when a young man or young woman who deserves to go to college doesn't because they can't afford it, they lose, their family loses, and our country loses as well. when a young person goes to the college they shouldn't really go

to because they can't afford the college they deserve to go to and want to go to, they lose, their family loses, and america loses. and so it's been a passion of mine that we give the middle class, not just the poor but the middle class as well, help in paying for college because it is so expensive but it is so important. and so we have in law now something called the child -- the american opportunity tax credit. it's legislation i wrote. it helped 9.1 million 235e78s get a -- families get a tax break on their children's college tuition last year. because of the american opportunity tax credit, more parents and students now qualify for tax relief to pay for college expenses, not just for two years but for a whole four

years of study. it gives a $2,500 tax credit right off your taxes to families whose income is up to $180,000 a year. so it goes well into the middle class and even a little higher in many states. but it's needed. it vital. if this tax credit expires, families who rejoiced -- i've talked to them across my state of new york in every corner of the state, moms and dads are sitting around the kitchen table friday night after dinner and the kids are out saying how are we going to pay for college? for mary or for jane or for tom or for bill. they have sleepless nights about it. so why, why, why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle let this tax break expire?

why does their proposal, which continues tax breaks for the wealthiest of americans, kick these tax incentives to the curb, to let this tax break expire is aing todayor the heart of the middle class -- is a dagger to the heart of the middle class. that's just what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing. it's more than clear. republicans are going to hold up the middle-class tax cuts, including this needed and significant help to pay for college to insist that we provide those at the highest income levels, people who make over $250,000 with a tax cut at the same time. they're holding the middle class tax cuts hostage. now, i'll be the first to congratulate people who are very wealthy as i mentioned, they've been successful, they're the american dream, god bless them. they create jobs. they do.

but today's debate is not about them or their taxes. we can have a rigorous debate this whether they deserve another tax break or that money should going to deficit reduction or maybe education or infrastructure or scientific research. that's a debate for another day. i look forward it to. today's debate is about the middle class. letting these tax cuts expire would generate serious problems for our middle-class families and businesses. it would prevent them from being able to pay for their kids' education or buy a new house or a new car. it could mean they put off retirement a little longer, or cancel a vacation and that would have repercussions across the entire economy. so, mr. president, extending the tax cuts for the middle class is a no-brainer and the american people are on our side. i hope, i pray, i beseech our friends on the other side of the

aisle to listen to the middle class and say look, you guys fight over what you should do for the highest income people, but come together on helping us. that's what we can do. if -- if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to get this country back on track, they will join us in supporting this critical legislation, including a tax credit to help pay for college education, to help the families and businesses who are the real job creators and prosperity makers. with that, mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: good morning, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of a dear friend, someone that i admire and someone that the whole world cheered on,

dr. sally ride. dr. ride was the first woman -- first american woman in space, and when she went out there, she blazed a trail out into the stars for women in science and women in technology, inspiring not only american girls but girls around the world. last night, we got the very sad news that dr. ride passed away after a brave fight against pancreat i can cancer -- pancreatic cancer, and i wanted to come to the floor to speak about her. we all know the biography. dr. ride became an astronaut after answering an ad in her college newspaper. she had earned a ph.d. in physics from stanford. she also earned a graduate degree in shakespeare. she joined the first group of

women in the astronaut corps and trained to be a mission -- a mission specialist. mr. president, i know sally ride both professionally and personally. i have had the great honor in my years in the senate to fund -- to be on the committee that funds the americans in space program. i have important space assets in my own state of maryland. the great goddard space agency and wallops island where we hope to do some new launches there later this summer. but for me, my journey into space began, my love for space not only when john glenn went into space, but also and when we walked on the moon, but i will never forget that day that sally ride, in 1983, boarded that shuttle, strapped herself in,

put on her helmet, and when the rockets roared and out she went, the whole world had signs, cheers, saying go, sally, go, sally. wow, i will never forget it. i was in the house of representatives. i was down there. we were waiting. we were exciting. there was nothing like it. mr. president, if you haven't seen a shuttle launch, it's the most amazing thing. the ground shakes. you feel it. you feel it in your body, you feel it in your heart, and then as that rocket took off, we cheered her on. it was an enormously patriotic moment. once again, her shuttle flew high into the sky. it was the challenger, and later on it would have its own rendezvous with destiny. i was so proud of dr. ride, but i was proud of my country. i was proud of its vision, of its innovation, and i was proud of the fact that we live in a

country where women can follow their dreams to take the talents that god has given them to be able to pursue that, and when i saw dr. ride go into space, another barrier was broken for women. even though sally was the first, she didn't want to be the only. when she launched into space, yes, she broke a barrier, yes, she took the hopes and breams of many girls, but she wanted more to come. she has the characteristic of many of us who are the first. she said she didn't want to be -- although she was the first american woman, she didn't want to be the only american woman. she devoted her career to encouraging young women to go into science and to also come into the space program. now more than 50 women have gone into space. nobody -- and it's been an

astounding, astounding accomplishment. the other thing that dr. ride and she -- well, dr. ride and i talked about what it's like to be the first. when i was elected to the senate, i became the first democratic woman elected to the senate in her own right. among the first ten phone calls that i got was from sally ride congratulating me and said hey, you broke a barrier and you're going to go into new space. it's called senate space. and after we joked and laughed and so on, we said gee, we firsties ought to have a club that should meet on the first monday of the first month of the first of the year. we had sandra day o'connor, there was sally ride, president george bush was to go on to appoint bernadine healey as the first woman head of n.i.h.

she went on to say we who are the first can't be the only. another characteristic of we the first was she said -- and we would agree -- that you don't get to be a me without a whole lot of we. she was a firm believer in public schools, public education, public libraries. those opportunities that enable you to go to school, that enable you to get a ph.d. at stanford, that enables you to get out there and compete, to be an astronaut. that when we think about ourselves, we think about our families, we think about our teachers, we think about our coaches. we are so indebted to them, and she was, too. she was so indebted that that's the way she wanted to devote her life. sally ride knew she was famous, but she had no desire to get rich. she did not capitalize when her big name, her big iconic international brand, she wanted to use her name, her represent

iewtation, the sally ride brand to be inspirational and motivational. she did not seek profit. she sought to inspire others. after retiring from nasa, she dedicated her entire life to encouraging young women to study science, math and technology. for that when she found she loved, she wanted to do it. she continued to do that all the way up to the last months of her life. she worked on that, and i recall in 2008, i invited her to baltimore to celebrate the 25th anniversary of her going into space. we had this great afternoon, after a wonderful lunch of crabcakes and talking things over, we went to the maryland science center, and there were these girls, girl scouts working on badges about science and technology, and there was this great glow that showed -- globe

that showed the planet earth and she talked about what it's like to study the planet. she talked about what it was to go into space, and what she said is that when you look back at space, while you are busy looking out there, you see this great planet and you want to do all you can to help it and save it. those young girls were mesmerized. wow, that was four years ago. many of them have now finished their girl scout badges. many have finished middle school and are in high school, but hopefully they are not finished. their great interest in science. that's what her work was. she also had a great impact on the space program itself. she worked with both nasa and then when al gore was here as a senator, he was on the authorizing committee, and i of course the appropriator. she worked with nasa and thus on a new strategic vision for nasa.

and then what did she say about what we should study? planets, galaxies, asteroids, you name it. rings around saturn, yes. but you know what else she said? let's study this planet where we suspect there is intelligent life. she had a great sense of humor. and al gore and i leaped forward on our chairs, and we said and what would that be? what did sally know that had been dreamt about for ages, intelligent life. she said yes, it's called planet earth. let's see if we can find it. dr. ride, after we had our laughs that day, suggested that we study our own planet as if it were a distant star so that we would get to know it, we would know its climate, we would know its weather, and also we would like the time to know its people, and that we would do it to save the planet and save the people who are on the planet.

i regret that our own science is not yet advanced to have saved dr. ride. she died of pancreatic cancer. i know the gifted and talented people at n.i.h. and those who benefit from the funding of n.i.h. are working all over this great country to find cures for that dreaded c word. pancreatic cancer is deadly and it's fast and painful. she died steadfast, true and true to herself and true to her mission. i just think that the entire world owes a debt of gratitude to her, and the way we can honor her memory is to encourage those who search for the stars but let's search here for the problems that hurt our own people. let's find that cure for pancreatic cancer, and let's continue to be a great country that innovates and also educates

and believe in educating its women and its girls in the same way. so god bless sally ride and god bless america, the kind of country that made dr. ride's life possible. thank you very much. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: dr. shakiel afridi is a physician in pakistan. he has been put in prison for the rest of his life, basically, for helping the united states get bin laden. i think it's a travesty of justice that we are holding this man or pakistan is holding this man for the crime of helping america, and i think we shouldn't tolerate it. we send pakistan $2 billion a year, and recently instead of withholding that, president obama has given him an additional billion dollars. exactly the wrong thing to do. i have a bill that will withhold

all further aid, all further foreign aid to pakistan unless this doctor is released. there are reports now that his life has been threatened. there are reports coming from the information minister in the province where he is being held that his life has been threatened by fellow inmates and throughout the community. my concern is dr. afridi may well be killed before he comes to trial. he was scheduled for an appeal on july 19. they have rescheduled this and it will be august 30. i have a bill and i have the votes necessary to demand a vote in the senate, no matter what the leadership wants, we will have a vote on ending all of pakistan's aid if this political prisoner, dr. shakiel afridi, is not released. we will have this vote. i threatened to have the vote this week, but i'm going to delay it for one month to see if the appeal works, to see if he is still safe in one month.

but i hate to think of what might happen to him while we're waiting here and that we haven't used every bit of the leverage of this money that we give to pakistan. it's our money. it's your money. we shouldn't be sending it to a country that disrespects us. if pakistan wants to be our ally, they should act like it. if pakistan wants to work with us in the war on terrorism, they should act like it. imprisoning the man that helped us get one of the world's worst mass murders is not a way to encourage cooperation between our countries. this episode of imprisoning this man is driving a wedge between america and pakistan. so if pakistan wants to help us, good. can we cooperate with them? yes. but we should not continue to send good money after bad while they are imprisoning this man. this doctor deserves our respect. i have also introduced legislation that would allow him to come to the united states if

he is -- if there is a threat to his safety in pakistan. as a reward for his helping us get bin laden. this will happen either in early september or late august, depending on what happens with his appeal. i hope some common sense will intervene and they will let him go, but at the very least americans need to know that pakistan needs to cooperate with us, pakistan needs to help this man, and that we all should be proud of what he did to help us get bin laden. i will do everything possible, everything i have within my limits to get this vote to occur, and this will happen within the next month when his trial comes forward on august 30. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back my time. . the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. today.

>> congress returns to work this week with a focus on tax cuts and bills supporters say will boost the economy. cory bowles, congressional correspondent for "dow jones newswires" and "the wall street journal", what's ahead? >> well, you're going to see most of the next two weeks, continuing debate over tax policy and whether or not to renew some portion or all of the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. now none of this is going to

be decided this side of the election but both parties, democrats controlling the senate and republicans controlling the house intend to hold votes to take out their position leading to anticipated negotiations after elections in november. this week we'll see the senate have a procedural vote moving to a bill which would renew all the current income tax rates for households earning less than $250,000 a year and allow rates for households earning more than that to expire, i.e., revert to the higher clinton era levels. that vote will as a result a 60 vote threshold as do most contentious matters in the senate is expected to fail. action will pivot to the house where it is expected they will hold their vote. we think there will be a vote on the democratic provision. >> host: ie, the same one i just discussed in the house which will fail because the republicans control the house. the house would pass its version of the bill which

would renew all the income tax rates for all americans. that will pass on a almost, exclusively party-line vote and then it will wither in the senate. what we're having more is showboats -- show votes, political votes, taking no positions. no one expect this is is the final word on the subject nor will we see any fruition before lawmakers leave for recess in 10 days time. >> you mentioned president obama's middle class tax proposal for earners up to $250,000 as part of the debate this week. with will democrats offer that proposal? >> in the senate or the house, sorry? >> both. >> in the senate we expect the vote will happen this week. there will be procedural vote will be ceded because democrats can't muster enough votes to get over the 60-vote threshold. in the house there is likely to be a vote for the proposal next week which will be defeated because republican haves a strong majority in the house. >> you went to a briefing

with house majority whip kevin mccarthy. how did he characterize the house agenda? >> he as republicans have been for some months now tried to frame it all in the conversation of jobs and improving the economy. in addition to the tax cut votes we'll see a continuing republican agenda what they say is rolling back to the red tape that is stifling job creation in america. there is going to be votes on tying new regulations to the state of the joblessness market. there is also going to be an attempt to effectively scrap the current obama administration plan on how and when oil and gas exploratory leases are handed down and open up far more parts of offshore drilling or far more parts of offshore to drilling of the exploratory nature. again both those votes are likely to pass the house but it will go no where in the senate. democrats have shown absolutely no proclivity to take up this republican,

largely they say political agenda. >> you mentioned show votes. why are we seeing both chambers debate numerous bills that are not designed to get approved and then become law? >> it is an election year. it is that simple. both sides think that having their members vote on pieces of legislation which are politically advantageous, which carry their message, is a good thing and similarly they hope to cast their political opponents in a negative light. you know, taking up the senate tax votes for example, democrats think that forcing republicans to vote against even though it is a procedural vote but essentially to vote against extending tax cuts, i'm sorry the current tax rates for all americans, helps them out in the various states in which there are senate races that are going to be close. there is a handful, 10, 12 senate races across the country which could tip the balance of control in the senate next year. senate majority leader harry

reid clearly thinks holding these votes helps out his candidates. helps out his incumbent senators in crafting their political message come the november election. >> cory boles is con congressional correspondent for "dow jones newswires" and "the wall street journal" thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span2 at 1:00, cnn correspondents judy woodruff and gwen hill will speak. they are coanchoring the upcoming coverage of the democratic national convention. their remarks start 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. earlier today on capitol hill consumer financial director bureau richard cordray testified before the house oversight subcommittee on financial services about consumer access to credit. until 1:00 we'll show you a portion of director

cordray's testimony beginning with his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman mchenry, ranking member quigley and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me back today to talk about the importance of the availability of credit. at the consumer financial protection bureau we know that access to credit means access to opportunities. mortgages allow people to buy a home and spread the payments over years. student loans give people access to further education and credit cards give people immediate and convenient access to money when they need it. these products can help people achieve their dreams. unfortunately the financial crisis of 2007, 2008, caused investors to flee lending markets. most of these markets have recently shown some signs of improvement. credit card originations are growing at a modest pace and we're seeing more significant growth in auto and student lending but it concerns us as it surely

concerns you that many consumers today are shut out of certain credit markets especially the residential mortgage market. lending standards are quite tight and it appears many credit worthy borrowers are having trouble buying homes. this is making it tough on consumers and making it tough on the broader economy. at the consumer bureau we're working to help change this for the better. the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act directs us to use our authority to achieve two broad purposes. first, we are to insure that the markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. second, we are to insure that all consumers have access to these markets because credit can create opportunity, we think these two goals work in tandem. this means we work with the industries we regulate to come up with the best, most common sense solutions to problems. we want to increase opportunities for consumers, not diminish them. we're coordinating our rules to reduce unnecessary

burdens and we're holding small business review panels to help us gather input from small providers in particular such as community banks and credit unions. indeed the dodd-frank act specifies in our rule-makings we must explicitly consider the potential effects of our rules on access to credit. we do that by consulting with industry and with consumer groups and we work hard to consider all the evidence when analyzing the issues. before we propose a rule a team of attorneys, economists and market experts evaluates alternatives in terms of their potential consequences for consumers, providers and the market. this team conducts quantitative and qualitative research wherever possible. they obtain and analyze data and review relevant studies. they consult extensively with industry experts and consumer advocates and stakeholders from small and large firms, banks and nonbanks. industry veterans on our staff help us understand how the market really works and how a rule might affect consumers and providers both

substantively and operationally. for example the ability to pay mortgage rule shows how serious we take our effects on credit availability. later this year we'll finalize rules to this requirement that lenders make a reasonable determination that borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. lenders will have to verify and document that point. in the implementing this statute we want to fulfill its purpose of insuring that consumers are not sold mortgages they can not afford and we want equally to insure that consumers who can afford to repay loans can find those loans are available to them in the market. we will seek to define these lower risk loans known as qualified mortgages carefully so that as the market stablizes every segment of the market is competitive and investors will have an incentive to participate in the lending market. we will strive to craft a sensible rule that works for the market throughout the credit cycle while being attentive to just how fragile and risk-averse the market seems to be today.

we recently reopened the comment period to be as transparent as we can about the data we are using in this rule-making and to see if lenders or others have anymore pertinent data to share with us. through these additional efforts we hope to muster the best available evidence to help us decide how to implement the statute in a manner that will both prevent unaffordable loans and preserve access to credit. in sum, mr. chairman, we're keenly aware that the market is waiting to see the precise shape that our rules take. that is why we're working to put in place our regulations by the deadlines that congress set. and that is why we're being as transparent as we can doing so. we want to help provide the mortgage market with the clarity needed to improve performance. at the consumer bureau our goal is to make consumer financial products and services work better for americans, for the honest businesses that serve them and for the broader economy as a whole an effective marketplace means access to credit which is essential to providing the opportunity that consumers need all across this country. thank you and i look forward to your questions.

