about the history of the united states of america as we know in this -- in this chamber. and anything that is going to fast-track a -- a -- citizenship is something that is concerning to me. now, that's not why i'm here today. i've decided to come down knowing that the president of the united states was going to make a -- a talk, and in this talk i want to make sure that people understand what he's advocating is the largest tax increase in the history of this country. and it's something that we know he's been trying to do in terms of his global warming activities over the last -- let's see, actually a long time, before he was first elected four and a half years ago. his speech on global warming, he started delivering on all the promises that he gave the environmentalists base during his campaign. when i talk about the environmentalists, i'm talking about a lot of the groups are

good, well-meaning people, some are not, some are extremists but leading up to his reelection campaign the president had been given a pass by all these organizations. because they knew if the american people thought he was going to do what we now know he is going to do, what he announced today, that he would not be reelected. because of the cost of it. so he had been given a pass by the environmentalist groups like the sierra club, the natural resource defense fund, move on dot org, michael moore, you know the crowd. they said as soon as you are reelected, since you can't be reelected against we want to get all these things done. all the groups want the president to use his regulatory power to make traditional forms of energy so expensive that there's no option but to use their preferred alternatives. but they understood that if the president wanted to get reelections he would need to

delay as many of these regulations until after his election. that's exactly what happened. they were willing to do this because they believed it was that important to elect barack obama, his second term as president as opposed to mitt romney or any of the others who were running. they gave him a pass. they didn't talk about this. as a result he delayed many of the most significant regulations the e.p.a. worked on during the first term until after the election. one was boiler mact. let me explain what mact is. maximum achievable control technology. what it means is -- what is the maximum in terms of something like emissions that can take place where you have the technology to support it. now, this rule sets limits -- this on boiler mact -- on emissions of industrial and commercial boilers that are impossible to meet because technology required by this rule isn't even available yet. it would cost the economy --

and this is the analysis is done -- no one, by the way, i say, madam president, has disagreed with these figures. it would cost the economy $63.3 billion and result in about 800,000 jobs that are lost. it's called boiler mact. every manufacturer has a boiler. and these are the ones that would be required to an emissions standard where there is no technology to reach that at this time. so he waited until the day after the election and didn't want the rule to -- for people to realize what it was until after election day. the other is the ozone national ambient standards, the nac standards. it affects everyone in america. the president tried to redo president bush's update of this standard during his first term but as the election neared and the cost of the regulation became clear, he completely punted the effort. now, however, we know that he

is actively considering an update of this regulation that could lower the standard from 35 parts per billion to 60 parts per billion. this is on emissions. and this would put as many as 2,800 counties out of attainment. let me tell you about what that means. by the way, we have 77 counties in my state of oklahoma. all 77 would be out of attainment. it means country go out and recruit industry, you can't keep jobs that you have because you are out of attainment. that's an official standing. this would be 2,800 counties out of attainment in the united states of america including all of my state of oklahoma. but one thing that the environmentalists want that the president has not been able to deliver that's even worse than all the rest of this stuff is to deliver on the co2 regulations which is the crown jewel of environmental regulations. regulations -- in fact, there's an m.i.t. professor

named richardlinessen, one of the outstanding climate scientists in america today, he said the regulations on carbon dioxide -- i'm quoting now -- is a bureaucrat's dream. if you control carbon, you control life. that's a pretty strong statement. this is because everything, every manufacturing process, every refinery, every hospital diagnostics machine, every home, every school, every church would have to be regulated. and if you can control carbon, you can control every decision anyone ever makes. and this is what the liberals want. they want government to control everything. and their crown jewel is co2. that's where the mole whole thing started. a lot of them are saying we never did say it was global are warming, now it's climate change. they've changed it around as people realized some of these things aren't true. i remember when people were talking about the global warming. now we know we're actually in a

session that -- in a part of the cycle that it's going down but that's not important. what's important is they want to regulate carbon dioxide. that's their goal. the president tried to push greenhouse gas emissions on the country in 2010 when the democrats had supermajorities in the house and senate. the last bill was the waxman-markey bill, two house members, a cap-and-trade bill. we know that that is. we've been talking about it for 12 years. you have someone, they cap emissions and trade those around and buy and sell them and results in a huge tax increase. it would have regulated any source of emissions that emitted 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions or more. that's very important because what he announced today is far greater than that. in other words, those bills were only going to regulate the emissions of -- of industries

that emitted 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year. now, that came to a total cost of about $400 billion a year. again, i'm using these without documentation now because i've been using them for 12 -- we've been documenting them for 12, no one is arguing with the fact if we pass cap-and-trade at 25,000 tons of greanhouse gas emissions a year it's going to cost the economy about $400 billion. that's a huge amount. that's -- while that may not be the largest tax increase in history, what he promoted today would be. congress squarely rejected this and while the bill passed the house it failed miserably in the senate and that is because it would have lowered standards of living for the american people across the country, forced businesses to shut down, it would have equated the biggest tax increase in american history and i think people understood

that. now, that was what has happened in the past. so what this president wants to do is what they could not get passed in terms of legislation they're going to do lie bye regulation. the american people knew what was going on, knew the impact this legislation would be, and they told their representatives to vote against it and they did. if many of those who voted for it are no longer in this chamber too today. they were defeated in 2010. but now with the president's reelection secured and the environmentalists have been crying for the president to act aggressively on global warming, it's payback time. we understand, mr. president, you couldn't push this thing by regulation before the election because you wouldn't have been reelected. now you're reelected. we have a law that means you can't be reelected again so it's payback time and he's doing it unilaterally bypassing congress using authority he's claiming under the clean air act. now, in the words of very prominent democrat congressman john dingell, this would be a

glorious mess. because instead of regulating only the biggest pollutants like waxman and markey and those who want to regulate only industry that emitted over 25,000 tons a year, the clean air act regulation would regulate any facility emitting over 250 tons. so it's not 25,000 tons that would be regulated, it's anything over 250 tons which means that you can't even calculate how much that would cost in terms of a tax increase. as the president announced today he will begin the process with the regulation of greenhouse gases from new and existing power plants. the president may have said today that he'll work with the states and utilities to make sure they get a policy that they like, but that's just window dressing. it's the -- putting the lipstick on the pig. legally, the president cannot get around the requirements of the clean air act. all right.

the clean air act was passed a long time ago. i supported it. we had the clean air act regulations back when i was serving in the house. they were good and they worked. but they do cause for regulation of anyone, any facility emitting 250 tons of greenhouse gases a year. but make that kind of emissions. while he might not be talking about it, the law he's using to justify greenhouse regulations will not let him stop with regulating just power plants or allowing him to craft a policy that states that. he doesn't have a choice. the law requires him to eventually impose regulations on every single industry in the country. every single industry. one at a time, with unelected bureaucrats doing the heavy lifting along the way. this means every school, every hospital, every apartment will eventually be regulated by the president's e.p.a. and as much greater cost than the $400

billion a year. that was expected under waxman-markey. waxman and markey bill because the last cap and trade they tried to pass through and it was defeated. no one has ever calculate wead the cost would be to the american people if they had to regulate down to 250 tons. let me giver i an example. my state of oklahoma, i always calculate the first of each year how many federal taxpayers do we have in my state of oklahoma. and then i do the math every time something comes along. well, in terms of regulating under those industries over 25,000 tons of emissions a year, that amounts to $400 billion which is about $3,000 a year for each taxpayer in oklahoma. and that's what you have to stop and realize that the cost of this thing is not little, it is huge. but today's announcement doesn't come as a surprise. we've known that they've been working on these regulations since he was first elected,

scheming to give his environmental base exactly what they want. roger martella, former general counsel of the e.p.a., recently said and i'm quote being now "two years is about the minimal time it would take to go from soup to nuts on a rule like this, and that these rules don't come out of the clear blue sky, and involve lengthy internal deliberations before the public even gets the first peek at them." we know what's going on right now has been happening for a long period of time. further, the congressional research service recently put putt out a report saying president obama has spent already has spent $68.4 billion on climate change activities since he's been elected. now, this doesn't require a vote, all done by the president. so we have that -- taking place. and the c.b.o. substantiated this by saying the annual spending on climate change has reached in an annual level of $7.5 billion with an additional

$35 billion being provided in the president even $825 billion stimulus plawn plarn. the president's been intent on giving his environmental base this victory for a long time and he's willing to bypass congress to make it happen. the reason is it will pass -- won't pass congress. we've had his bills, they've been defeated. by look at the majority leader and say you couldn't come up with 35 votes to pass cap-and-trade in the united states senate. but on regulations, he can do it without having to go out and get the votes. the impact is clear. it is the crushing of our economy. as i spoke on the floor last night, developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has resulted in a boom. oil trution prowtion is up 40%. it's not because president obama is president. it's in spite of his policies because all these things have happened in the hydraulic fracturing. i know a little bit about that,

the first hydraulic fracturing was done moo my state of oklahoma that was in 1949 and there has never been a case of groundwater contamination in the years since then in over one million applications. now, if we had a 40% increase in the production in this country in four years, it all came from the private and the state lands, not one -- none of it came from the federal government because this administration won't let us drill and produce in that area. in fact, the report came out that i just quoted and said that the -- on federal lands it has been reduced by,,by 7%. so while overall oil production is up nationwide, on the federal lands it's down by 7%. the president said he's on a course of unilaterally disarming our economy the same as he's doing to our military. he wants to impose costly regulations on our energy and manufacturing sector to no ooh country on earth has.

china, mexico, all of these nations know you need cheap, reliable energy and they have to have it in their countries. they are never going to be pursue these regulations or are waiting for the day america does it unilaterally. why would that be? if we do it, they know that our jobs are going to have to find energy someplace and they have to go someplace to find it and they'll be after those jobs. any unilateral greenhouse regulations we have in the united states will only shut down our domestic production. in fact, when lisa jackson was the director of the environmental protection agency, i asked her the question -- and this is live on tv, and she was giving me a very honest answer. i said if we were to pass any of these cap-and-trade bills like the ones i've been talking about, would this lower overall emissions of co2? she said no because the problem is not here. it's in china.