>> mr. cordray, thank you so much for your testimony and, thank you for your service your public service. and your long career in public service. i now recognize myself for five minutes. mr. cordray i know that you are aware of this but the national bureau of economic research outlined have the american people, roughly the half the american people couldn't come up with $2,000 within 30 days to meet some unexpected challenge. i think that is proof positive both of the depth of this economic downturn, this, these tough economic times we're facing but also the limitation in the credit markets. we have 25% of the american people that are either unbanked or underbanked and as such, we see some limitations with credit

products available to the american people. and so, in your estimation, you know, how do you resolve this and what obligation does the cfpb have to insure access to credit products, greater access to credit products? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the question and it's something we have been focused on in a number of our community field hearings and other events that where we get outside of washington, we have been considering the payday lending industry, the overdraft issue, and prepaid cards, which are various means by which the short-term need for credit is being met in our economy. i would agree with you that there has been, not only has it been documented by research but we hear it from people all over the country as we go out and talk to people face-to-face and we hear it from them as they

submit stories to us, that they need short-term access to credit. one of the really great insights that is embodied in the consumer financial protection bureau is that we both are overseeing large banks, the very largest banks, and also non-banks so that we don't have a bank centric view of this. if people are pushed outside of the banking system and they have to survive on financial products such as payday loans and other types of things we care a great deal about that because we have to oversee those providers as well. and is for the unbanked and also the under banked, many people that have a bank account but use many alternative financial services to meet their needs it is very important for us to understand exactly how those needs are, how they can be met better and how they can be met better by products that don't further deepen the hole that many americans find themselves in as they try to meet their needs day-to-day.

something as i said is a focus for a quite a bit of our efforts of the so i appreciate your attention to it as well. >> so the answer is yes, the cfpb does have an obligation to insure there is access to credit products for the average american? >> i think that's part of our mission, absolutely, yes. >> okay. and we discussed this before and i've asked you this before but inherent in regulation is both a cost and a benefit and it depend, your point of view, of said regulation on whether or not you think, you know, we should focus more on the cost or more on the benefits but certainly whether or not you, view regulations as proper and good or improper and destructive you need to weigh both the costs and the benefits. as you go through ongoing rule making the costs and the benefits, will they be accounted for and is that a major concern that you have? >> so, the answer, briefly is, yes, it is a major

concern for us and for a number of reasons. first of all, at a minimum, baseline, it is legally required every time we adopt a rule we have to consider under our statute the burdens, the impacts and the benefits of the rule and we have to size those up and frankly if the burdens are not outweighed by the benefits it is not the kind of rule we should be going forward with. second, i think that is common sense. as you say if you're doing more harm than good you shouldn't be doing what you're doing but it require as careful assessment. sometimes these can involve lengthy analysis. some of our rules are longer than i would like because in part we are engaging in careful cost benefit analysis. moreover the courts require and are increasing requiring the ability to review very careful analysis on this subject. and so for all those reasons i think it makes sense for us to do that. i think it is essential for us to do that.

if we don't do it, it puts our rules in jeopardy. >> do you believe there is a linkage between overregulation and a lack of credit availability? >> i think that, if you look at the history of this times the thing that has most constrict the credit to consumers and has most hamstrung lenders has been the credit freeze, the credit crunch, the financial collapse and the ensuing recession that started in 2007-2008. that has been what has dried up credit across this economy. now, sensible regulations, we think, had they been in place might have averted that problem. you can say the same thinking going back to the 20s and the '80's. what caused credit to be tight in the '30s? it was financial collapse and ensuing depression. did the sec dry up credit when it gotreated in the 19233? i don't think anybody would think that.

>> to your point, not exactly answering my question. friedman and schwartz and bernanke determined the infinite and. eventual causes of the great depression as fed policy and bank failures. i understand that we understand the storm we've gone through. the concern i have getting insight into your world view on regulation. i understand your view that enhanced regulation is better than less regulation. but what i'm asking is, is there a point by which overregulation does restrict access to credit? >> so, what i would say is better regulation is always better than worse regulation but of course that's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. i think that regulating an entire market, rather than than part of a market which was part of what was done before the crisis and before the financial reform law was

passed is not a good recipe for success. but i would agree with, what i think is the tenor of your question which is, can the pendulum swing too far in the wake of a crisis like this? can people overreact and can they potentially compound the problem? i think that is always a possibility and so it's important for to us be thoughtful and careful about what we're doing. not just assume that because it's meeting a problem that existed before that everything that everybody could think to do is necessary and helpful and i think that, again, i find that coming here and having these sessions where you all have input into what we're doing is helpful for shaping our perspective but i do think you can't look at what happened in 2007, 2008 without realizing that we need common sense reforms and yet i would also agree that if the pendulum swings too far you could compound the problem.

i would agree with that. >> thank you. and i certainly appreciate the fact that rather than touting the line i've heard over and over again is that the huge fallout of the financial crisis was due to a lack of regulation, it was bad regulation, that was a driving force of that. and i certainly appreciate your willingness to be precise when you're discussing that. so with that i will recognize the ranking member, mr. quigley of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well let's talk about that for a little more. there was a lack of regulation a certain extent, wasn't there, mr. cordray, on certain aspects that got us into this mess? we can always do regulations better, but there were aspects that just weren't there that helped create this crisis? >> i actually intended to say it was both lack of regulation and bad regulation in different respects. let me take an example. if you look at the mortgage market before the financial

reform law was passed only part of the market was regulated. inevitably that leads to irrationalities because you have certain players in the market who are held to certain standards and others who are not. that, encourage ad race to the bottom where the irresponsible lenders were crowding out the responsible lenders like community banks and credit unions. that was both, i guess, you can define these thanks as various ways. that was due to lack of regulation in significant parts of the market and overall that reflected bad regulation because an incomplete regulatory system will not work because it will encourage some to do things that other people can not, the very things you're trying to constrain among the regulated entities. i think there was a combination of things. >> and director, you just mentioned community banks,. illinois probably has as many as any state in the union. i think their feeling is

much as anyone that your fine line your agency is trying to walk but, i think you would acknowledge that there isn't necessarily a level playing field for a lot of things that happened and the rules that are in place for them. your concern how you hand that regulation, how you handle the concept of tiered regulation notion. you know, this is a different business model. that the complexity matters more to them. how do you balance that with community banks? >> so this is an issue that comes up over and over again for us when we go around the country, we always make it a point to have a roundtable with community banks and hear from them. and those are interesting, i find them very helpful sessions. they're pretty candid with us. they talk about some of their anxieties and fears. so much of those fears are misplaced. we do not enforce the law or examine any institutions with less than 10 billion in assets.

we talk also candidly about their concern about the regulatory regime and how complicated that can be for them. they have fewer employees to spread that burden over and it is something i have heard again and again and i feel sensitive to. so as i have said and as we demonstrated the first rule-making we undertook the remittance rule we finalized we inherited from the federal reserve. we immediately issued a supplemental proposal to consider setting a thresh hold where institutions would be exempt from complying with that rule if they don't do remittance transactions in the ordinary course of business. we are going to set a threshold on that and it will exempt a number of institutions from the rule. i know in my case the reason we're doing that in part because we've heard and we're persuaded by the notion that smaller community banks have a model of serving their customers in the community where most of them live and reside. that they are very high

touch with their customers and they don't necessarily have to be held to all t same requirements and standards that larger institutions that are more remote from the community would be. and that's something that we will bring to our thinking about all of our rules. it's a case-by-case matter obviously. it depends on facts and circumstances what kind of issue we're talking about and how that plays out for them. it is also something we hear quite a bit about in the small business review panels that we've been doing on our rules. you know, that's a special requirement that the bureau has imposed upon it by congress. no other banking agency is subject to that additional process. we have found it has been useful to us. we're getting insight from that process. it is helping us write better rules and so although it is more burdensome for us than for others we're also finding it is advantageous and we've begun to see the wisdom of congress imposing that requirement. >> as you said you're

committed to those panels and there are several that will apply directly to the community banks issues. >> yeah. >> you're whitted to fulfill those requirements -- committed? >> i'm also committed to creating a special advisory board of community banks and a separate one for credit unions. we're in the process of doing that. we're getting close to the process of announcing that. that will help give us insight. we don't have the day-to-day contact with wit them. we don't examine them. like i said we don't have any law enforcement authority against them. so it is important to find other ways to make sure we have that strong line of communication and we're trying to do that. >> thank you, mr. director, i yield back. >> we'll now recognize the vice chairman of the committee, mr. genta of new hampshire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. cordray for being here this morning. i just want to follow-up on something you just said and correct me if i'm wrong. you said you don't have any legal authority, i think you said against. you worded the word against community banks and credit

unions. that to me sounds like you're on one side and community banks and small banks and credit unions are on the other side. as if there is a, a relationship that is more negative and as opposed to one that is more positive. was that your intent in that remark? >> sir, that is not my view. i think what i said very specifically was we do not have any enforcement authority against community banks. i think it is kind of hard to characterize enforcement authority as anything other than if you're enforcing the law against someone you're potentially finding them in violation of the law. we don't have that authority. we don't have the authority to examine community banks either. we do have the authority to write rules that could affect the community banks and that's where we're trying to make sure we take plenty of input and are sensitive to the difference in their business model which i tend to agree is a different traditional positive working business

model that did not in any way lead to the financial crisis in this country and therefore as i spoke earlier about making sure the pendulum doesn't swung too far i think that is something that we should be very mindful of and we're trying to be mindful of it and when i come up here i find that you all remind us of it helpfully, thank you. >> i come from the a small state, new hampshire, 1.3 million people and we very much are small communities throughout the state, rely very much on the positive relationship between the individual, the small business owner, the job creator, with that community bank and with that credit union. the reason i ask this is, as i have met with, that group of people, those small business owners and when i say small, i'm talking about somebody who might employ under 100 people. i know the definition can go up as high as 500. i'm talking about really the individual who has maybe 50 employees or 100 employees

or less, who are telling me now that they don't have access to credit but they're not saying it for the reasons you're saying it. what they're expressing to me is a concern of an overregulation, an overregulatory burden. so my, i want to try to figure out how do we, how does the cfpb deal with, what i'm sure you're hearing in field hearings or at least that's what i hear. maybe you don't, but if you hear in a field hearing a small business owner can't get access to credit because the community bank or the credit union is saying look, we're small. we have stifling regulatory responsibilitis. stifling regulatory burdens, that are, really stopping us from taking that reasonable risk, to lend money to a small business owner so they can expand. how do you deal with the

creation of this new entity, the cfpb, the responsibility of new regulation but also take into account that part of these regulatory burdens could in fact have a negative impact on job growth, on economic growth and on job creation? >> so we try to take account of that by getting a lot of input from the entities involved but i want to go back and -- >> you said you haven't, you haven't put together, you said you were going to put together a group of community banks and credit unions? >> i have committed, it is not required by law but i thought it would be helpful to have that advisery group. >> will you do that before any new regulation is put in place by the cfpb? >> we'll be doing that in the next month or some so we're doing it right away. >> before though, let me get an answer, would it be before any new rule or regulation is authored by

the cfpb? >> i think between now and then the only rule that will be finalizing is the exemption threshold on remittance transfers which is actually a burden-reducing measure for small institutions. but let me go back. small businesses were constrained in being able to get loans in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. that's when credit dried up. that is when the credit freeze occurred. all through the rest of 2008, all through 2009, all through 2010 those small businesses were dried up from access to credit. the cfpb, dodd-frank wasn't even passed at that time. the cfpb was not even created at that time. that is when they started to feel the severe credit crunch. now it continues as fallout from that continues. but the cfpb has only finalized one rule at this point. it relates to international money remittance transfers. . .

>> i represent new hampshire. >> i see my time has expired, i yield back. >> okay. >> the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings, is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. director cordray, it's good to see you again. a majority witness on the other panel from the cato institute makes a very curious assertion in the his written testimony. and he writes and i quote: asen educated guess, i would say that the cfpb has likely increased the cost of consumer credit by at least two full percentage points. have you issued any regulations that could have caused the tremendous impact the cato witness is asserting, and do you anticipate doing that? >> as i said, the only rule that we have -- well, we've finalized two rules at this point. one was the rule which merely kept in place the status quo while we assessed that issue, kind of a nonevent. and the second was the remittance transfer rule which

was finalized in february, does not actually take effect until next february. no other rules have been finalized, so when you describe this as an educated guess, i guess i would put the emphasis on guess. but i don't think there's anything tangible that that rests on at this point in time. >> i mean, did you see that coming, adding two percentage points? i mean, from anything you can see? >> we actually think that much of what we are contemplating and, frankly, most of it is required by congress not discretionary -- >> by us? >> yes. on the mortgage rules should improve the functioning of the mortgage market. and that's something that we all know the mortgage market performed abysmally in the run up to the financial crisis and helped create the financial crisis. so improvements in the mortgage market should be good for consumers, should be good for lenders. credit dried up in the mortgage market because of the crash of

the economy and because of the crash of the financial system. that's what dried up the credit. and, again, that happened in 2008. it endured through 2009, it endured through 2010, all before dodd-frank was enacted, all before the consumer bureau was even created. and now we continue to be the residue of that. so that's the real timing here. >> i don't know why the witness pulled this number from, i'm sure he'll let us know. now, let's turn to an informed industry viewpoint. last week the house financial services committee held a hearing on the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. one of the witnesses, ms. dell rio, who was the board chairman of a credit union in new york, testified regarding dodd-frank and the cfpb's -- >> we are leaving this program at in this point to go live now to the national press club here in washington where remarks from pbs' senior correspondents judy woodruff and gwen ifill offering their thoughts on the 2012

presidential campaign. the two are also co-anchoring pbs' coverage of the upcoming democratic and republican conventions. >> it's not a surprise at all. judy woodruff and gwen ifill make a a formidable team. ifill is editor of the longest-running prime time and public affairs program on television as well as senior correspondent and anchor for the pbs news hour. she is also a best-selling author. woodruff has covered politics and other news for more than three decades at cnn, nbc and pbs. she regularly co-anchors the newly-redesigned pbs news hour since her return to pbs in 2007. both journalists have covered, well, just about everything. woodruff knows politics inside and out. for 12 years woodruff anchored cnn's weekly political program, "inside politics."

she also played a central role in other major news stories. at pbs for a decade, she was the chief washington correspondent for the mcneal lehrer "newshour". she also anchored "frontline" with judy woodruff. one of woodruff's most influential prompts was her -- projects his generation next: speak up and be heard, which explored the views of the 42 million 16-25-year-olds who entered young adulthood amid the terrorism of september 11th and the violence of virginia tech and the emergence of social media. as the millennials would text, ygg. for everyone else, you go, girl. [laughter] politicians, heads of states, general and ceos have withered under ifill's questions. she has moderated two vice presidential debates own colluding the 2004 debate between republican dick cheney

and democrat john edwards. at the 2008 debate between democrat joe bide season and republican sarah palin, ifill began her journalism career in newspapers. she has covered the white house for "the new york times" and local and national politics forr "the washington post". she has also reported for the baltimore evening sun and "the boston herald" american. today we are looking forward to hearing from sharp political insight on the upcoming election. please, join me in giving a warm welcome. judy? [applause] >> thank you, theresa. it is an ohioan to be here at the -- an honor to be here at the storied national press club. gwen and i both are incredibly honored by this invitation. so thank you, and thank you to al of you for being here to talk about and to hear us talk about this extraordinary election. i want to thank the members of

the pbs and the "newshour" family who are here, theresa just introduced them. you heard pbs president paula kerger is here, pbs vice president michael jones is here, seated right here. as you heard, bo jones who's the president of mcneal-lehrer productions and linda winslow who is our executive producer of the news how're, we're all part of a family. and in the best sense of the term, that's what makes us go, because we are a family, we support one another. and i know it means a lot to both gwen and me to have all of you here, so thank you. i have covered so many press club events that it feels a little strange to be on the other side of the microphone. but i am very excited to be here to talk about this extraordinary election and to talk a little bit about what pbs and the pbs news hour are going to be doing to cover it. now, if you're wondering why i'm going first, i can let you in on a little secret.

like the perfect ladies that we are, gwen and i arm wrestled over it. [laughter] it's the way we settle most of our disagreements. [laughter] now, i would be less than candid if i didn't acknowledge there is some tension between gwen and me. um, especially over one issue: what color we're wearing. [laughter] things got really tense yesterday when we both showed up at the office in the morning wearing bright yellow. [laughter] gwen ended up going home. [laughter] to change clothes. i was going to volunteer. the truth is, no, that i am the luckiest person in television news because i get to work with gwen ifill every day. this is no better journalist in america, a woman who has excelled, as you heard, at the highest levels of newspaper, broadcast network news and at public television. she elevates all of our games. i'm going to ask you, again, to honor my colleague, gwen ifill. [applause]

and, of course, both of us are fortunate to have been able to work for so many years alongside jim lehrer, and before him, robin mcneal. they truly set the standard for the work that we do at the "newshour", we and our colleagues are able to do the work that we're able to do every single day. this is, if you weren't counting, my

>> anyway, i would like to tell you that al and i had a romantic dinner after that first game. unfortunately, he immediately drove to atlanta because he had a date with an airline attendant. [laughter] all of those unforgettable moments in the anchoring election night coverage for cnn in 2000, hanging chads, florida called for one and then for the other and then for neither. i just wish that i would have had the presence of our dear friend, tim russert, the late

tim russert, to transcend technology with a simple chaloard. so what about 2012? there are several different ways to look at in this year's election -- at this year's election, and virtually all of them lead to the conclusion that it's going to be a very close outcome. as the cross-currents, the competing claims that we see in every election are more stark this year than usual. and i'll list just a few of them. the conditions versus the candidates. a decided majority of american voters think the country is on the wrong track, and most believe that they're not better off than they were four yearses ago. that's bad news for an incumbent. check, romney. meanwhile, even many republicans acknowledge that as of today obama is a much better political candidate than his opponent. romney has the highest negative ratings of any recent challenger at this point. when the opposition party's negatives are higher than that

of the incumbent, it loses. check, obama. what about dem graphics versus the economy? the voter profile gets friendlier to democrats as middle-aged and senior white males become a smaller part of the electorate. and latinos and other minorities become a larger part is as is happening right now. check, obama. on the other hand, no president has ever been elected since world war ii with an up employment rate over -- unloiment rate over 8%. at this stage 8% on election day would be on the optimistic side of most economists' expectations, so check, romney. money versus mobilization, with citizens united and the proliferation of political action committees and the so-called 501c4s, the republicans -- unlike last time -- will have a money advantage in 2012. groups like karl rove, the chamber of commerce are going to be swamping democratic resources

in some of the swing states, if not many of them. check, romney. but if the number of undecided voters or persuadables is as small as some poller issters -- pollsters believe it'll be, this election may be more about delivering turnout or about mobilizing supporters. in experience, in technology the obama team is ahead of its opponents. check, obama. and finally, 1984 versus 2004. is this election a repeat of the reagan/carter election when voters ultimately decided things were going so poorly that all the challenger had to do was meet a minimum threshold as the clamor for change was so great? if so, check, romney. or is it more like eight years ago when despite dissatisfaction with where the country was headed, more voters liked the incumbent and decided the challenger didn't offer a compelling case for change. if that's the case, check, obama.

so these are all very real contrasts and contradictions, and they're just another reminder of why most analysts expect this election to be so close. the one other thing i want to do is just quickly share a couple of lessons i've learned from decades, decades and decades -- [laughter] of covering elections. both of them are going to be perfectly obvious to you, but it took me a while to get them. first, number one, it's not about us in the news media except when it is. in 1976 jimmy carter had come roaring out of the iowa caucuses, was the hot new thing as he campaigned across new hampshire. i happened to be following him into a big five and dimestore as he worked his way from one end of the store to the other, from the front to the back. suddenly, i noticed all the customers who had been hovering around carter were heading off in another direction until he was standing there alone. i i was curious, of course, so i went to check it out. who had come into the store?

well, there we found none other than the then-iconic cbs news anchor, walter cronkite. [laughter] who was trying to be a reporter and see for himself, following this phenom candidate from georgia. but as walter cronkite told me a few years later, very sadly, he said i can't follow the candidates anymore, because i distract from them. so most of us -- my point is most of us are not walter cronkite, and it's not about us. the second lesson i guess you could say that i learned is that big moments don't always turn out to be consequential. i was the moderator back in 1988 when two senators, republican dan quayle and democrat lloyd benson, faced off at the vice presidential debate during an election, bush versus dukakis -- the first bush -- that had become pretty personal. senator quayle was facing a lot of heat over his qualifications to be president, and in an effort to defend himself, he compared himself to president

kennedy at which point senator benson paused, looked at him and said, senator, i served with jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you are no jack kennedy. at which point the room exploded, and that became the quote from the debate. it was one of the most memorable lines in modern american politics, and it had absolutely no bearing on the election. [laughter] so why am i saying this? what elections are about is about the voters, and they're about the issues. fiscal challenges certainly year, taxes, health care, the size and the scope of government, china, iran, the supreme court appointments. with the partnership at pbs with programs like "frontline", the amazing documentary series that we do, programs like need to know, we at the "newshour" and our friends and partners as part of this big family plan to cover

both; the voters and the issues online and on the air. we plan to cover it through the perspective of real voters, real people like this gentleman i interviewed, i was in south florida at the end of last week covering some of the president's campaign trying to talk to voters, and i ran across one gentleman, and i later had to tweet about this because the quote was too good not to tweet about. he said, yes -- we've been talking to a lot of people who voted for president obama four years ago, and they're not sure they're going to vote for him again. it was a really good window into what the challenges are the president faces. but this young man said, yeah, i guess i'll vote for him again not with a lot of enthusiasm. no prompting from me he explained, hey, if you've got a choice between a sandwich with salami and a sandwich with no meat, you're going to go for the one with salami. [laughter] i said, okay. so our hope is to talk to many more voters like the sandwich voter to find out, seriously, to

find out their hopes, their fears, their frustrations and the huge stakes and divides of this election. talking to experts, of course, talking to the candidates when we can. a long time ago robin mcneal said of the "newshour", we dare to be dull. [laughter] he didn't really mean it. we aren't. [laughter] but we will dare to treat this election and this electorate seriously. and we have an amazing team supporting us at the pbs "newshour" both online and on the air. in fact, the two have become one in our shop. we couldn't do what we do, and i know gwen joins me many this sentiment, we could not do what we do without their amazing talent and their dedication. so i expect we are going to have a lot of fun in the process over the next four months. i know that i'm going to have a lot of fun covering this with a fabulous partner in gwen ifill. please welcome her. [applause]

>> i'm very tempted to say what she said and sit down, but -- [laughter] if i did that, i couldn't acknowledge my friends here from weta, dalton and jeff, mary stew stewart, the folks that keep us on the air. of trust me, it is hard work every single day, so thank you all for your support. and thank you all for being here today. you know, judy and i generally do this, we finish each other's words, so it's kind of perfect we're going to be sitting next to each other. of not in matching canary yellow, however. [laughter] here are some things which are true and which we share in common when we finish each other's sentences because we believe this so much, and part of it is because judy and i both come from the same types of background, which is we know what it's like to be on the dark side in ferrell commercial tele, so we know the latitude we have now. we believe that life is more important than heat, that there's a way to have a discussion about gun control as we did last night on the

"newshour", that there's a smart way to have it, not just have the same fight all over again, hopefully teach people at home that there's a more complicated, more nuanced way to think about these issues which obsess us than just having a fight. that's what people come to us for, and that's what we do. we believe that the architecture of democracy matters. that's why we're covering these conventions exhaustively. c-span is great at pointing a camera. we, too, will point a camera, but we're going the tell you what it is you're seeing and why. we're going to bring in the smartest people we know, and we're going to try to talk to voters about what they really want to hear from these conventions. it's great to go inside the convention halls. i'm a complete junkie. first time i stood on the floor when the balloons fell, i was in the heaven. nerd child, i was. [laughter] but the truth is that in the end the people inside are the most informed and the most engaged. the people who are going to decide the election are not the people inside those rooms in atlanta -- i mean, in tampa and charlotte. so what we really want to do if what we've been doing is talking

to as many people as possible. we have an online project called listen to me where we literally just stick a camera or microphone in someone's face and ask them about their concerns. and if you go on our web site, you'll see an incredible quilt of discussion. it's one thing to read a poll and say this is what the people think, it's another thing to hear their voices. that's what i mean by the architecture of democracy. conventions for us are a rare way to get inside that. it's a handy place to put everybody. and even though i say the people in the room are the most engaged, they're also the most interesting. they're not just the party hacks, they're just not the secret fundraisers, they're also folks who really care enough to give up some of their time to be engaged in the world around them. so we want to talk to them. we want to find out what's driving them. we want to know who the tea party people are who are the most engaged in shaping what this party is today. when we go to the democratic convention, we want to talk to the people who are complete, avid obama partisans and the

ones who are not so certain anymore. we want the hear what the country is doing -- we want to hear what the country is doing and ha -- what they're thinking. in the end, we know it's voters that matter. judy and i could tell stories for days about the people we run into when we go -- the best part, by the way, about working for pbs is if i go and just stand in the middle of, i don't know, a fair, say, or an apple butter festival, people will walk up to me and say, i know you, you're from pbs, or you're from washington week, or you're from the "newshour", and they'll start to say smart things. i just turn on the camera and let it roll. it makes my job so simple. [laughter] because our viewers are so smart. and if they recognize us, they immediately are engaged, and it makes my life much interesting. but occasionally you cannot hear what people are saying to you. i remember in 19 -- 2004 after i had moderated the kerry/edwards, i mean, the cheney/edwards

debate and i think about it and go, wow, what questions would i ask today? [laughter] completely different. but it was in ohio. and we went out and searched, the producer and i went out in search of people to talk to. and i remember walking into like a pigly wiggly store, one of those supermarkets, walking up to a middle-aged guy wearing a leather bomber jacket. he was a steel worker, he'd been laid off for 11 months. i thought to myself, okay, this is clear what's about to happen here. he must be a kerry/edwards voter because this is the perfect example of the stressed-out, democratic-leaning, unemployed, middle of america, ohio steel worker. and when i asked him who he was going to vote for, he said, oh, i'm voting for george w. bush. and i said, why? he said, i trust him. now, a month later when americans cast their vote, i realized what had happened, which is that a lot of people were voting based on that. even though it may not have seemed obvious to us what their

interests were, these people were thinking about this in a more fundamental way. and it reminded me that when you go and you talk to voters, all they want to know is you're going to speak to them and you're going to speak for them, and whoever wins this election is going to be the one that makes that case the best. we occasionally onthe "newshour" go out around the country and do spotlight cities where we go to towns and we sit people down and ask them to talk to each other. you know, we live in a world of silo politics where people watch one cable network or the other, and they only listen to people they already agree with. we get them all in one room. and in this case we were in the middle of the health care debate, and we were in tampa, florida, and there were people arguing with each other about what their meaning and understanding of the health care bill was at that time. it turned out that the fight that they were having -- it wasn't a fight -- the disagreements they were having were emblematic of what was going on around the country, and even these years later we can still see those acquisitions are still -- divisions are still

alive. we have discovered along the way that character matters. we can spend a lot of time talking to candidates about, you know, if you were a tree, what would you be? but in the end when you come back down to it, voters want to know who you are, what your values are and whether it scares with who -- squares with who they are. in the end that also matters and that's, by the way, our partners at "frontline" are doing a special they do every year called "the choice," in which just before the election you actually see laid out in documentary fashion who these people are, what your vote is about. it tells you something on air, in depth without commercial interruption that you're only going to get in bits and pieces everywhere else. policy matters. people want to know how these policies are going to affect their lives. they want to know whether their taxes are going to go up, they want to know whether their kids are going to be able to afford to repay their college loans, they want to know whether their kids should even go to college. they want to know whether their kids can survive high school

when they think about going to the batman movie and not being able to come home. americans live right now in a time of incredible stress; economic stress, personal stress. and whoever in this campaign finds a way to speak to that in the most authentic way whether it's through campaign advertising or a handshake or a hug in a hospital room, that person has the upper hand. and in the end the question becomes the connection, who speaks to me? this is why i think that pbs is the place to come to find out the answers to all these questions. we have the luxury of time. we can tell you at length what it is that you have been thinking about, and we make a point not to interrupt. and to cut you off before you finish the question. we have the luxury of analysis. when i sit around the table on friday nights at washington week, i call it my sand box because i bring my smartest reporter friends around. and if it works the way i want it to work, you feel like you're eavesdropping on a very cool dinner party with very smart

people. and i learn something, and they learn something from something someone else has said around the table. the smartest, and, you know, the interesting thing about washington week, i find people who watch it invariably walk up to me and say i pour a glass of wine and watch washington week on friday nights. [laughter] so i'm a little worried about the audience. i said to someone once, well, i don't get to drink while i do the show, and he sent me half a case of wine. [laughter] i'm not unhappy about this. we think it's important, however, to get away from that table, to reach outside the bubble. in 2008, a little boasting, we won a george peabody award for taking the show on the road to ten different cities in a critical election year in which we not only had our panelists in the audience with people around the country, but also did another half an hour on the web where we talked to them, and we took their q&a. and it was a very good way of doing what we say we like to do, which is getting out and engaging with the people who are usually just watching us passively.

we're going to do nine of those shows this year, and half of them are going to be online. we've done a lot, we've gone from tampa to sand yea go to -- actually, we're not doing tampa. we're doing tampa for reel. we're doing the virtual san diego and denver and portland, and it's really found a way to bring people in for the issues they care about the way we want it to be. we're there for the critical decisions. we're going to explain the health care bill to you, we're going to explain the law, we're going to explain the money, we're going to explain everything you need to know to be an informed vote by the time this election rolls around. i'm going to stop there and take your questions. i only have one request for you, judy will join me. i only have one request which is, please, do not address it to queen latifah. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] >> well, gwen, actually, i just can't resist now. as you alluded to, 2008, queen

latifah played you in a saturday night live skit. do you think she did a better job than tina fey as sarah palin? [laughter] >> queen latifah played me twice, in 2004 and 2008. and i never had met her, and when i met her at a screen anything between the two, i walked up and said, so, this may be 2006 or something, and i said, so do you think you can ever play me again? she said, well, give me some material. [laughter] sarah palin came along. so i'm saying that tina fey clearly knocked it out of the park, but i get to be a real hit on college campuses now. [laughter] >> some people say this presidential campaign is more negative than previous ones. since you've both covered many campaigns, what do you think? >> well, many campaigns is right. two things, i think the country is as divided as i've ever seen it, i think washington is as dysfunctional as i've ever seen it. that's one side of the story. the other side of the politics,

it's always been ugly. if you go back and read what the founding fathers said about one another, it was pretty personal and down and dirty. think about what lyndon johnson, the ad that he ran against barry goldwater, the little girl with the daisy, the nuclear explosion. think about what happened to michael dukakis, the ad, the willie horton add. i mean, today these guys are saying, you know, he's sending jobs offshore, and he didn't keep up -- he didn't live up to his promises. i think it's pretty tame compare today what we've seen in the past. of the election's not over. we've got four months to go, but america has seen some pretty tough politics throughout our lifetime. ..

decided to want they know more who made a decision in a crazy world of a million different channels, where you can watch the news any way you want or i should say get information every way you want, not necessarily news. that people can be turned up by what we deliver to them. i don't think it's hopeless at all. i find the most hopeful of possibilities on college campus and high schools. i'm involved in the news liberty

project. we're interested in making sure that young people understand what the news is as opposed to what they've been treated it as. in addition to that, i find that people really are trying to be engaged. they come up to me, these young people say and, you know, i always watch john stewart. and i think it's an -- i also watch him. they said they need to watch them and us. if they do that, they'll find out that the john stewart watches me, he watches us. it's true. john stewart to tell a joke, you have to understand the meaning of the joke and why it's funny. in order to do that, you have to have some understanding of the way government works and the way the world works. ic he actually helps to drive people to better information. for that reason, i thank all the them of the world.