it's in india. it's in mexico and other countries where they don't have regulations. you can carry that argument on out and say that if you pass these things, if we do it unilaterally in the united states as the president is suggesting today, it's going to have the effect of increasing co2 because as people go and seek those countries where they can actually do this, where they don't have any restrictions at all. so there's no need for the president to take us down this path. he is beholden to his environmental base which claims global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity. and he said in recent months all the major weather events of the last decade have been the result of global warming. some even claim oklahoma's recent tornadoes are the result of global warming. this isn't true. at oklahoma university, if you talk to them down in the weather center down there, they say this year has not been any different than years past. we plotted our tornadoes since

1950. you don't have tornadoes in your state of nevada like we do in the state of oklahoma, but we've had them since the 1950's and the trend is just about the same. it's not any higher this year, last year and the year before than it has been in the past. it's because we've been having these events since the dawn of time that many environmentalists refuse to refer to global warming as tkpwhroerplg and so they -- as global warming and so they call k climate change or anything else the public will buy. you will not hear many say during the last 15 there has not been any increase in temperature as reported in "the economist." even if they did acknowledge this with the term climate change, they have an alibi because climate change by its name doesn't necessarily mean warming. it can mean anything. the president's announcement today to combat global warming does not come as a surprise. he's been working on it for years. so i would only just conclude and say let's remember what it

was that richard lens, the foremost authority in america on this subject stated when he said that regulating co2 is a bureaucrat's dream. if you control carbon, you control life. and remember the other thing, and that is all this expense, all this trouble we're talking about going through, all that the president announced today is not going to reduce co2 according to not a republican, but to the democrat director of, past director, former director of the e.p.a.. with that, i yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: there will be no more roll call votes tonight. at 11:30 tomorrow i remind everyone we have a motion to waive the budget point of order. and we'll also vote after that on the leahy amendment as modified. that is 1183. following that, a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee-reported substitute.

we have those votes already set up. i've been to the white house for the last while, couple of hours with senator mcconnell, and i got back to the cloakroom and we're working on an amendment list. during my absence here the staff has worked very hard with -- we've worked among ourselves. we've worked with republicans trying to come up with a list of amendments. we're not there yet. i'm informed that the last half-hour or so we went backwards rather than forward. but we're working on this. we can still do it. we have to keep our eye on the prize and make sure that everyone is willing to give a little, because right now there's too many amendments that will never be agreed to. but this can be done. we'll continue to work on this. a majority of both caucuses want

amendments. having said that, simple majorities wasn't do it. but i'm hopeful and confident we'll be able to work something out on amendments. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, more specifically. my apologies to the presiding officer. the presiding officer: quite all right. mr. whitehouse: i wanted to come to the floor today. there are a number of my colleagues that are going to be speaking in the next hour about the president's announcement today of his plan to address carbon pollution and the changes that it is wreaking really on our planet. we have just heard from the distinguished senator from oklahoma, a lot about politics and the motives behind the

president's decision. but we can disagree about the politics and the motives. i think we should be past the opponent of disagreeing about the facts. and the facts are that in the past 15 years, during which the distinguished senator said we've seen not any increase in temperature, we've actually had the hottest decade on record. i'll get the exact figures in a moment. but i think 10 of the 12 hottest years on record have been in those past 15 years. i'll be more precise. i just heard the distinguished senator say that. i don't have the exact numbers, but there's been a terrific spike. if you go to the property casualty insurance industry, the property casualty insurance industry is not an industry that is heavily involved with democratic or liberal politics.

these people who do their calculations, they make their living by trying to predict correctly and their cold-hearted actuaries have no purpose other than to provide the insurance industry the best possible information, and they are shoepg shoepg -- showing an exceptional spike in both the number and severity of storms that we are seeing. and they're having to adjust their insurance practices accordingly. i hope that we can find a way to work together on this because i think the president's step that he took today is one that is long overdue and vitally important to our economy, vitally important to our national security, vitally important to our international credibility, and most of all, vitally important to our children and grandchildren. this is the great issue and responsibility of our time, and i'm delighted to see that the president has stepped up to it. i'll make one last point and then i'll yield. i see the distinguished senator

from hawaii is on the floor, and i know he was at the president's announcement with me and i know he wants to say a few words. but this has been described, trying to do something about this and trying to put a price on carbon has been described as the biggest tax in history perhaps and as something that would amount to the crushing of our economy. i think it's pretty safe to show that neither of those statements are accurate. for starters, there's nothing that says the government has to keep the money when it's a carbon pollution fee. it can go straight back to american families and be essentially a wash to the economy. in fact, by going back to families, 100 cents on the dollar and changing the economic history of the country for the better i think it will turn out to be an economic plus. over and over again e.p.a. regulations have been imposed that created more economic benefit for the country than they cost. and i'm actually pretty confident that this regulation,

once it gets going, will create more economic benefit for the country than it will cost. and every dollar of it could go back. it would mean as much as $900 a year for every american family. to offset any increase in energy cost and to spend how they will. but to do something that republicans ordinarily agree is important, and that is to set the market straight so that there isn't an imbalance in which the price of a product doesn't reflect the true cost of a product. that's law 101, economics 101, it's fairness 101. it should not be a proposition that we are debating. but i intend to stay here until this conclusion, this hour so we have this concluded. i'll yield right now to the distinguished senator from hawaii, who, as i said, was also at the president's announcement in the blazing heat. but since he's from hawaii, he's more used to the heat than i am. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield before he yields to the senator from hawaii? mr. whitehouse: i've yielded the floor.

whoever seeks recognition. mr. schatz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, madam president. i was very encouraged by the president's speech today for a number of reasons. but the main thing that i found encouraging is that he's obviously done waiting. and there are three reasons to be done waiting. the first is it's very unlikely given the current composition of the congress that the congress will take action in the 113th. we have to recognize that political reality. the second is that from an ecological standpoint, we don't have the luxury of waiting. we don't have 5 or 8 or 12 years to wait and deliberate. we need to take action now in order to reverse global climate change. and the third is a matter of law. under the e.p.a. versus massachusetts, the supreme court didn't just give the authority to the e.p.a. to regulate carbon as a pollutant under the clean air act. it actually requires that the e.p.a. move forward.

so even if this president didn't believe in the science, even if this president weren't as passionate as he is about combatting climate change, he would be required to, under the law, comply with the conditions of the supreme court decision. so let's get one thing straight. in a way, it's a little sad this has to be asserted on the senate floor as a political statement, but here it is. climate change is real. it is caused by humans, and it is solvable. it's a real threat with a high cost, but if we act now, we can start a new era of economic and scientific leadership for american innovation. this is really an incredible opportunity. and as i see our young pages here, this is an incredible opportunity for innovation, for partnership, for opportunity, for our economy to grow and for us to, again, become a world leader. to start a second industrial revolution in clean energy and

clean technology. you know, the state of hawaii was able to move forward with something called the hawaii clean energy initiative. and what we have done is simply breath taking. in a very short period of time we've actually tripled clean energy production, not from 2% to 6%, but rather from 6% to around 18%, in a matter of just a few years. all the while driving unemployment down and down and down. and so the old choice between economic development and economic opportunity and environmental protection, the premise that unfortunately some on the other side of the aisle cling to, which is that we have to choose between protecting our health and our environment for future generations and economic opportunity in the short run has been disproven. we have great opportunities to be a leader in clean technology. that's why we have to support earpa, why we have to support our d.o.e. and our national

energy labs. and the hawaii clean energy initiative is proof we can do so. i'm very encouraged by the president's movement on this. i'm pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with anyone who wants to legislate. if there are problems with the straight regulating of carbon, let's talk about that. but the only way to solve those problems is by legislating. and if this body and the body across the capitol is unwilling to act, i'm pleased that this administration will take action. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i thank the -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the distinguished senator from hawaii. i wonder if we might ask unanimous consent if he wishes to engage in a colloquy on the senate floor, if that would be agreeable. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. we were both at the president's speech today.

one of the things that the president mentioned that i think is an important point to bear in mind is that carbon pollution isn't free right now. we are not going to suddenly impose a cost on the economy through regulation that otherwise would not be there. and i can speak for rhode island. we are paying the price right now in the price of food and goods that are more expensive because of wildfires and droughts. we are paying the price in the cost of repairs to homes and shoreline that has been damaged by floods and storms. we are paying the price in terms of increased taxes for more disaster services not only in rhode island but across the country. we're paying the price in the form of hikes in our insurance premiums. we pay the price in softer ways. in days spent in the hospital with a child having an asthma

attack when you could be working or out at home. and certainly we pay the price in what you might call the lost victories of innovations that we never achieve because we were so busy subsidizing these old fuels. i'd like to ask the senator from hawaii to comment for a moment on how he sees the costs in his home state of hawaii, which is far away from my home state of rhode island, both very ocean and coastal states but i'd love to hear his experience and his views as well, and then i see the senator from connecticut is on the floor who is welcome either to join in the colloquy or to make a statement as he wishes. mr. schatz: madam president, i thank you. and through the chair, i'd like to answer your question and then perhaps yield to the senator from connecticut. thank you for pointing out that this is not, just for those of us who consider ourselves environmentalists. this has become an economic issue. this has become a question of

our national strategic priorities. there is a reason that admiral locklear, the head of the united states pacific command, gave an address in which he called climate change the strategic threat in the pacific theater. that's not because he's a member of the league of conservation voters or the sierra club. it's because he understands what's happening throughout the pacific theater. there is a reason that secretary of the navy ray mavis is leaning so heavily forward on the question of biofuels and clean energy. and again, it's not because his job is to be concerned with global climate change. his job is to try to make sure that the navy is as prepared as possible from a fuel standpoint, from a readiness standpoint, and he sees new fuels as the way to go. and the other part of this equation from the department of defense perspective is the amount of money that we have to spend forward operating, protecting our fuel supplies and our fuel lines, so that to the