>> how would you grade the media on the issues important to women ? >> when you said the last word -- i don't think, you know, i think that has yet to unfold. you know, there's certainly been an element of the campaign so far the obama campaign would certainly like to take advantage of the social issues that they think are going to be more appealing to the women. the republicans are going to the extent republicans and this candidate mitt romney is more a-- appealing to married women. that's the divide we see these days. also the married women versus single women. single women republican do better. than married women for a lot of reasons. thinkthey both think about.

there's a lot of conversation right now how the soccer moms come back. those were the they were a chunk of the vote that barack obama was able to pull to his side in 2008 and argument now is that many are up for grabs and looking around. i don't see a clearly articulate ed niche to women voters per se. perhaps we'll see that. >> i would add to that the war on women. speeches because no defines it. no one says what it's about. it's our job to figure out what do you mean when you say that. i have ads on the air which they attack each other which what are supposed to women issues. i call them family issues. i don't know it's only limited to women. they are going toward women

voters this year. what we're able to do and i know judy thinks the way i do. what a woman's issue is for latinos, they care about the jobs and economy too not just about immigration. the fact that we can understand what the dem -- demographics i think we can do it. >> given the attacks by many republicans on government spending for public radio tv and the generally need for spending cuts ahead how secure is the future of pbs news hour and could you survive without government funding. >> it's a tougher environment than it's been. a lot has to do with the economy. some has to do with the political argument. smaller government, government needs to be involved in fewer things. it's a tougher environment. but we think the value of public broadcasting is as clear as and necessary as it's ever been.

it means we have to work a little little harder to raise money to find the kind of funding we need to stay on the air. could we survive without the government funding? it would be tougher for us. it is a portion of the money we get. do i think we can do it? yes. i don't think something like that is im-- imminent. my understanding is for any kind of change to happen there it will be over several years. i don't see it happening. when we talked to members of congress who vote on these things, i hear supportive things about public broadcasting from members of both parties. so it's not something we frankly can spend a lot of time worrying about. both of us, you know, come to work every day to do our job. it's up to other to spend more time thinking about this. my great hope is that the work we do sells us and tells our

story better than anything else. that makes the case in a way that, you know, better than anybody else in any other way could so. >> we are wearing wood row convention badges. we can make them available for a small prize. friends of washington, he find ways to make it payoff. >> this question says they've heard complaints from the public from from their parents that president rnl campaigns drag on too long and voters become known to what do you think? do you think we have campaign fatigue? [laughter] >> well, i'm a political junkie and campaign junkie. i love talking to voters about the issues and what's on their mind. i'd be happy if they went all the time. we all need a break every once awhile. i think there is a indication to

be immediate that the idea that day after the election we start speculates who is going to run in four years and we start, you know, spot lighting who the up and coming is for the next election. we probably overdo that to a fair amount. i don't know what we can do to stop it. terrorist a natural tendency to think about what's next. it's the american way. but no, i mean, i thrive on this. we go to sleep every night thinks about politics. it's the first thing we think about every morning. [laughter] >> so not. but okay. [laughter] okay. fine. judy, whatever. [laughter] no, we actually think that if you do it the right way, that you can use elections as a way to tell us more about america to peel back the union. it's an interesting and complex place. and every time i leave the office and go out i always learn more about the nation. it is so interesting. and the secret and the reason

people get tired of this we keep writing about it covering it in the same way. we don't explain the whys. i think if we do think about how to do it right we think about ways to transcend the way of doing it. i like the horse race as much as anybody. i'll read a poll within the inch of the life. i wanted to read it how can it tell me about our country in this point of history i get to be a witness to. it's a privilege. for that reason, that's the way i think about election. they're fun, crazy, they get sees shiny objects that don't matter a week from now. all in all, at end we end up finding out a lot more. and it's worth doing. >> as we mention -- reporters love them and viewers eat them how pop -- how do you del deep

and get away from sound billets without losing your audio? >> you just do. you keep asking. it's funny, we spend a tremendous amount of time before we go on-air with research and talking to various find out who will be the people who tell the stories we want to tell. it requires curiosity. if i sit up the desk with the list of ten questions and i ask those ten that's a rare night. this is a concept, listen to the answer. and hope it'll take me an the listeners somewhere else. the sound bytes have to illustrate something. take you some place. not leave you there. that's difference. sound bytes can be useful to tell you what the speaker intended and what it means. i think question codo that. i think we have to ask more

questions. >> what do you think of the talk about one of the president issue debates being fully devoted to the issue of national debt? [laughter] [inaudible] >> sure. i mean, i think it probably will be. i mean, currently devoted to the economy and i'm assuming all three commissions the president issue debate will in one measure or another be about the economy. that's absolutely what's on the mind of american voters. we've been telling that for the last minutes here. people are concerned. they're anxious across the country. we see it when it go out. it's not just numbers on piece of paper. it's not a group fix the debt that launched, i guess it's next efforts here at the press club last week with where they are calling on the politicians to come together to do something not just about the debt but the fiscal challenges the country

faces. the tax increases that are going to happen if the bush era tax cuts expire, which they are legally boind to do. all of those things are every -- so central to what the election is about. at least one of the debates should be about the debt and the economy, and in my view, if should be a part of every conversation because we want to know. these candidates are not telling us with great specificity what they would do. we know the outlines, we don't know specifics. and it's going to be tough to get those specifics, and so, you know, i for one am looking to the debate to try to pin both of them down on these and other questions. >> some media outlets regret not having followed president obama's track record in 2008. what do you think is shaping to be the big undercover story this year. >> do we ever know what they are until weunder cover them?

>> i always think back and i wish i would have dug deeper. generally i don't know until it's over. we -- i thought we did a good job of explaining where he was and what he came from and what he meant to do. there was a disillusionment after he was elected that heard something differently than they expected among some democrats who thought he was more liberal and republicans who who was less liberal. i don't know what people thought they heard. i would argue that not only what we do, i think in general, we have to consume our news differently. i grew up watching, dating myself, three networks, right there were, you know, you know who you they were. you watched them every day. you read a couple of papers and you knew a lot. here's a problem, the problem is that in the end we have a million places to go now for information. that is also the advantage.

it means never going back to the way it was where this is the way to get the information. it means you have curiosity. if you think the debt is not being talked about about enough. are there are ways to get your information. that's not just in want campaign and candidates. i want we over cover some things and under cover some things i would be curious if anybody is going to ask about poverty or people who are in the top 1%. it would be interesting to hear the conversation and ask the candidates to be specific about the issues. i don't think any end question go very far where the candidates won't go. >> has thed a vebt of social media like twitter and facebook made a difference in the coverage of the president issue campaign this year and how?

>> yes. you're looking at twitter queen standing mind me who has how many of hundreds of thousand of followers? [laughter] absolutely it has changed. some of us has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world. we're not anymore. but we're still learning. i'm talking about me right now. the idea that we would be as we are covering a story constantly whipping out the iphone taking pictures which what we we're doing on a scene of story and filing constantly what technology has brought is truly transformed the coverage of american politics. it's absolutely making a difference. and you can -- we can all argue about how much time it takes and i hear reporters saying agree i wish i had a moment to breathe. in the morning the minute i get up in the morning to the going to bed i'm not filing for this program and that program or that

whether they work for a newspaper they're filing and filing, the good part of it is though that it brings up in closer touch with the american people. and for those folks who want to follow who are interested in following the social media whether facebook, twitter, the multiple other sources of news and information i think it's terrific. it's a way especially i think in engaging those younger voters who traditionally have not voted in the numbers that they're elders have. and this time, there is a way that can stay connected. i think it's our job to keep thinking about them, and keep filing, keep tweeting with keep participating in facebook. >> i actually find it to be a useful news gathering tool. you can start at wikipedia but you can't end there. same thing with twitter and facebook. it leads you to place you would not orderly go. you can do it on the phone or if

you're pay forget internet, you can find more information on the days you don't get -- a lot of panel lists i'd say we have two dozen panel lists on the regular broadcast on the panel of washington week and the vast majority of them have twitter handles. @pbs gwen. >> i'm sensing a little competition here that judy might need more followers? [laughter] people 0 complain there's too much money in politics. however the leader ofone super pac claims that americans spend more each year on high school wean. do you then election spending is excessive? [inaudible] >> the supreme court has spoken. i don't think it's our place to say. maybe gwen wants to say.

clearly money is a wash in american politics. it's more money than ever. it's going to break records it's going to go into the multiple billions. it's so big. at some point though, i think, you know, the voters are going to be looking at all these ads and when there's nothing but political advertising on your local television screen, the question becomes what am i learning? am i really hearing something different? had a couple of you say to me in the reception beforehand in the hallway you were getting tired from the ads you were seeing it's just june and july. this is something that campaigns have to weigh. especially if they run the negative ads they're running, they is to make a calculation. they know they are going to get hurt to some extend by the ads. the damage they're trying to do to the and opponent going to make it worth it? is it going to outweigh whatever damage they do to themselves.

there's a lot of money out there. but i don't see any way to turn it around. >> judy is right. the supreme court spoken. they said money calls speech. you can disagree or not. question for us is what is the spending spending and what are they spending it on what is it going to tell us about the candidates. it's going to be the question about what we want to know. what does it tell is aunt the choice we have to make in the fall. how money is spend is as interesting as it is raised. as long as we have transparency i think it tells about character about direction, tells us who is pulling strings. either way it's more information. >> the difficulty there's not transprarnt sei -- transparency at all. we don't know where the money is coming from. >> what is the assessment of the voter suppression issue?

>> watch the news tonight. because ray flores -- he's not there. i was looking at my executive producer to make sure it's true. ray sware residence, our colleague has spent the last week or so in pennsylvania a voter suppression in pennsylvania. which i'm looking forward to see it. i've been following the story. it's the key tipping point stories of the year. >> how do you handle interviews with politicians who don't answer questions and instead spew sound bytes without reporting to ugly confrontations like arm wrestling? >> gosh, i've never interviewed a politician who didn't want to answer all my questions. [laughter] it's a fact of life. it's what you do cover, in politics. they want to get their story across that makes them good. you want to get the information

you cannot so much to embarrass them so the voters the public has more information. it's the definition what reporters do. we are constantly trying to get information that is important that helps the public make decisions about what's going on. whether at local states and national levels whatever our assignment is and it seems to me that politicians view their job as to be to get reelected. and two, and of course, i don't mean to be cynical about it. it's more than that. but sure, they want to tell the positive rosy side of the story and not share the rest of it. but that's, you know, that's what we do. that's what our job is to try to coax as much information out of them and do other reporting that then causes them to want to open up. >> i have to say the american people in 2008 when i was moderating a debate it calm a

point in the debate which you might recall sarah palin said to me, i don't have to answer the questions the moderator pose. i thought that was the deal. so. but i had a couple 6 -- of choices. it turns out not. i had a couple of choices. i could have gone, what? i could have let the silence draw out which would have been awkward. i could do what i decided to do which is let her make the case and leaf it up to -- leave it up to voters at time. home. i found time and time again when somebody doesn't answer the question. they pick up it. they don't need to chase them around the table to prove a point unless i am. >> apparently you didn't read the fine print in the contract. how do you we political discourse in the country and can we get less speaking and more

yelling in the rest of the media in. >> that's what we try to do at the news every day. i think the american people like that. sure there's an appetite for the food fight and plenty of places to find it. for those americans who care about learning about the issue as gwen said we care more about light than we do heat. that's what we're there do to scare do. i think we have to keep making the case for for that and doing it and showing it works. and, you know, i think that's going to make the case better than anything else. like i said there's always going to be plenty of places for people to go if they want to see a food fight. if they want to see people literally throwing the shoe at each other. that's whatnot what we're about. i think there's a real interest and appetite for what we do out there. >> during the course of your careers, political reporters go

from the bus to a much more prominent -- how that as that affected the nature of political reporting? >> we talk about shoes more? i don't know. [laughter] ed thaitd out, c-span. no. in my time covering presidential politics i have if fortunate to be with a lot of great women on the us. -- bus i spent my first campaign covering everybody. i was the lowest person on the pole on "the washington post. the candidates looked at me and went ugh. it's all over! gwen is here. i met a lot of great women who cover politics. i have met women along the way [inaudible]

and so as a result, i have not been an experience i felt there was a lot of out there. we have been engaged, smart, when the vice president -- the first vice vice presidential women candidate. a lot of women on the bus. jess key jackson got on the bus, a lot of black supporters got on the bus. i look at people at white house who doesn't let them off the hook. there are great women doing the work. i don't think it changes the work. it changes the face of doing the work. occasionally more than that, i think it changes emphasis of the kinds of questions we ask and the kinds of followup we demand. we're used to making our husband and children followup. it doesn't work either. [laughter] >> i'll say we have come a long way. i did get into the business of covering politics when there were not many. thank goodness there are today.

one of my most memorable lines from the news director. i had been hired as the dribblinger abc affiliate. i kept pestering him to report on the story. his answer is we already have a women reporter. we have come a long way. [laughter] >> what advise do you give journalist students about the future of journalist careers? >> i tell them jump in the water is fine. you're coming into journalist at the time when it's in the middle of huge transformation and change. none of us knows what it's going to look like in another five, ten, fifteen years, we need smart, curious young people that will be questioning that need answering. always be public officials who need to be held accountable. there are stories that need to be told whether politics, the law, science, the arts, just think about what a big

complicated fascinating world we live in. we need reporter to help tell the story. we individually can't go everywhere and learn ourself. i tell them jump in. the salary may not be that great for the first few years. it may be longer. you're going to be working hard. but hey, all of us knew that. if your curious and have a passion for reporting, jump in. gwen talks to a -- we both do. she has been doing a lot of at college campuses. i know, she agrees with me, you know, the passion is there. >> i tell them to jump in and the parent goes, no! they're living in my basement now, please! [laughter] >> before we get to the last question. we're almost out of time. but i have a few things that i wanted to remind you about. we have upcoming luncheons august 28 james amous will be

here to discuss the role of means in the crisis and response force. on se. 6th kathleen turner planned parenthood's board of advocates. on october 2nd arnie duncan u.s. department of education will be here to speak. secondly, i would like to present the guest with the traditional coffee mug. >> thank you. [applause] >> sound bytes go down much better. and finally, the last question for each of you, who will or who should governor romney choose as his vice president? >> that's easy. i mean, i'm going lighten it up a little bit. snooki. i don't know.

my vote is big bird actually. [laughter] >> that's all you're going to get out of us. >> thank you very much for coming today. i'd like to thank the national press club staff and the journal substitute and broadcast center for organizing the event. here's a reminder you can find more information on our website and if you would like to get a copy of today's program please check out our website at www.press.org. thank you and we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

u.s. senate is in recess for their party's weekly meeting. the senate will reconvene at 2:15 eastern. we'll have live coverage on c-span2. this week working on tax legislation. bush signed the law in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire in january. president obama wants to extend those tax cuts for people who make less than dpsh $250 a year. when the senate comes in in fifteen minutes we'll have live coverage. a look at the week's agenda in congress. congress returns to work this week with a focus on tax cuts and bills that supporters say will boost the economy. congressional correspondent for "the wall street journal" looks ahead. >> you're going to see most of the next two weeks, continuing

debate over tax policy and whether or not to renew some portion of all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. none of it is going to be decided before the election. both parties up to the control and democrats controlling the senate and the republicans controlling house. the negotiations after the election this november. this week then we'll see the senate have a procedural volt on moving to a bill which would renew all the current income tax rates for households learning less than $250,000 ayear and allow rates for house hold earning more than that expire. it reverts to the higher clinton era levels. but the vote which will have a 60-vote threshold as to the most contentious matters in the senate. we expect it to fail. action in the house next week. they're going to vote and we

think there's going to be a vote on the democratic. republicans control the house and the house has the bill which would renew all the current income tax rates for all americans. that will pass on a almost exclusively party-line vote and then it would wither in the senate. so really what we're having more is -- no one expects this is the final word on the subject. before lawmakers meet. you mentioned president obama's middle class tax for earners up to $250,000 as part of the debate this week. when democrats will be allowed to the proposal? >> in the senate or the house? >> can you -- both. >> sure in the senate we expect the vote will have -- happen this week. it, will be a procedural vote.