extent that we can have smart grid technology, better battery storage technology, new renewable energy generation, better efficiency, all of that helps our troops especially as they are forward deployed. so i thank the senator from rhode island for pointing out that there is a broadening recognition that this issue goes beyond conservation or anyone's particular concern with the natural environment narrowly speaking. this is becoming a question of the cost of insurance, about how much we have to spend on flood mitigation, how much we have to spend in terms of disaster mitigation. this is now pervading our entire economy. it's costing the federal treasury billions of dollars, and so the cost of doing nothing at this point exceeds the cost of action, and i yield the floor to the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. and i want to thank both of my

colleagues and soon to be joined by another colleague in this colloquy, my colleague and friend from connecticut, senator murphy, but let me first thank the senator from rhode island because he has been a constant and extraordinarily eloquent speaker on this subject, regularly reminding us of our obligation even before the president outlined today his vision of what we need to do, and i thank him and i thank the president for his bold leadership and very effective and courageous action that he has taken today. anybody who questions the need for action in this area need look no further than the shorelines of connecticut which were devastated by super supersm sandy which have been hit

repeatedly over this past year by a rash of unprecedented severe weather events. connecticut has been through extraordinarily severe and serious weather events that may become a new normal. we hate to think of these kinds of storms and tornadoes and hurricanes as the regular order, but in fact that havoc may be the new normal for many states, indeed for all america, which is why the president's leadership today is so very important. without action, we will suffer the effects of inertia and continued pollution and contamination. climate disruption that is the result of human contribution, human inaction, human failure to address these problems.

in fact, inaction is unacceptable. inertia is intolerable and this kind of leadership, from the senate as well as from the president is a moral obligation to protect the planet for our children and our grandchildren. in the last 30 years, asthma rates have doubled. in the last year alone, our nation has faced droughts and floods, extreme temperatures in almost every corner of the country, which exacts a cost. in dollars and in human lives as well as suffering. this kind of extremes in climate are destructive and deadly, and the health-related costs of climate change add literally billions more to our nation. connecticut has suffered major disasters six times since 2010.

six disasters in less than four years. and that compares with six disasters in a 30-year period from 1954-1985, so we know firsthand how climate disruption -- it's not just climate change. it is climate disruption can affect our daily lives. so we have an opportunity as well as an imperative to act now, and very simple steps, we know what they are, upgrading and modernizing our existing power plants so they admit less carbon, investing in clean energy research and development, the investments that we make in fuel cells. connecticut is the fuel cell capital of the nation and could be the fuel cell capital of the world. all combined with other measures. they are easily within our reach, can help save lives and dollars in this effort. and the investments we're making

in infrastructure, the public investment can also help us in this direction. there are commonsense and necessary actions that we have an obligation and opportunity to take now, and one of them is the appointment of gina mccarthy to head the e.p.a., now stalled by the same paralyzing partisan gridlock that is all too common. this kind of partisan gamesmanship should stop. i know her well. i can assure this body, as i have done before, that she has worked in the presiding officer's state of massachusetts as well as our state of connecticut with republican governors. she has exemplified the kind of balanced approach, balanced and positive, to business needs and interests, as well as environmental protection.

she is well respected in the environment and business communities because of her dedicated -- dedication to developing practical solutions in facing this kind of set of environmental challenges, and her leadership along with the president's vision today is so very important. so we are working together, a group of us. i'm proud to be a part of that effort. i cosponsored legislation that would protect some of connecticut's treasured bodies of water, including the farmington river, the salmon brook and pawkatuck river as part of the wild and scenic river system, and i have urged the army corps of engineers to complete its study of the connecticut river to better understand and to better understand human impact on that river and improfits system, but all these efforts will be for

naught if america and humankind fail to address this fundamental challenge that we face now to end our contribution to climate disruption, to stop the drift and inertia, to accept that we must act and act now, and the president's plan is an example, only an example of the kind of bold approach we need to combat the impacts of climate change. and so with the president's -- madam president, with your approval and with the senator from rhode island's acquiescence, i would yield to my colleague from connecticut for his comments. we share a state and we also share a view that our children, his two and my four, will benefit from what we do here together as a body, as a group

and as a country. thank you, madam president. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker blumenthal, thank you for the yield. madam president, we do share lots in common. we share the fact that we are both parents. i am, in fact, the father of two little, little boys, a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old. if they are lucky enough, they might get to live to see the year 2100. they might be around for the end of this century as opposed to the rest of us who will not see that day, and i shudder to think about the connecticut that they are going to have to deal with 80-something years from today if we don't act right now. this isn't science fiction that we're talking about. in new england, we are talking about a one to three-foot rise

in sea level by the end of this century. now, just a handful of inches is catastrophic in some parts of the globe, but a three-foot rise in sea level in the state of connecticut on a shoreline that has already been battered, as senator blumenthal mentioned, by storm after storm would be absolutely cataclysmic, and that connecticut that my children may be living in at the end of this century would bear almost no recognition to the one in which they live in now. and every single week, every single month that we don't do something is another step closer to that future world, which right now we think of as just one of fantasy. connecticut is also the home to some of the biggest property and casualty insurance companies in the country, and in the world, frankly, and i think it's important to recognize the fact that our inability to act is

bankrupting this country right now as we speak. the property and casualty industry has paid out $135 billion with respect to extreme weather events in 2012. $139 billion has been paid out. now, that results in increased premiums, that results in costs skyrocketing for everybody across this country who is paying for property and casualty insurance. the taxpayers have likely paid about $100 billion in terms of cleanup costs and remediation costs just over the last year alone. super storm sandy and the events that we have seen hit the gulf and east coast. they are bankrupting our nation and bankrupting companies and private insurance policyholders as we speak. those costs are catastrophic.

and, madam president, the reason why you have such a big group of senators down here applauding the president's actions is also because we know that the united states can't do this alone. we know that we are going to have to convince countries like india and china, developing nations to join us in a global effort, and we hope that the international climate talks are on pace to be able to get an agreement that could be operative by the end of this decade in 2020. but the world is still scarred by a unanimous vote in this chamber to reject the kyoto protocols. the world is skeptical that the united states really has the stones or the courage to lead on this issue. and even though this body remains paralyzed for the time being on this subject, the president coming out and making the proposals that he has today hopefully give some confidence to the people that will be sitting in poland at the end of this year, who will be working

out a climate agreement over the next several years, that the united states at least with respect to the administration and the senators that are down here on the floor are willing to lead as well. and finally, madam president, i would just remark how pleased i was to hear the president talk about the specific issue of fast-acting climate pollutants today. we are going to have to get a global agreement on carbon dioxide, but in the meantime as we try to figure out a bridge to that 2020 operative agreement, if we are able to work with the international community with respect to the climate pollutants of methane, black carbon and h.f.c.'s, we can make an enormous dent as we get ready for that lasting agreement, and in fact, we just got good news last weekend that the president along with the head of the chinese government has come to an agreement to try to work -- rework the montreal protocols with respect to a reduction in the admittance of h.f.c.'s, one of the most disastrous and

insidious climate pollutants. this was a very good day today. we have given i think a signal to the international community that we are ready to lead. we have given a signal to millions of kids across this country who hope that they might be around at the end of this century, that this country might have some approximation to what we enjoy today, and there will be a big group of us led by senators whitehouse and merkley and boxer that will be ready to work with this president to enact this very, very bold plan, as i mentioned, one of the leaders of this effort is my good friend who i will yield to now with the president's permission, the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. thank you to my colleagues from rhode island and connecticut who are down here sharing their concerns about carbon pollution and its impact on climate around the world.

indeed, it was just last october i had -- i was engaged in a triathlon and the first stage the swimming was in the ocean in north carolina, and i had been told to expect temperatures of 62 to 65 degrees, and as i went down to the water in the first group of participants getting off the transport bus, the person in front of me who had stepped in the water and said, "hey, folks, this water is really warm, come on in," and the temperature was not 62 degrees, it was not 65 degrees. the temperature in the ocean was 72 degrees. a understand and a week later hy struck the northeast with incredibly devastating consequences powered by this much warmer ocean water. and that is one of the many, many effects we're seeing of increased carbon in the

atmosphere trapping the earth's heat. now, perhaps the most important number we should all be aware of is the number 400. and so i put it on a chart so we could ponder it. 400. 400 parts per million. what that represents is a 50% -- or, roughly, a 50% increase in carbon dioxide at it's represented in the broader atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, going from 270 to 400. now, that's a lot of heat-trapping gases added to the atmosphere. indeed, when we were at 350, scientists started to say, before we hit 400, we need to so dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels so that we will never hit 400, and the number will come back down and stablize around 350.

well, if we're being graded as human civilization on this planet according to our effectiveness in decreasing the burning of fossil fuels and keeping the concentration from increasing, we would be getting an "f." we would be failing, because not only -- not only did we soar from 350 to 400, but the rate of carbon pollution has doubled in the last 30 years. 30 years ago the rate was, on average, one part per million per year. now the on average rate is two parts per million per year. so not only have we not decreased and leveled out, but the steepness of the curve has doubled, which means that five years from now we'll be at 410 and ten years from now we'll be at 420. and what this represents is a very bleak future for humans on this planet. you know, by various estimates,

it's been somewhere between 3 million and 10 million years sunsince our atmosphere had this level of carbon concentration. that means in the time humans have been on this planet, which is less than 200,000 years, humans have never witnessed -- have never lived in an atmosphere with this concentration. we have never left footprints in the sand when the atmosphere has this level of heat-trapping gases. now, you see it every wmple evey everywhere. our cass gade glazers are getting -- our cascade glaciers are getting smaller. our fires are getting larger, fed by drought and dead trees from the pine needles. indeed, we've had three record-setting droughts in the klamath basin in the last 13