they can't muster enough votes to get over the 60-vote threshold. in the house next week because republicans have a strong majority of the house. >> you went to operation the house majority with kevin mccarthy. how did he characterize the house agenda? >> he as republicans have been for some months now try to flame it all in the conversation of jobs and improving the economy. in addition to the tax cut, we're going to see a continuing of republican agenda on what they say is holding back the red tape in job creation in america. there's going to be votes on time new regulations to state of jobless market, and also going to be an attempt to effectively strap the current obama administration plan how and when. parts of offshore drilling and

more reports of offshore drilling to the exploratory nature. both of those votes are likely to pass the house. it'll go nowhere in the senate. democrats have shown any interest in taking up the republican. >> you mentioned show votes. -- [inaudible] >> election year. it's that simple. both sides are having their members vote on pieces of legislation which are politicallied a venn teenage use which carry their message. it's a good thing and somewhat able to cast their the political opponentings in the negative light. taking up the senate tax votes. democrats think that forcing republicans to vote against even though it's a procedural vote specially to vote against extending tax cuts for all americans helps them out in the

various states states states in which there are senate races which are going to be close. a handful around the country. senator majority leader harry reed it helps some of the candidates incumbent senators in crafting political message come from the november election. >> cory bowels is congressional correspondent for the "the wall street journal." thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> the senate gavels in at 2:15 eastern. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. we're standing by if for remarks as senator as they return to the chamber. we will watch for that. until live testimony from consumer financial protection bureau richard corp. dry. he is the director of the consumer protection bureau. on capitol hill earlier today discussing some access to credit before the house financial

conservative committee. it got a little bit of heating when the republicans expressed astonishment mortgage documents. there's a portion of that discussion. get to know your borrower information. this is about 1100 pages. we're not going to make a big deal about one page. the people that i get a chance to when i go back in the third district of pennsylvania are small banks. it may be easier for big banks because they have huge number l of people to sift through it. today's hearing was the credit card restricting consumer access to credit. thirty pages of the are the cost-benefit analysis. the rest people have to know. for the small banks they're going to be okay, they get through it. i've gotten to the point too big to fail means you're too small

to survive. for anyone to suggest that the small banks and the small lending institution can come through the same process and come out the other end being able to offer the other products they've offered before is crazy. where i come from, we rely on the small banks and the credit unions. and i'm looking at this and i'm talking to guys who i grew up with went school with, our wives know each other, our kids know each other, they have to sit down and get to know who the borrow is and what a qualified borrower it is. and i'm get -- does it make any sense to anybody? you talk about these are common sense solution or reforms that are going to make it easier. it's not any easier. it's making it more difficult. access to credit can't be done over a long period of time. they need it now. if you need a transfusion of capitol. you -- capital you need it now. if they say i'm unsure they can

do. they're opting out of products they offered before. it they're not sure they can survive what we're putting through right now. i'm blaming you for this. i'm saying we have patience waiting for the diagnose they're dying. access to capital is critical to small business. we're talking about an environment we're trying to get job creators back online. you know what's keeping them away is uncertainty. that they don't know if they can borrow money anymore. my covenant changes every quarter. my collateral changes all the time. it's no longer acceptable clat rather. the people i used to go for money rate they say sorry we can't talk to you because we're trying to sift through the regulation. while it may have been well intended to start with. where you are sitting, please tell me, is it going to be

easier for access to credit or harder? >> first of all, i think there's -- [inaudible] easier or harder for small banks? >> the reason it's been difficult. >> my question -- i'm asking easier or harder. i'm asking the what the time is. since 2008 it's been harder. >> much harder since 2008. they are lurches. hay have money on the shelf to lend to people. we make it harder for people like me small business to have access to credit, if it's hard to get credit it's harder to stay alive. that's my point. in an environment we want people to survive, we want people to go ahead and take that jump, go out and borrow the money. they can't go to the traditional lenders because they cannot sift through this. >> that's not cause, i don't

believe, sir. since 2008 it's been harder for smaller banks to lend. that's because we had a financial crisis and a crash . >> i existed in that world. okay. i know how hard it is to survive in a real world. only inside this beltway do we come up with the solutions that are so difficult that nobody can pull the trigger anymore. so the purpose of the hearing, are we stricting consumer access to credit answer. we're making it so hard for the small banks and credit yonons to lend money. we're tap dancing around. it's so difficult for people they're going to out of business. >> would you like me to respond or listen. >> i would like you to listen and i would like the administration to listen. they have a debt bureau what's going on in the private sector. i can appreciate where you came from. in my business we survive every day. we go into hand to hand combat. i don't knee 1100 pages to tell

me whether i'm qualified or that's the whole purpose of this . >> there's no answer to it. >> okay. red tape is keeping the economy from recovering. i'm out of time. i'm not out of energy. i came here to fight for people in the private world. we have to continue to do that. >> mr. chairman, thanks for having us here. my anytime is expired. mr. kordray. we're not asking anybody to give you 1100 pages. they u can understand the prices and risk of credit. that should be good for the system. we the system crashed and burned all these institutions were hurt a number of them failed, we now need to improve that process. what you're telling me and what i need to hear from you is as we improve the process don't make things worse for these institutions. it's already hard enough. we're trying to be mindful of that every day.

but people who want to go through a very, very they are row rule-making process, you know, it's a lengthy process and complain it's a lengthy process. it's a lot of pages. in the end the rule part that have is a small part of that pile. the forms are going to be simpler and clear and more uniform. that's what we're trying to accomplish. something congress has been asking for twenty years. they were about able to do it. they are now. i hope that's a step forward. we're happy to hear your input. we hear from the same institutions you hear from. i'm hearing the same things. >> the testimony from earlier today you missed any many of that hearing you can see it in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. live on capitol hill an as we await remarkingings. sometimes they stop at the site and offer comments and remarks

on the senate agenda before they begin debate for the afternoon. they expected to gavel in at 2:15 eastern. we'll have live coverage on c-span2. they started this morning at 10:00 the general speeches and expected to continue working on motion proceed to bill extending the tax cuts that were enacted during the bush administration. george with w. bush enrings. if no agreement is reached they will hold a procedure vote tomorrow on motion to proceed to the bill. senators take the break for the weekly party caucus lunching happening now. they'll return in a minute or so to continue work. the senate today also planning to hold a moment of silence at 3:40 eastern marking the 14th anniversary of two capitol hill police officers happening at 3:40 this afternoon. we will have it, of course, here on c-span2.

>> good morning afternoon, obviously this week we're talking a lot about what american tax rates ought to be. republican senators and congressman all believe that we ought to extend the current tax rates for every single american at the end of the year. to help avoid the fiscal cliff that the congressional budget

office -- economics, marks the whole country off the cliff and see how it works out. i think we all know what is going to happen if we do that. we don't think we ought to be playing russian roulette with the american economy. and we think that the best way to deal with the tax issue at end of the year is to extend the current tax rates. our hope to be able to offer the vote on the floor of the senate. it's not clear that the majorities decided to, shall i say -- [inaudible]

and the rate would be 35%. i focused on what the democrat propose is on the estate tax. it's interesting interesting that they decided to not extend what we had in current law with respect to the state tax. instead they would allow it to revert to the way that it was before the so-called bush tax cuts where you had only a million dollars of sempletted --

think about that if you're a small business person for a farmer. you literally have to sell all or at least part of your small business or farm in order to pay the estate tax. their proposal would end up as a $31 billion tax increase of small business, farms, ranchers so on under the proposal and this is according to the joint s more estates with the subject to the estate tax than is the case today. at least twenty times more tomorrowing estates would be subject to to the state tax and nine times more with small business would be subject to the state tax that is the case today. i think with those numbers, it is very difficult to justify the democrat proposal, and i think you'll find a unanimous republican opposition to it.

>> the democrats small business tax hike does is raises tax on million small businesses who employ 25% of american work force, and senator carol pointed out, now it also puts in the punishing 2001 debt tax level that will crush even more small businesses, family farms and ranches. you have to ask yourself why, why can anybody come up with a single reason why you would raise taxes in the economy? i can't think of a reason. the president evidently is being reported said at fund-raiser last nights we tried the plan and it is working. can you tell me, the american people are looking at this i equation today if 41 consecutive months of unemployment above 8% is working. there are 23 million americans who are unemployed or under employed. i think the american people would say no. what we need to see is a president and democrat

leadership mere the united states senate that wants to work on policy that create grik growth. get americans back to work and raises taxes is not the way to do it. as i said before, it's not the taxes that are going to apply to the small business on january 1. you're hitting a lot of family farms and ranches. twenty times the number of family farms and ranches would be subject to the death tax under the democrat propose than under current law today. that is a bad direction in which to lead the country. it seems to be the plan that the president seems to think is working. we don't think it's working and neither do the american people. >> at the end of medical school, all new doctors take something called the hip hippocratic oath. it says do no harm. that's exactly what the chairman of federal reserve said in testimony on capitol hill last

week, he said do no harm is what the republican leader said on the senate floor today. do not harm. and yet, the policy that the hare reed harry reid is going to do significant harm to the american public and economy and listening to howard dean and patty mor i are they are ab -- murray absolutely willing in taking america over the cliff and putting us into another recession. it's because of the policy they're promoting. i'm against that. you can't be for jobs and against the very people who create the jobs. two years ago 40 democrats voted to keep the tax rates at the same rate they had been at. to not raise taxes on anyone in economic times like these. that is the very policy that harry reid is bring together floor the senate. i think we should reject it. thank you. >> you know, when i saw this

proposal yesterday i asked my staff to look at missouri numbers. 100,000 farms in missouri. it's the second i highest number of farms in the country. it's the second biggest state in the country. they must be relative some are relative small farms. they are working farms, family farms 100,000 of them. the average farmer in the country is app 57 years old. most can't be passed along. you can easily have half a million dollar in farm commitment. i was in the ag which i was in the congress i remember being at one farm and the -- had is mark's farm in ozark, missouri. he inherited the farm when he was 16. he has two more years to pay off the hundreds of thousand of dollars the irs levied against

the farm. he didn't to go to college. pree thank you we have quorum the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask to be recognized speaking today about the tax issues that the senate now faces this week. there is clearly a tremendous need for comprehensive tax reform. americans worked from january 1 to april 17 this year, 107 days, to earn enough money to pay their share of federal, state, and local taxes. americans also spend nearly eight billion hours preparing their tax returns this spring. this amounts to four million people working full time for an entire year. there is no reason that paying taxes should be so confusing and so complicated, so time consuming. the burden this process places on individuals and small businesses must be relieved.

according to the nonpartisan tax foundation, the average american taxpayer will spend more on taxes in 2012 than they spend on-foot food, clothing, and housing combined. it is time for tax freedom. we need to replace our deeply flawed tax system with a commonsense system that is simple. er and more growth -- and more growth oriented. the tax code matters when it comes to growing the economy. it is for these reasons i'm a sponsor of senate bill 13, and a longtime supporter of the fair tax, which i see as a step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. the fair tax eliminates the payroll, estate and many other taxes to be replaced with a national sales tax levied on purchased goods placing all americans on equal footing, the fair tax allows our businesses to thrive while generating tax revenues estimated to be similar to our current three million

word long tax code. the process of tax reform has major consequences for every citizen of our country but is a process that must be started because the consequences of inaction are too costly. the truth remains that americans want and need some sort of tax filing relief. the need for commonsense reform becomes more obvious each and every tax season. over the course of the last several years american taxpayers have become much more attentive to what is and is not happening in the nation's capitol and made their message heard. that message is simplify the tax code. in doing so we will create an opportunity for economic growth and new prosperity while increasing personal freedom and liberty. by reforming this broken process, this tax code we have today, americans will once again be more in charge of their lives and their money. this coming january, as we know, our nation faces a fiscal

cliff. on top of the tax increases included in the president -- president obama's health care law, if the bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, a tax increase of $494 billion will strike the economy. for kansans, that's an average tax increase of $3,000 per tax return, money they should be using to put food on their family's table, save for their children's education and prepare for their own retirement. it is estimated that 70% of the looming tax increases will fall directly on low and middle-income families. this week congress will consider a tax proposal from the majority leader that increases taxes. unfortunately, the exact opposite of what our economy needs. s. 3412 that we're debating this week raises the death tax on family farms, small businesses and ranches and estates to the

level over a decade old when they were brought down on a bipartisan basis. this would increase the death tax from its ciewncht rate of 35% to 55%. according to the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, the number of estates hit by this tax will rise by 3,600 to nearly 47,000. nothing hinders the transfer of a family farm to the next generation more than the estate tax. it is an unfair, unjust burden on our economy and it punishes kansans who want to continue their family businesses. i've long sought a term repeal of the estate tax and have pursued opportunities to increase the size of the estate tax exemption and lower the rates. now we have a proposal to increase the burden of this tax. that will only create less certainty for farmers and small business owners as they plan for their futures. under this massive tax increase, 20 times more family

farming estates will be hit by the death tax and nine times more small businesses. this tax increase comes on top of significant small business tax increases already in the legislation. according to ernst and young, these tax increases on if top two marginal rates would shrink the economy by 1.3% and reduce by over 700,000, reduce by over 700,000 jobs from the american work force. this tax increase legislation will only add more uncertainty to our nation's convoluted, ever-changing tax system. common sense tells us, doesn't have to be republicans and democrats, common sense tells us that a simplified tax code will help boost the economy. the revenues we need to balance our books are not increases in taxes. in fact, the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. revenues we need to balance our

books will come from a strong and growing economy where more americans are working and therefore paying taxes. government must get out of the way and reduce the drag on the private sector so that entrepreneurs and small business owners can put americans back to work. americans know that when our economy is strong, when our tax laws are fair, simple and certain, they can provide for their families and we will have the opportunity to see once again our children and grandchildren pursuing the american dream. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i ask unanimous consent that further

calling of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, it's a terrible time in our country. the entire country in mourning for the 12 innocent people who were gunned down in aurora, colorado, last week, and our thoughts and our prayers are with dozens more still recovering from their wounds, mourning with people we never knew, not familiar names, but we've seen pictures of grief-stricken parents, friends, neighbors and our hearts break with them. we wish we could reach across the country and offer them some

comfort. while we mourn, we know that our mourning alone will not be there to prevent a future tragedy unless we do something. we in congress have an obligation to turn grief into action, as we have often done when faced with tragedy. so i come to the floor today to ask a question: when will we wake up? how many of our sons and daughters have to die before we go to work? it's time to sound the alarm on gun violence in our country. it's time for us to gather to talk about commonsense solutions, and i'm talking about

all of us, all 100. it should not matter which side of the aisle you're on. all of us who serve here have someone that we love, someone that we know, someone that we're in contact with, whether it's our child, our sister, our brother or our father and mother. the lives of our loved ones depend on us, and we should not let them down. right now our nation's lax gun laws make it far too easy for murderers to commit incomprehensible acts of violence and terror. mr. president, very early last friday morning we witnessed a massacre, and it's gotten such

that something we know far too well, that a tragedy even with less deaths, with less wounded, with less hurt is a tragedy of enormous proportion when something like this happens in this great country of ours, with so much to live for, so much to enjoy. but here innocent people. this guy arrived at a movie theater in aurora, colorado, had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine, a shotgun and two-and guns. he unleashed a barrage of bullets, murdering 12 innocent people and injuring 58 more in a matter of minutes.

right then the theater had a total population of 200 people in the theater, and 70 of them were wounded or killed in a matter of minutes. and even though the police responded rapidly -- within 90 seconds -- with his high-capacity magazine, the gunman had more than enough time to carry out his rein of terror. among those who lost their lives were parents, mothers, fathers, servicemen, and a veteran, a recent high school graduate, a college student, a six-year-old girl named veronica

moser-sullivan. she was the youngest to be murdered in colorado that day, that night, and someone whose tragic death reminds us all too well of when nine-year-old christina-taylor green was murdered in tucson last year because she wanted to know more about our government. she was part of a group there that for representative gifford. the victims of these tragedies and their families deserve more than solidarity and mourning. they deserve our attention, our action. what do we do to prevent these tragedies in the future will be

the real test of character of this body, the best way to prove we're really concerned is to take the action necessary to protect young lives, because on that score now we lose. i've been in the senate a long time, and i've seen too many americans murdered by guns, too many lives cut short because of the easy availability of guns. and too many times congress has sat back, cowered before the gun lobby and done nothing to prevent these things from happening in the future. we can't wait any longer, mr. president, without the public at large challenging our effectiveness, wanting to know

what it is that we're doing to protect the next group of children, parents, loved ones. the murderers in colorado and arizona both had something that enabled them to rein in the mayhem that they did. they had megamagazines capable of shooting dozens of rounds without having to reload. and they bought them legally. here we see a picture that this man had a semiautomatic rifle and a 100-round drum magazine. these magazines were originally designed for law enforcement people and military people.

they were used to be banned -- i'm sorry. these magazines used to be banned, were banned from 1994 to 2004. let me rephrase that. these magazines were banned from 1994 to 2004, a period of ten years. but under pressure from the gun lobby, congress let that ban expire in 2004. it wasn't an accident. it didn't happen without complicity by lots of people. just think about it. the colorado shooter carried a 100-round magazine, and if he didn't have that magazine, maybe the shooting toll would have

been substantially lower. maybe more lives would have been saved. maybe more loved ones -- husbands, wives, children -- would be alive today. maybe there would be fewer people suffering from wounds. in the arizona shooting, the shooter was only subdued when he paused to change his 30-round magazine. and if he had stopped sooner, obviously precious lives could have been saved. these are the tools -- this magazine -- these are the tools of mass-murderers. no matter what the gun lobby would have you believe, nobody needs a megamagazine to go duck hunting. these high-capacity magazines put all our families in danger,

and they endanger our law enforcement officers as well. we send them into the line of fire to defend us against mass-murderers like the colorado shooter, who legally -- legally -- bought 6,000 bullets in a gun magazine that holds -- and a gun magazine had a holds 100 bullets over the internet. the safety of our families is too important to let this continue. there are too many bullet bulleo many deaths, too many funerals, but not enough people are saying, "stop it; do your job; protect my family; protect my kids; protect my parents." because here are the facts: you guns have murdered more americans here at home in recent years than have died on the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan. mind you, more murdered on the

grounds of the united states than have died in far-off battlefields. that's shocking. more than 6,500 american soldiers have died in the service of the country in support of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. and during the same period, guns here were used to murder about 100,000 people. americans deserve a congress that makes the safety of our families a priority. and that's why i urge my colleagues today, help our people, bring back the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines like the one used in colorado on friday and the one used in arizona last year. that was the law, i repeat, from