years. the worst-ever droughts three times in the last 13 years. we're even seeing it in our pacific ocean oysters. those oysters when they are tiny are very sensitive to the acidity of the water. the acidity has gone up because of carbon dioxide in the water ha.it has gone up. so we have many aspects in my home state. if we look across the rest of the united states, we look across the globe, there are huge impacts everywhere with multiples of impacts at the folds when the temperature change is foster. so i applaud the president in saying we must have a bold strategy to take on climate change. there are three big areas of carbon dioxide generation: that is, electricity generation, transportation, and buildings. his plan lays out strategies in all three areas, and that is

good. that is a starting point, a starting point for a much broader discussion on how we understand our fossil fuel addiction. now, addictions are hard to kick, but they're particularly hard to kick if you have swrun who is trying to -- if you have someone who is trying to keep you hooked. and those who have benefited from the burning of fossil fuels are very much trying to keep us hooked. so we have to recognize that that requires an extra degree of dedication and effort on all of our parts. with that, i'll wrap up and turn this over to my colleague from married, who has been a terrific -- from maryland, who has been a terrific champion on this topic and has seen firsthand in maryland many of the effects of global warming. mr. cardin: let me thank senator merkley for his statement but more importantly to elevate the discussion here in the senate on the need to deal with our environment, to deal with energy, to deal with

climate change. he has been one of our true leaders in ways in which we live sensibly in a way that's good for our environment, good for our economy, good for our health. i also notice that senator whitehouse is on the floor. i note he helped organize all of us being here today. he has taken on a leadership position in the united states senate on the area of climate change, and i personally want to thank him because this has been a difficult challenge to keep us focused on one of the most important issues of our time. when we talk about a legacy that we want to leave to future generations, it's our environment, our health, our economy, our national security. senator whitehouse has been in the forefront of keeping us engaged on this issue so we could reach this day. president obama -- i applaud him for his statements today, for his leadership, for his action plan on dealing with climate

change. it was comprehensive, it's extremely timely, and i think it's a workable solution for us to be the leaders in the international community in dealing with the issues of climate change. first and foremost, it's based upon the best science. i.t. not a political issue -- it's not a political issue. this is a science issue. climate change is real, and the way we have to deal with it should be based upon the best science, and that is what president obama is seeking. i heard some of my colleagues who are reluctant on this issue talk about the cost. and, madam president, i'm glad they raise the th raised the is. because when we passed the clean water act and clean air act, at the recommendations of some individuals that weren't exactly excited about the bill, they required that we do cost-benefit analysis on the cost of regulation versus the benefit to our society.

and that cost-benefit analysis shows that we get four to eight times back in savings for what it costs to regulate to get clean air and clean water. now, those are just the direct economic issues. we also get a healthier lifestyle, air we can breathe, we're able to enjoy the environment. that's a plus to the direct economic benefit. and i want to talk about my experiences in maryland. maryland took a leadership position. we passed some of the toughest clean air standards in the country. we invested more on that a billion in cleaning up our energy-generating plants. you know what that meant for maryland? 2,000 more jobs much we created jobs by cleaning up our environment. but we need national help. why? because air doesn't exactly stop at a state border. and we're downwind from many other states. so the people of maryland are suffering from dirty air, not as

a result of what's being generated in maryland but what's being a generated elsewhere. so we need national standards, and that's exactly why the president has called for dramatic action -- taking dramatic action today. inaction will cost us dearly. we've had more episodes of extreme weather recently, and that is based upon science and the fact that weather is changing as a result of carbon pollution in our environment, greenhouse gas emissions. between 2011 and 2012, those types of extreme weather cost more than $1 billion of damage. guess who paid for it? the taxpayers of this country, because we believe that when you have emergency extreme conditions, there's a community responsibility to help deal with it. well, we could do something about it to mitigate that type of damage in the future, and the president did that today in his call for action in regards to

climate change. super storm sandy has been referred to a couple times on this floor. we saw the devastation of that storm very close by. and where we are here in the nation'nation's capital -- lastr they had a record-setting number of days of 90-plus wedge. -- 90 90-degreplus degree weather. i was with senator carper on monday. we had a good-news press conference on the eastern shore of maryland talking about some of the positive results that we've done on the bay. we've worked to reduce the nutrient levels in the bay. that's a very positive element. it reduces the oxygen deprivation of the chesapeake bay, and we've had fewer dead zones since we've had in the

1980's sm. that's due to the work we've had with farmers and developers to reduce the nutrient pollution. we also have to deal with the realities of climate change. warmer water kills seagrass. seagrasss are critically important for the diversity of the check peek bay. this issue affects my region, affects our entire country and inaction can cause extreme damage. the biggest sources of carbon pollution -- my colleagues have already talked about it -- are power plants. he president talked about that -- th the president talked about that. number one should be energy conservation. the less energy we iewrks the easiest way we can reduce our carbon footprint. we also have to develop alternative fuels and have to be much more aggressive in doing that. i heard a the although of people talk -- i heard a lot of people