1994 to 2004. this shouldn't be a partisan issue. even former vice president dick cheney has suggested that it may be appropriate to reinstate this ban. so, it's time to work together, all of us, to ban high-capacity magazines. do it -- don't do it for me. do it for your family, do it for your constituents. stand up and say, i don't want your family hurt. i don't want your children to fall prey to a gunman. it's time to begin a national conversation, once more, about taking commonsense measures to prevent gun violence in america. and to those who are fearful about the power of the n.r.a.,

understand, we vested them befor-- webested them before ano it again. in 19 96 there was an effort to ban the sale of guns to domestic abusers. it passed and we stopped over 200,000 of those people from getting gun permits -- 200,000 since that time. a lot of lives could have been saved in there. and we stood up to them again in 1999 when the senate came together after columbine and passed legislation to close the gun show loophole. unfortunately, after passing in the senate, the house refused to do anything about it. so, if we show resolve and if we stand up with courage, i know we

can do the right thing once more. there are no more excuses for inaction. i say to my colleagues, look at your children. look at the pictures that may be on your mantlepiece. think about the happy days with your kids. think about the enjoyment that you have shared together, and think about what we want to do to be able to continue those lives that we enjoy so much. the stakes are just too high. we've got to intervene while the memory, unfortunately, is still fresh. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: wormed. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i am still trying to wrap my head around president obama's recent remarks that small business job creators owe their success somehow the federal government. this comment wasn't just wrong; it's actually kind of embarrassing. it showed that the president does not understand the enormous challenges and financial risks that entrepreneurs and job creators deal with every day. it's also affirmed that the president is going to continue pushing the same misguided big-government economic policies that have helped keep our unemployment rate well above 8% for some 41 consecutive months. i want to highlight a few of the success stories from my home state of texas that epitomize what the american dream is all about and to reassure my

listeners that the american dream is still alive and well and thriving in the great state of texas. but first i just want to make a brief point about tax policy, because, as mundane and boring as tax policy may seem to a lot of people, it actually has a very real impact on the people i'm talking about. there's now an emerging bipartisan consensus that tax reform should involve lowering rates and broadening the base so that our tax system becomes simpler, fairer, and more conducive to strong economic growth. don't just take my word for it. look at the president's own bipartisan fiscal commission, the simpson-bowles commission, that reached that same conclusion. unfortunately, the president's own fiscal commission's report is inconsistent with the

president's current deand in we have to raise -- demand that we have to raise taxes. it would mean the large tax increase for many people, who are the people we're depending upon to create those jobs. and the reason is that many small businesses pay their business income on an individual tax return. they are a not a major forbes 500 corporation, mult inational corporation. they're the mom and pop operations that are sole proprietorships, the partnerships; they're even sometimes subchart "s" corporations. that's just a returns to the tax code that -- that's just a reference to the tax code that means you don't pay corporate taxes. you pay flow-thru income. many people who are small businesses that may reach that threshold of $250,000 or above are business people paying on an individual tax return. this -- if this is an effort to

soak the rich, well, the middle class and small businesses are part of the collateral damage. i'd like to remind the president that americans will spend about $350 billion this year alone just to comply with the tax code. that means hiring accountants, that means hiring lawyers just trying to figure what you owe to the federal government. small business owners face a particularly heavy burden because they can't afford the army of lawyers and accountants to help them figure out what their tax obstacles are. yet these are the folks we're depending upon to get america back to work and get our economy growing again. but we effectively have a tax system that punishes them for their success. we can and we should do better. when it comes to dealing with the i.r.s., small businesses don't enjoy the same resources that large, mult inational corporations do.

according to the world bank, it is now more difficult to pay business taxes in the united states than in many western european countries. now, when heavily taxed, heavily bureaucratic countries like france make it easier to comply with their tax code than america does, you know we've got a problem. if the president doesn't believe me, perhaps he should spend some time chatting with some of my constituents, people like steve mayo, the owner of mayo furniture in texarkana, texas. steve's company's a family business that was established about a hundred years ago -- i'm sorry, a half a century ago, 50 years ago. it now employs more than 130 full-time workers and sells furniture in 25 different states. when i visited with steve and

his employees last year they were worried about how in the world they were going to comply with the financial burdens of the new health care law. along with other taxes and regulations. because they told me it would affect their business and their ability to create jobs and to stay competitive. these are the same concerns i've heard from countless constituents, small business owners all across my state. and we're one of the lucky states, mr. president. we've seen more jobs, about half the jobs in america have been created in my state in the last five years or so. we're fortunate because we asked this question when it comes to small businesses that we're depending upon to create those jobs. we asked this very simple question:question: how can we mt easier for you to create jobs? how can we make it easier for you to start a business? unfortunately, the message emanating from washington seems to be, in so many words, how can

we make it harder, how can we increase the unpredictability of your investment? well, after talking to steve mayo, maybe president obama would like to talk to diane leblue. diane's a breast cancer survivor in austin, texas. diane was creative enough to invent a clothing accessory to help women recovering from a mastectomy. the accessory is known as a pink pocket and is now being used by women around the world from austin to australia. the story of pink pockets demonstrates the power of a great idea. diane identified a problem facing breast cancer survivors and she came up with a brilliant solution, somebody that nobody -- something that nobody else had thought of before. the remarkable success of her invention is a testament to her creativity and her hard work.

now, the government was not responsible for the success of pink pockets or mayo furniture. far from it. many times all these small businesses want is for government to get out of their way and off their back and out of their pocket so they can do what they do best. government was also not responsible for the success of s.t.s. coatings, a construction company based in the san antonio area. the founder of s.t.s. coastings, casey covax, reports that she and her husband cashed in their savings to launch their busine business, which now has annual sales totaling more than $3 million. as ms. covax recently said, "we're one of the ones sweating bullets over processing orders and paying our bills, making payroll. not the government. the government did nothing to help me" -- "did nothing to help

my business." you know who else can say that? another extraordinary texan named frank scantlon, who founded sun belt machine works in stafford, texas, near houston, some 34 years ago. now, frank tells the story that as a child, he was so poor that he sometimes couldn't even afford to buy shoes and he quit school in the ninth grade in order to support his family. this is a quintessential american success story. frank persevered and went on to create a business that now has almost 6,000 square feet of work space and employs 90 people. all of these stories epitomize the american dream that has enticed immigrants from around the world to take a risk and to leave everything they had behind and come and make america home. because we were the one place in the world where they knew if

they were willing to work hard and save, that that hard work would be rewarded or could be rewarded by success. and in the meantime, those of us who depend on those small businesses to create those jobs and prosperity could been faith as welbenefit aswell. the owners of sun belt, s.t.s. coatings, pink pockets and mayo furniture understand their success was not inevitable and it sure wasn't guaranteed by the federal government. they had to take the hard risks. they had to work overtime. and they had to overcome challenges that many times the government was the one that put them in their way. but in the end, as in so many great american success stories, their hard work and ingenuity paid off. they can, not government, they can declare with confidence that "i built this." my office has received more than

250 of these stories since obama gave his speech in roanoke. they're the type of stories that have made our country the beacon of prosperity and entrepreneurial energy for so many years. as one texas business owner put it, "rugged individualism is alive and well in the united states." i hope we remember that, mr. president, and i hope the president of the united states remembers that as well. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we know that taxes are scheduled to increase for all americans next year, and we know that an across the board tax increase on all americans would be very bad for our economy. what we disagree on is which tax cuts should be continued. unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan debate. someone watching this debate would assume that we cannot agree on anything when it comes to taxes, but they would be wrong. we do agree on far more than we disagree. we agree that middle-class tax rates should not go up, and we agree that the alternative minimum tax should not affect middle-class taxpayers, and we agree on a variety of tax breaks that help families raise children and invest in their

education. our disagreements elsewhere should not stop us from acting where we do agree. we should cut through the partisan gridlock and pass the policies that we all support. one policy we can all support is the tax credit for companies that provide childcare to their work force. this is a powerful and proven incentive for business, especially small business, to arrange on-site childcare for their employees. i originally introduced this tax credit after we passed welfare reform in 1996. the purpose of welfare reform was to move recipients off benefits and into jobs, a path to financial freedom that is too often blocked by the lack of quality and affordable childcare. after years of work, we finally passed the employer-provided childcare tax credit in 2001. since then, it has offered

businesses a tax credit for building and maintaining a childcare center. businesses can also receive a smaller tax credit for helping their employees find childcare elsewhere in the community. childcare is a good investment for employee and employer alike. businesses can get employees who miss less work to deal with family issues and stay in their jobs longer. parents know that their children are safe, sound and close by while their mom or dad is at work. they do not have to choose between putting food on the table and caring for their children. now is not the time to add another stress to overstressed working families struggling to survive in a down economy. that is why today i am introducing a bill to continue the tax credit for employer-provided childcare. we all agree that the

employer-provided childcare tax credit should not expire. it's included in both the tax bills we are considering this week, and we should extend it now. but support for childcare isn't the only thing the republican and democratic tax bills agree on. in fact, these two bills offer the same exact tax cut extension for the first $250,000 earned by every american family. if a family makes one dollar more than that, they still get the same tax cut extension on their first $250,000. even millionaires get the same tax cut extension as everyone else. everybody, including the wealthiest americans, benefits from the tax cuts that we all can and do support. bipartisan policies bike the tax credit for employer-provided childcare or middle class tax cuts should not be held hostage because of a partisan debate

about other tax cuts. when we all can agree on something, we should vote for it. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed:, permission to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson of the united states capitol police.

mr. reed: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i ask for permission to speak up to ten minutes and after i speak --. the presiding officer: senator,

we are in a quorum call. mr. manchin: ask to visual the quorum call -- vitiate quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to express my indescribable frustration and genuine disbelief that we are looking at two proposals that do not do enough to fix this nation's financial problems and that both have been predicted by both respective sides to fail. i speak of the bush tax cuts and how those of us in the responsible middle find ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place. with a vote that offers truly no real solutions. it is no secret that i prefer fixing the problems this country faces like most of my colleagues. we all have a different approach on this. we are hurtling towards $16 trillion in debt and for the first time since world war ii era, our debt exceeds the output of our economy. even our generals say the greatest threat this nation

faces is not a foreign power or a terrorist organization, but the debt that we have created ourselves. we are staring down the barrel of unsurmountable ontions obility obligations for decades to come up and passing up a key opportunity to put this country in better shape for the next generation. as you can see and as west virginians know we urgently needs to put our country's financial house back in order and the people of west virginia are tired of temporary solutions to our long-term problems. as i have said so many times i will work with both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, on a comprehensive solution that lowers tax rates, broadens our revenue base, closes loopholes, cuts spending and reduces our debt. like the framework proposed by the bowles-simpson plan. unfortunately, neither of the proposals on the bush tax cuts will solve our long-term debt and fiscal problems. at the same time with our debt

problems getting worse every year we must come together to take responsible action and fair steps towards reducing our debt even if they are only temporary. let's look at the two proposals that have been offered, one from our republican colleagues in the house that unfortunately kicks the can down the road entirely and extends these tax cuts at a cost of $400 billion. what people don't know is that even though it would extend tax cuts for the wealthiest -- and this is what they really don't know -- it would actually get rid of some tax deductions for the middle- and low-income americans like the expanded child tax credit. that is tremendously unfair, mr. president. and another proposal from the democrats here in our senate, our side, would cost about $250 billion, which is at least starting to move in the right direction to reduce our deficit. and it keeps a tax cut for more than 99% of all west virginians

and a high percentage in every state such as your own. when considering these two proposals, i kept two priorities in mind: putting our fiscal house back in order and restoring fairness to the tax code. so while i would prefer a bipartisan comprehensive solution, i will support the plan to keep taxes low on families that make less than $250,000. according to the latest available figures from the west virginia department of revenue, more than 99% of all west virginians will get a break on their taxes under this proposal, and the wealthiest among us will pay the rates that they did during bill clinton's presidency, which was the greatest era of prosperity that i can remember in my lifetime. on the other hand, the proposal that includes extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans carries a heavy price for this nation. it's about $150 billion more than the democrats' proposal. given our dire budget situation,

this country just can't afford that. we simply have to prioritize and close the gap. the fact is we can't keep trying temporary solutions to our serious budget problems. and the truth is these tax cuts won't restore confidence in our government or our economy to create good jobs or keep the ones we have. and they certainly don't put our fiscal house back in order. what they will do is be used as fodder in political ads for the next 100 days against both sides. i cannot understand why we continue to take votes that are more about making one side look bad or worse than the other or taking cheap shots than actually solving the problems that we have before us. so i will continue to work across the aisle in a comprehensive bipartisan plan because when it comes right down to it, these tax cuts simply won't fix the financial problems our country faces. i talked to countless business leaders and laborers all over this state of west virginia and all over the country, and when i

asked them what will encourage them not only to create the good jobs that we need but to keep the jobs that we already have, the answer is simple: certainty. they need to be able to plan their next steps. they need to know that their government is working as a partner and an ally, not as an adversary. we didn't pull these stunts in west virginia when i was governor. we were willing to get our hands dirty to, come to the table, to have a genuine and respectful discussion on the right direction for our state. and sometimes that led to a respect agreement to disagree. but at the at least, we moved forward and made a decision. it's been nearly two years since the bipartisan commission on reducing our debt recommended a plan that people of all political stripes support. it's time to go back to that framework and provide this country with an honest solution. in fact, the only thing that seems to be holding our feet to the fire right now is the sequester, which is becoming

quite the scary term around here. for people who don't live and work in the beltway, here's what the sequester is. if those of us in congress can't agree on a real substantial plan to fix our finances, we'll have to make some very painful cuts in some very important areas: our department of defense, our schools and other domestic priorities like veterans services and head start. both democrats and republicans care about those issues, so both democrats and republicans have some skin in the game when it comes to finding an agreement. because let me tell you, the reason that the sequester was put in place almost a year ago was in case we couldn't come up with an agreement on a big fix, one that the so-called super committee was tasked to put forward. well, they didn't agree on a super fix, and this is our penalty. i really believe that the greatest mistake that we could make would be to walk away before the end of the year and not vote on a clear direction to

fulfill the commitment and promises that we made to the american people, which was that we would fix the country's financial problems or the sequester would go into effect. that's the biggest mistake that we can make as a nation: letting the american people down. so now a year after congress has failed to reach an agreement, i'm surprised to find that some of my colleagues who voted for the sequester knowing full well that congress needs the threat of painful cuts before we can get anything done are complaining about something they supported. i stand with those, including the president, who are drawing a hard line in the sand on our finances. like it or not, this painful sequester is the linchpin to a better government and a better agreement. it's the only way that we're going to get something better. and a better agreement will look a lot like the bipartisan comprehensive bowles-simpson framework, not the bush tax cuts. because this country needs a real solution, because this country needs to come together on that solution. because if we can't come

together, there will be dire consequences for this country, with or without the cuts in the sequester. i sincerely hope and pray and will work for a compromise. but i believe the threat of a sequester might be the only thing that will force congress to get its job done. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, before i begin my remarks with respect to the current debate, let me pay tribute to officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson of the capitol police and to all the capitol hill police officers who protect us every day. i was here on that somber day when these gentlemen sacrificed their lives to protect innocent people in this building, and their example continues to sustain us and inspire us, and

they continue, i think, to sustain and inspire the capitol police officers which today are protecting us, and we thank them all. mr. president, as my colleague from west virginia just commented on, we are in the midst of a very serious debate with huge consequences for our country, our economy, our future. and i rise today in support of the middle-class tax relief act. this bill will extend the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for the middle class through 2013. it will provide tax relief to every american, especially to those families who have struggled through this recession and this weak recovery and restore some fairness to the tax code by letting the top rates return to the clinton-era levels of taxation. if we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class, a typical family of four could see their taxes raise by an average

of $2,200 in 2013. this is not fair to middle-income rhode islanders and middle-income americans. unfortunately i fear many if not all my republican colleagues will block this bill because it doesn't extend additional tax cuts for taxpayers that make over a quarter of a million dollars. they will continue to press for a proposal that doubles down on the the failed policies of the bushehr are a, like improved tax breaks for families with children. indeed, one of the astounding things about the proposal, that it will, if you look closely, actually increased the tax burden on middle-income americans. the bill that we propose will benefit every single taxpayer in america. it's only when someone exceeds $250,000 in income that the top two rates revert back to the

clinton-era levels. and we have a progressive tax system. everyone, including the richest americans, will to in joy the tax reductions that were made beginning in the early 2000 period. but particularly those middle-mcamericans who make less than -- those middle-income americans who make less than $250,000. in fact, the vast majority of americans will avoid an increase and see their rates remain the same. the top 2% of earners, approximately 2.1 million households out of more than 100 million households have disproportionately benefited from the bush tax cuts for more than a decade. they will get to maintain their benefits up to $250,000. but after that, they will see an increase. this is the nature of our progressive tax system, one which for generations has spread the burden across income levels,

making sure and trying very hard to make sure that middle-income americans don't shoulder a disproportionate burden of the tax, taxes and the need to support this government. one of the key facts is that what we have observed now for more than a decade is that these bush tax cuts have been very costly. they have contributed to this deficit in addition to unpaid conflicts in afghanistan and iraq, increase in entitlement programs, particularly a prescription drug program that was not paid for. all of these have led to this deficit. at least with this proposal we're beginning to try to reverse that trend and do so, i think, in a principled way. the wealthiest, those who enjoy the greatest economic privilege in the country, i think should shoulder some of the responsibility, some of the effort to help us begin to

repair this deficit which has grown over the last ten years. the democratic bill will cost the federal government $249 billion in lost revenue for a one-year extension. the republican bill will cost $405 billion. so, again, if you're talking about people who are trying to get a handle on the deficit, just compare a bill for $249 billion, which is expensive, but quite a bit less than $455 billion, which the republican plan would cost. and i don't think, again, our nation can afford an additional $405 billion going forward. there is, there has been a proposal or a mantra that has been emanating for the last decade that these tax cuts create jobs and they contribute to our prosperity. but i think what we've seen particularly over the eight years of the bush administration is that the evidence suggests

it's, as president bush left office, we're losing on the order of hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. but there's very little correlation between these claims and the economic reality we face. indeed, if we don't have the resources to invest in the country, in our infrastructure, in our education, in the health of our people, we won't have the economic die unanimous nism immediated to be -- dynanism needed for the future, frankly the future our parents gave to us and they did it in the context of federal tax policies which were fairer, which were more progressive, in my view, and which allowed investment and job growth to be significant. and so, in my state, with a 10.9% unemployment rate and a national unemployment rate above 8%, it's imperative that we embrace fiscal policy that

provides further stimulation for our economic activities but also recognizes the need to begin to reduce this deficit. again, i think the proposal that we have advanced to allow the continuation of tax cuts for those making under $250,000 does both of those things. provides fiscal stimulation as well as beginning to tackle this issue of how over the next several months and years we begin to address the deficit. we've offered a plan that will, i think, preserve and hopefully create jobs. we've pressed for policies that will provide more of an economic bang for the buck, policies like the extension of unemployment benefits, other policies that have been able to maintain demand in our economy so households can go out and go to the store and shop and keep our economy moving forward. what i think we have to do is go

forward, support this effort, begin the hard and difficult task of not only continuing to support middle-income families, but begin to address the issue of deficit. i hope that my colleagues don't block this effort. i hope that my colleagues don't once again decide that doing nothing is a viable alternative to helping middle-income americans and helping our economy overall. we have seen that in the past. early this month the republicans blocked a bill that cut taxes for small businesses that hired new workers. the bill was estimated to create one million jobs nationally, could have created about 3,500 jobs in my state and it was blocked procedurally. last week the republicans blocked a bill that was giving tax cuts to businesses that brought jobs to the united states and closed tax loopholes for companies that sent jobs overseas. that was blocked off. so i believe the record is

clear. we have been trying week in and week out to create jobs here at home, to make our tax system fairer, to give middle-income families a break, and to begin to be fiscally responsible with respect to our deficit. the vote that will be upon us shortly, i hope, is a vote that we can prevail and go forward together and enact this policy. it will be, i think, a first step towards the larger issues that were alluded to by my colleague from west virginia, dealing with sequestration at the end of this year, dealing with the policies over several years that will deal with our economy while beginning to restrain our deficit and indeed provide a more stable, more sustainable economic environment for all americans. and with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak

as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. it has been more than 30 years since i was in medical school, but i still remember the day that my classmates and i stood to recite the hippocratic oath. that is an oath that has guided doctors for centuries. at its simplest, it can be boiled down a single phrase: "first do no harm." i was reminded of that last week when the federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, testified to the senate banking committee, speaking about the approach that washington should take toward healing our sick economy, he said, "do no harassment" well, that's good -- "do no harm." well, that's good advice. the problem is that we have a president in the white house and democrats in congress who don't believe it and don't act that way. day after day, as the president makes one policy decision after another, his policies do harm to

the american economy and to the american people. just look at how sick our economy has gotten since president obama has taken over. the federal reserve projects that the gross domestic product will grow by as slim as 1.6% this year. that's not nearly good enough to give us the healthy neigh we need. the other -- the healthy economy that we need. cbs opened with this summary the other night, "this is the worst economic recovery america has ever had." that's what they said. the worst. every other president has been able to bounce back from tough economic times; not president obama. why is that? well, why is our private-sector economy today sicker than it was when the president took his oath of office? well, the "economist" magazine put it this way. it gave a characterization of the president as someone who has "regulated to death a private

sector who neither likes nor understands -- he neither likes nor understands." and i agree. just look at the president's own words. he stayed while government bureaucrats were struggling, the private sector is doing just fine. doing just fine? it's gotten worse. because of president obama's failed economic policies, more than 23 million americans are now either unemployed or underemployed. i think those 23 million people would say that -- to say to president obama, do no harm. we've had 41 straight months now of unemployment above 8%. our economy created just 80,000 jobs last month, just 80,000 jobs. more people last month signed up for social security disability benefits than got a job. that's not doing just fine. look what the president said about small business owners. he said, "if you've got a business, you didn't build

that." he went ton say, "someone else made that happen." i know a lost small business owners who would say that they worked extremely hard to build their own businesses, farmers and ranchers who worked from sunup to past sundown and everybody in the family works to keep the operation going, and the corner dry kleiner who is trying to keep his doors open, the florist who is trying to avoid laying off another person in the shop. where i live in casper, wyoming, most of the businesses are small businesses. they were started with men and women with dreams and determination. these people aren't looking for a government handout. but they don't want the government and don't think that their government should be hostile toward them. they work hard every day. they work hard to build their businesses. they try to expand and create jobs in the community. president obama doesn't seem to grasp that. that's why instead of doing all

he can to help small businesses, he's burying them under more regulations, under more red tape, under threats of increased taxes. democrats here in washington like to say that they're in favor of creating jobs. then they turn around and do the very things that hurt the people that create the jobs in this country. washington has already put out more than 36,000 pages of new regulations just since january of this year. if small business owners could took to the president, i think they would tell him that they don't need more paperwork. they would tell him, mr. president, do no harm. the damage president obama's policies have done to our economy so far is terrible and it is likely to get worse. we know that the president's policies are holding back our economy from the type of normal recovery that we've had from other recessions in the past. even worse, he's paying for his failed policies by piling an

unprecedented amount of debt on future generations. today our national debt is $16 trillion. in just three and a half years, president obama has managed to waste more taxpayer money than any other president, in my opinion, in american history. previous presidents understood the danger of spending more than we can afford. john kennedy, president kennedy said, "persistently large deficits would endanger our economic growth and our military defense commitments abroad." now, president kennedy made that statement 50 years ago -- 1962. at the time he made that statement 50 years ago, washington's budget deficit that year was $7 billion. so we've gone from $7 billion 50 years ago to a projected deficit of $1,200 billion this year,

from $7 billion to $1,200 billion. that's 170 times greater. has anything else increased that fast in the past 50 years in terms of expenses on anything? a daily newspaper or a bottle of coke that would have cost 10 cents in 1962? well, using this multiplier of 170 times, that would be $17 today if it had increased at the same rate as our nation's deficit. gasoline that was about 30 cents a gallon back then would have to be more than $50 today. or look at it a different way. the share of washington's total debt that is owed by every man, woman, and child in america today is almost $51,000. the president is saddling our children with debt to pay the bills that we can't afford, for policies that don't work, and for goals the american people don't support.

the president demonstrates no sincere effort in cutting government spending. even as the federal government has grown less efficient, less effective, and less accountable. the american people look at washington's out-of-control spending and debt and their message to president obama: yo please, mr. president, stop doing harm. remember, president obama has been quite clear. he doesn't respect small businesses and he thinks the private sector is doing fine. he has increased red tape, increased bureaucracy, he has mortgaged america's future to give taxpayer dollars to his campaign contributors and companies like solyndra. when he's borrowed all that he can, lots of it from china, he still doesn't slow down his spending. he says he needs to raise taxes to spend even more. the president already raised taxes through his health care plan. he pushed through a half trillion dollars in taxes and fees.

he pushed his individual mandate to force people to buy insurance and now he's pushing again to impose massive new tax hikes on millions of success f.p.l. families and small businesses. the additional damage president obama would do to our economy with his proposals to raise additional taxes would be enormous. that's my -- that's not just my opinion. it is my opinion, but others agree. that comes from the accounting firm of ernst and young. they did a study of the president's plan and found it would wipe out 710,000 jobs. middle-class workers who keep their jobs would see their wages go down. 2.1 million business owners would be hit with higher taxes. that means less money left to expand, less money left to hire additional workers. again, you can't be for jobs and against the people that create jobs. in short, as weak as our economic recovery has been threes past three years -- the worst ever, as report the inned

news -- the president's tax increases would make matters worse. just look again at the difference between president obama and a different democratic president, john kennedy. john kennedy said that the largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unreal list stuckly heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, on initiative and on incentive. this lesson from president kennedy is lost on president obama. the only solution that president obama seems to see is to raise taxes and to raise them most on the very people and businesses that we need to lead us to prosperity and economic recovery. remember the words that president obama used when he was running for president in 2008: he said that even if his tax increases led to less revenue the government -- even if his tax increases led to less

revenue for the government that he would raise taxes anyway as a mast fairness. fairness? fairness? what about doing what's best for the country? as an orthopedic surgeon, when someone came to me with a broken health care reform i would try to fix it. you don't break someone else's leg so the two people would be equal. the president is promoting his vision of fairness over good common sense. the american people know that those who work hard and take risks should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor. they should not have to suffer more angry attacks by the president and by democrats in washington. the american way should be to promote success, not to punish it. president obama should abandon his misguided agenda to replace the long-guarded american value of opportunity with the

president's own desire for equal outcomes regardless of effort. but before he makes things even works he should stop and he should do no harm. finally, i want to address one last issue where i think that the democrats in congress and the white house need to reverse course. our country faces what has been called a fiscal cliff. unless washington acts, in january taxes will increase across the board, not just on small businesses but on middle-class families and even low-income people. republicans in the house have already voted to approve long-term spending cuts. this month they will vote to stop the tax increases. republicans have a plan to create a healthier economy by making our tax code simpler, flatter, and fairer for all americans. what happens next is in the hands of the democrats in the senate. financial experts have warned that if senate democrats do not act by the end of this year,

they could create a worldwide recession. this is very serious harm. democrats appear to be ready to do it. the national democratic leadership has made -- the senate democratic leadership has made it clear that they would let the country go over the fiscal cliff rather than compromise on tax hikes. president obama recently said the same thing. he said, if congress passes reasonable regulation that keeps tax rates where they are, even temporarily, he said, while we sort out long-term tax reform, well, he said he'd veto that. he would raise everyone's taxes and risk another worldwide recession. mr. president, look at what you're saying. stop threatening grave damage to america. in reckless pursuit of your political agenda. mr. president, do no harm. those words that sum up the hip contractic orientation they ring true for so many people across america today.

for people who believe, as ronald reagan said, that government should stand by our side not ride on our back, it's time for washington to change direction, to lower taxes, not raise them; to reduce red tape, not increase it, to control our spending, not just rack up more debt; to free the entrepreneurial spirit, not stifle it. first, before all else, if we are to heal our sick economy, it is a time for washington to do no harm. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in

morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i rise today to speak about the need to extend middle-class tax cuts. we have a broad bipartisan consensus that middle-class families should not see their tax increases -- that their taxes increase on january 1. we know if congress does nothing, then taxes will increase for a whole lot of americans, for the broad middle class on that date. we have a broad bipartisan consensus that that should not happen. so we have this moment of agreement. we should act swiftly to extend tax cuts for 98% of american families -- tubal actually act % of people in my state. but we won't. because special interests and their allies in congress are holding this hostage. why? it's the same old song, in order to protect billionaires and millionaires. it seems that the default button for so many people in this

institution, certainly the majority in the house of representatives and far too many in the senate, is no matter what, you protect the interests of millionaires and protect the interests of billionaires. let's be clear, regardless of whose plan becomes law, whether it's our plan, where we immediately, today, this week, as soon as possible, whether we immediately grant tax relief for that -- for people that are middle class, that -- in he is every american will get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income f. you're making a million dollars a year, you still get a tax break on your first -- a tax cut on your first $200,000. if you make $10 million a year, you still get your taxes cut on the first $250,000. you're only paying roughly 4% on every dollar above $250,000. so we have bipartisan agreement. let's lock that in, that the middle class will get a tax cut. there's a -- there's an old cliche that that definition of insanity is doing the same thing

over and over and expecting different results. we've been in this -- we've been in this policy shop before, when they sold us the same flawed economic policies based upon tax cuts for the wealthy trickling down to the middle class. i was in the house of representatives in the first part of the last decade when president bush came to us. we had a huge budget surplus, if you remember those days, a huge budget surplus. in fact, in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in american history. surplus, not deficit. look what we're dealing with now. so what happened? we went -- two wars, iraq and afghanistan. bad idea to go into iraq. contentious issue, the intelligence wasn't really right that the congress was given. many of us voted against it. but put that aside, nobody paid for that war in iraq. then there was the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in our society. nobody paid for those tax cuts. then there was the medicare partial privatization prescription drug bill. nobody paid for that. so we went from the biggest budget surplus in american history to the biggest budget deficit.

at the same time, the economic geniuses of the time that were running government said if you cut taxes on the rich, they really -- they didn't use the term trickle down, but that's what it is. if you cut taxes on the richest in the country, all that wealth will trickle down to the middle class and poor and everybody will get richer and the economy will take off. we had eight years of that experiment. but you know what happened, madam president? twoan 2000 and 2010, we lost in this country 5, million manufacturing jobs. under those economic policies of give huge tax breaks for the rich -- that was the policy, the fundamental tenet, central core of that policy is huge tax cuts for the rich. what happened? we lost a third of our manufacturing jobs. it's only since we've begun to bring some more fairness with the recovery act, with wall street reform, with some other things we've done, with the auto rescue, especially important in my state, did we see the economy grow. from 2010 -- the unemployment rate in my state in 2009 was

10.6%. now it's 7.3%. that's not good enough but it's certainly progress. 5 million manufacturing jobs lost between 2000-2010. since 2010, almost every single month we've gained manufacturing jobs. in the aggregate, some 450,000 to 500,000 manufacturing jobs. so, clearly, this policy of cutting taxes on the wealthy is going to create prosperity. it just didn't work that way. went from -- as is, we went from a surplus at the end of the clinton years to massive deficits at the enof th end of h years. so let's be clear. we're talking about returning the tax rates for the top 2% of americans to their 1993 level, the same year that president clinton balanced the budget. opposition to our bill to extend the middle-class tax cuts say if millionaires have to pay the same marginal tax rate that they did in the clinton years, then job creation will suffer. but it doesn't make sense. again, the clinton years, we want to go back to the tax rates for the richest people in our country to what they were under president clinton. during that eight years,

22 million increased jobs in this country. the bush years, with low tax rates for the rich, we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and had absolutely anemic economic growth. it just -- make the compare son. you don't have to be an economist to make this comparison. you look at tax rate during those years, he look at tax rates during the eight years of the bush years. the clinton years and the bush years. and i don't want to go back. i don't want to blame everything on president bush. that doesn't get us anywhere. it makes people quit listening. but i do want to learn from history. and i look at the tax system we had during the clinton years and the tax system we had during the bush years and make the contrast about what happened. 22 million jobs created. not so good during the bush years with almost -- with very anemic job creation. far too many people in my home -- for too many people in my home state, the recession meant that they had to delay -- the recession didn't mean they had to delay buying a new yacht. workers -- workers in steubenville and norwood and norwalk were struggling to stay afloat. they struggled to make ends

meet. too many are still struggling. struggling. that's why we want a responsibility, mr. president, to the people in new hampshire and all over to pass the middle class tax act of 2012. madam president, the median household income in ohio is $47.358. for those families, a $2,000 tax cuts means a whole lot. we know that 98% of americans who would benefit from this tax cut are going to put that money back into the economy. this isn't trickle down. this is you get a tax cut like that and you put money into th the -- you buy -- maybe you can put a down payment on a car. maybe you can help pay your son or daughter's way to community college. maybe you can do some remodeling in your house. maybe you can just do some things around the house that you need to do or take your kids to a move oh or go out to dirnt once in awhile. but that -- dinner once in awhile. but that $2,000 t 2,000 really s meens a lot to aa family whose income is $-- but that $2,000 really means a

lot to a family whose income is $47,000. the middle class society has been beat up lore enough. folong enough. where wages have been stagnant and people haven't had the opportunity to do what we need to do to build this great country. madam president, i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. and i yield. 123450 mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i first ask unanimous consent that for the duration of today's session, varun jane, who is a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. tomorrow, madam president, we will have the opportunity to deliver a little bit of tax certainty to the american people by advancing the middle class tax cut act. this legislation would prevent tax rates from increasing for the vast majority of american families and would preserve an important tax credit that

currently helps millions of students and families avoid th the -- afford the costs of a higher education. this middle-class tax cuts act is the right thing to do for the middle class and i intend to vote for it. the question is: will it be filibustered? a tax cut for millions of hardworking americans filibustered simply to protect the wealthiest americans from paying a fair share. we will find out. this is not a new story. in 2001, when president george w. bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from president clinton to cut tax rates across the board, many democrats opposed it because the tax cuts were unfairly waited towards the highest-income americans. as a result of this opposition, republicans were forced to set

the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. as 2010 drew to a close, president obama and many democrats in congress, including myself, supported extending the tax cuts for middle-class families but letting the lower rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the clinton-era levels, as was scheduled. senate republicans filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle class tax cut without a tax cut for america's wealthiest. not wanting tax rates to go up on middle-class families still struggling during the economy. the president and senate democrats reluctantly agreed to extend all of the tax cuts through this year. which brings us to now. once again these tax rates are set to expire. i would like to keep rates low for middle-class families.

those families in rhode island are still struggling in the aftermath of the mortgage meltdown on wall street. and this is not the time to raise their taxes. but i agree with president obama that for reasons of fairness and to begin to address our deficit, it would be wise not to extend the bush tax cuts for high levels of income. and bear in mind in this discussion that the middle-class tax cut act actually would benefit even high-ends taxpayers. when we protect the first $250,000 in income, it's the first $250,000 for somebody making a million dollars. it's not just the first $250,000 for a family that makes $100,000 or $185,000. if you make $100 million or $185 million, you still get the first $250,000. if your family, for instance,

makes $255,000, you'd only see an increase on the $5,000 and only to the clinton era rates that were in effect during the 1990's, when our economy was thriving. a family earning $255,000 would pay an extra $150 as a result of this bill. extending the lower tax rates for income above $250,000 for one year, again as the republicans have proposed, would add over $49 billion to our deficit. even in washington, $49 billion is significant money, money that would have to be borrowed, adding to our deficit problem. now, many of the same republicans who voted in the name of deficit reduction to end medicare as we know it --

deficit reduction was so important to them that they voted in that ryan budget to end medicare as we know it, to put thousands of dollars in costs on our seniors, they would support deepening the deficit with high-end tax cuts. there is a double standard here, and for most rhode islanders, these are exactly the wrong priorities when it comes to deficit reduction. in addition to the deficit concerns, we should let the tax cuts at the top expire just for fairness reasons. loopholes and special provisions allow many super high income earners to pay lower tax rates than many middle-class families. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, 65% of individuals earning $1 million or more annually pay taxes at a lower rate than

median income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. let me say that again so it sinks in. 65%, two-thirds nearly, of individuals earning a million dollars or more a year, the vast majority of individuals earning a million dollars or more annually, pay taxes at a lower rate than median income tax taxpayers making $100,000 or less. because of the loopholes, because of what the special interests have done, our supposedly progressive tax system is upside-down to the point where 65% of over million dollar earners pay a lower tax rate than the median income taxpayer making $100,000 or less. as you know, madam president, earlier this year, we voted on my paying a fair share act,

legislation that would implement the so-called buffett rule and ensure that multimillion-dollar earners paid at least a 30% overall effective federal tax rate. during debate on my buffett rule bill, i cited an i.r.s. statistic that the top 400 taxpayers in america in 2008 who earned an average of $270 million apiece, they each earned on average $270 million in that one year, and they paid the same 18.2% effective tax rate on average that's paid by a truck driver in providence, rhode island. the single biggest factor driving this inequality is the special low rate for capital gains, 15% under the bush tax cuts. the special capital gains rate allows hedge fund billionaires to avail themselves of that so-called carried interest loophole and pay taxes at lower

rates than their doorman, their secretaries, their chauffeurs. if we let the tax cuts at the top expire, these rates revert to 20% instead of 15%. now, 20% is still a pretty low rate for someone making $100 million a year, but it's more like what a family making $100,000 a year pays. let's also be very clear about one more thing. the proposal that republicans prefer, the tax cut bill introduced by finance committee ranking member orrin hatch would raise taxes. it would raise taxes on 25 million lower and middle-class americans. it would raise taxes on those 25 million americans still struggling in these challenging economic times. republicans claim not to want to

raise taxes, but the republican tax bill would let very popular lower and middle-class provisions expire that would cost 25 million americans an average of $1,000 each. under the republican bill, 12 million families would see an end to the -- a smaller child tax credit. 6 million families would lose their earned income tax credit. and 11 million families would lose their american opportunity tax credit, which helps pay for college, provides a 2,500-dollar tax credit for higher education. that popular tax credit has already helped millions of students and their parents pay for college, along with pell

grants, another subject of republican attack. extending the american opportunity credit, the college tax credit, through 2013 would cost about $3.2 billion. so republicans believe that we cannot afford a $3.2 billion investment in higher education for middle-class americans, but we can afford $49 billion in continued tax cuts for ultrahigh income earners. a $2,500 tax credit might seem pretty small in comparison to the $92,000 average tax break that millionaires, people earning a million dollars a year, would receive from another year of high-end tax cuts, but

that $2,500 may make a much bigger difference in the life of that middle-class family with that child trying to get into a college they can afford than that $92,000 would make in the life of somebody earning well over a million dollars a year. once again, madam president, look at the priorities here. republicans fought to protect the tax loopholes and taxpayer subsidies for big oil. they have fought to protect the carried interest tax loophole that lets hedge fund billionaires pay lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and doormen, and they want to go after the child tax credit. they want to go after the earned income tax credit. they want to go after the college tuition tax credit.

that is priorities that, like our tax code for too many americans, are upside-down. i hope the republicans will join us tomorrow in voting to advance a measure that would keep taxes low for the vast majority of americans, and i urge them to reexamine their proposal to raise taxes on 25 million low and middle-class americans. i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, many of our republican colleagues argue that we cannot extend tax relief for middle-class families unless we also extend tax cuts for the wealthiest. they argue that without tax cuts for that wealthiest 2%, we will harm job creators and slow the economy. their arguments rely on faulty assumptions, mistaken beliefs

and misleading statements, and let's get to the facts. it is a fact that every american taxpayer would receive a tax cut under our bill on the first $250,000 of their income. it is a fact that compared to the middle-class tax cut act now before us, the plan that the republicans have put forward would increase the deficit by $155 billion. it is a fact that the bill republicans have put forward, despite their professed support for tax cuts, would raise taxes on the middle class by failing to extend the 2009 tax cuts for middle-class families, including the american opportunity tax credit and credits that help families with children. now, madam president, what's unfolding on the senate floor now is the culmination of a rigid republican adherence to tax cuts for the wealthy as the supreme goal of public policy.

republicans have demonstrated a willingness to risk government showdowns, shutdowns. they have demonstrated a willingness to risk grave economic damage, to risk rising taxes on the vast majority of americans in pursuit of their highest priority, lower taxes on the wealthiest 2% of us. they want to risk all of that in service to an idea that has already proved a failure. when historians look back at the republican dedication to tax cuts for the wealthy, they will find it remarkable that so many fought so long and so hard to go back to a failed policy. income for the typical american family peaked in the year 2000. not coincidentally just before the republican tax cuts for the wealthy mania reached its zenith. a june study by the federal

reserve found that the average middle-class families' net worth had fallen by 40% from 2007 to 2010, and in 2010, the bottom 99% of income earners reaped just 7% of total income growth while 93% of all growth flowed to the top 1%. as david leonhart of the "new york times" reported on monday -- quote -- the top earning 1% of households now bring home about 20% of total income, up from less than 10% 40 years ago." he continued -- "the top earning 1/10000 of households, each earning at least $7.8 million a year, many of them working in finance, bring home almost 5% of the nation's income, up from 1%

40 years ago." close quote. now, perhaps this vast accumulation of wealth would arguably be acceptable if it had resulted in faster economic growth, if it had produced new jobs and helped average americans prosper. indeed, since the time of president reagan, america has been told that the rising tide lifting up the wealthy would lift all boats, that the benefits would trickle down to all americans, and our republican colleagues today argue that we must continue the president bush tax cuts for the wealthy or risk harm to the -- quote -- "job creators." but the republican emphasis on policies that are more and more generous to the wealthiest has utterly failed to spark economic growth or create the jobs that we need. their experiment failed. the bush tax cuts coincided with the slowest rate of job growth in american history.

economic growth even before the financial crisis nearly sent our economy into depression was woefully short by historic standards. the failure of the bush policies to spur economic growth and job creation underlies the failure of another promise from supporters of tax cuts for the wealthy. the promise that those cuts would pay for themselves. republicans backing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 painted those grand scenarios of growth so rapid that it would yield increased tax revenue, but instead of growing federal coffers, we got a flood of red ink. so the policy of tax cuts for the wealthy failed as a fiscal policy. it added to our deficit. it failed as an economic policy, coinciding with weak growth and economic output and job

creation, and it failed as a vital test of public policy in a democratic society because it failed the fairness test. instead, it facilitated massive accumulations of wealth for a fortunate few while most americans have struggled just to trim. yet our republican colleagues persist in their pursuit of the failed policy, persist in fact to the point that they are willing to force a tax increase on more than 90% of taxpayers to potentially send their economy tumbling back into recession in adherence to that failed policy. madam president, we're not arguing against this policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest because we seek to denigrate success for class waffle as the public has alleged. we are arguing against these policies because they are broken, they have failed, they are unfair.

we should reject them lest they do even more harm. we should reject the republican pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthy at all costs. every other consideration be damned. we should allow middle-class families to keep a few of their hard, on the other-earned dollae middle class tax cut act. we should at a minimum vote tomorrow to overcome the filibuster threat and to move to proceed to debate this singularly important issue. and, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a very important bill, the violence against women act. it is hard for me to believe it has actually been months since we first came to the floor to talk about this important legislation, which is why we

are here again this afternoon to try and pass a bill into law that has consistently received broad bipartisan approval. it's a bill that passed the senate now almost three months ago by a vote of 68-31. madam president, the violence against women act has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their families, and every time we have reauthorized this bill, we include bipartisan provisions to address those that are not being protected by it. but here we are back on the senate floor urging support for a bill that should not be controversial. so today, the women of the senate and the men who support the violence against women act have come to the floor with a simple, straightforward message for our friends in the house of representatives. stop the games and pass the inclusive bipartisan senate bill

without delay. and in the coming weeks we're going to be making sure this message resonates loud and clear, both here in the nation's capital and back home in our states because we are not going to back down, not while there are thousands of women across our country who are currently excluded from the law. in fact, for native and immigrant women and lgbt individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection that they deserve. you know, the numbers really are staggering. one in three native women will be raped in their lifetimes. one in three. two in five of them are victims of domestic violence. they are killed at ten times the rate of the national average. and these shocking statistics aren't isolated to one group of

women. 25% to 35% of women in the lgbt community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and three in four abused immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status even though they were eligible because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork. this should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across america who are affected by violence. women like deborah -- deborah parker, the vice chairwoman of a tribe in my home state of washington. deborah was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on her reservation. not until the abuse stopped around the fourth grade did

deborah realize she wasn't the only child suffering at the hands of that assailant. at least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that same man. he was a man who was never arrested for his crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today. all because he committed these heinous acts on the reservation and as someone who is not a member of the tribe and it's an unfortunate reality that he is unlikely to be held liable for his crimes. madam president, reauthorizing an inclusive vawa is a matter of fairness. deborah's experience and the experience of other victims of this man do not represent an isolated incident. for the narrow set of domestic violence crimes laid out in the violence against women act, tribal governments should be held -- should be able to hold accountable defendants that have a strong tie to the tribal community.

madam president, i was very glad to see republican congressman judy biggert and several of her republican colleagues echo these very same sentiments last week in a letter to speaker boehner and leader cantor, the republican members explicitly called on their party leadership to end this gridlock and accept -- quote -- "senate endorsed provisions that would protect all victims of domestic violence including college students, lgbt individuals and native americans"-- end quote. so today we are here to urge speaker boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in taking a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people. you know, i was so proud to have served in the senate back in 1994 with senator boxer who is here with me today when we first passed this bill and since we took that historic step, vawa has had had great success

in coordinating victims, advocates and social service providers, law enforcement professionals to meet the chals of combating domestic violence. it has received praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victims service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates and survivors. vawa has attained such broad support because it works. where a person lives, their immigration status, or who they love should not determine whether or not perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. these women across this country cannot afford any further delay, not on this bill. now, madam president, today "the new york times" ran an editorial on this bill that really gets to the heart of where we are. it began by saying -- quote -- "house republicans have to decide which is more important,

protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their party's far right. at the moment, harshness is winning"-- unquote. but the editorial pointed out it doesn't have to be that way. it pointed out, -- and i quote -- "in may, 15 senate republicans joined with the chamber's democratic majority to prove a strong reauthorization bill"-- unquote. and finally ends with what we all know it will take to move this bill forward, leadership from congressman boehner. i ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: today the effort we are beginning in the senate is an effort that will continue as long as it takes. it is a call for the same thing -- leadership. it's time for speaker boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan politics. it's time for him to look at the

history of a bill that again and again and again has been supported and expanded by republicans and democrats. it's time for him to do the right thing and pass our inclusive bipartisan violence against women act. because women across the country's lives literally depend on it. madam president, i'm delighted that my colleague from california is here with me. she's been with us every step of the way in this bipartisan bill that we've moved forward, and as women and men who support us, we are going to continue being loud and strong. we need to pass the senate bill, speaker baron -- speaker boehner needs to take it up. the women in this country are watching and waiting. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, i'm proud to follow senator murray in her call to pass the bipartisan senate bill which will reauthorize the violence

against women act. the leahy-crapo bill is the only bill that will protect all the women in our country. i well remember vice president biden, was then senator biden, in 1990 he wrote the with violence against women act and i was in the house at the time and he asked if i would carry the house version of his bill. i was extremely honored to do that and -- and we were able to pass small portions of the bill in the 1990's but it wasn't until we came -- i came here to the senate that we passed the entire bill and i think it was senator schumer then in the house that picked up the ball on the bill in the house, it got passed and since then we've seen a decline in violence of 53%. but even so, even while the law is working, we have to strengthen it because,

madam president, as you know because you're a leader in this, every day three women are killed by their abusive partners. let me say that again. every single day, three women are killed by their abusive partners. so in order to change this terrible statistic, we need to reauthorize the violence against women act and we need to improve it to protect more victims of domestic violence. that's what the senate did. i'm very proud of the senate. we passed the bipartisan bill with a vote of 68-31 with 15 republicans voting in favor. and, madam president, you also worked hard to get the transportation bill done, and it was a very similar situation. the senate had a bipartisan bill, it was a very popular bill, it had over 70 votes.

the house was very slow to take up the measure, and we kept saying pass the senate bill. finally they passed a small bill and we got to conference, we hammered it out. but here's the thing: we don't have time on this. we need to tell the house and ask the house to take a look at our bill and to understand how important it is that everybody be included in the violence against women act. so i'm going to put up a chart here that shows us how many people are left out of the house violence against women act. and now i would say, mr. president, we can see that 30 million people are left out of the house violence against women act. that's why we have seen a number of colleagues in the house call for passage of a bill like the

senate's bill, because we include everybody. it isn't fair to leave entire groups out of the protections of the violence against women act, and that's exactly what they do in the house. the house bill ignores the wishes of law enforcement and excludes key protections for four million immigrants. it excludes 16 million lg bt persons from critical services, more than 44% of lgbt victims who seek shelters are turned away. the house bill would protect indian tribes from protecting almost two million native american women from their abusers. this is outrageous. it's an extremely outrageous omission given nearly half of all native american women have been victims o