talk about the international reaction. what are the other countries doing? madam president, two weeks ago i was in china. i was in beijing. i was there for a couple days. i never saw the sun. and that wasn't because there were clouds. there were no clouds in the sky. couldn't see the sun because of pollution. and that's not unusual in beijing. so china is now doing something about carbon emissions. they're doing it because they have a political problem because they are people can see the pollution, and they have a tough time breathing. and people are actually issued masks that can supplement their oxygen intake because of the pollution that is so bad in china. they're taking action. they're he will havin developine fuels, investing in water and wind because they know it is so important. but quite frankly what is needed

is u.s. leadership. the international community is waiting for america to assume the leadership, and i think the international community is prepared to work with us. and that's why president obama's comments today were just so timely, so timely to show that the united states is prepared to take action and to lead in the international community so that we all can pass on a cleaner environment, a safer world, a cleaner world, a more economically viable world, a world that is more secure to our children. and president obama took a giant step forward towards that vision today. with that, madam president, let me yield very quickly back to the senator from rhode island, if i might. mr. whitehouse: i know the senator from texas is waiting to speak, but i wanted to first of all thank the senator from maryland, who has been such a wonderful leader and ally and friend and very loyal to the needs and concerns of maryland

in this area. he's just been terrific. earlier the senator from oklahoma said -- i think i'm quoting him correctly -- that in the past 15 years there's been not any increase in temperature. i guess to suggest that this isn't a real problem, we don't have to we are about it. but i've tried on get the figure right but i've double-checked it and i'd like to correct myself. in the past 15 years, 13 of those 15 years are the 13 hottest years on record. so the past 15 years has been a period of very unusual heat. what happens when you have that type of unusual heat, what happens when you have the climate disruption, to use the good phrase of senator blumenthal? you end up with added storms. you end up -- this is a graph prepared by the insurance

industry. not exactly a bunch of liberals. this is how they make their money. they want to get it right, and they've graphed the storm activity starting all the way over there in 1980 and coming here to 2012. so if you go back the last 15 years here, you'll see a significant increase in storm activity, the type of major storms that the insurance industry has to pay for. so they care very deeply about this. they get their data right. and i think they can be trusted. i also think that the 13 out of 15 being the hottest years on record can be trusted because that's science that comes from nasa. and i don't know where the senator from oklahoma was getting his data but i'll trust the scientists at nasa. these are people who have put a explorer the size of an s.u.v. on to the top of a rocket, fired it off into space, sent it to mars, landed it on the surface

of mars and they are now driving it around on the surface of ma mars. i don't think these are scientists who are incapable of getting it right so i trust the insurance industry for these numbers about storms. i trust the nasa scientists for the numbers about temperature. and i think it's pretty clear that we're way out of bounds of history. as senator merkley, the distinguished senator from oregon, said, the entire history of our specie on this -- of our specious on this planet until the industrial revolution and our great carbon dump, has been between 170 to 300 parts per million. that's been the range for as long as we have been a specious on this planet. until this sudden upsurge. and that has now taken us to 400. it is a novelty, if that's not too frivolous a word to use for such an excursion outside of the bandwidth in which our specious

has inhabited this planet throughout its entire existence. so i see the senator from new mexico and the senator from texas organizing who is going to speak next and i will respectfully yield to whichever one of them wishes to proceed. but i do want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor today to discuss this. senator murphy from connecticut, senator merkley from oregon, senator schatz from hawaii, senator blumenthal from connecticut, senator cardin from maryland and now senator tom udall from new mexico. all have been here on very short notice because we all want to support this president in his decision to move forward on regulating our carbon pollution and beginning to forestall the damage that it is doing to our economies, to our states, to our coastlines, to our forests, to our farms. and if anything one could say,

it's about time, but it certainly is time and i applaud that the president has stepped so well forward into this. and i yield the floor. mr. udall: thank you. madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: senator whitehouse, thank you very much, you and the other senators who have been down here talking. and i would ask the chair, i -- senator cruz has been very generous here. it was his turn to go and i said i could finish this in five minutes, so i would ask you to indicate when five minutes are up and i will yield the floor then to him and would ask consent that -- that he get the floor after me so that there isn't any issue there. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: senator whitehouse, one of the things that -- that you and i know, as we -- we -- and we've been asking for this and talking about this -- we need presidential leadership and we saw that today. that -- the -- the speech that was given here in washington

really detailed a lot of the important things that need to be done. and we both serve on the environment and public works committee. we know how important it is to get an e.p.a. administrator in place and to move forward with the greenhouse gas regulations that the supreme court has now said we can move on. so this -- this is a -- this is a big day and -- and i think there are many of us in the senate that are willing to work on a bipartisan basis. we hope a lot of our republican friends will step forward and see that there's a space here to talk about climate, to try to work with each other. but i -- i applaud the president for what he did today, how specific he was in items of the e.p.a. and greenhouse gases, how specific he was about policies throughout the government. and i wanted to just in what's

left of my five minutes left talk about what's happening in the southwest. sheldon and the other senators have talked about what's happening in their region regiof the country. but really what we're talking about in the southwest, from the climate models, just business as usual that we see, is if the temperatures go up one degree in other places in the united states, it's double that in the southwest. and so essentially what you have is if -- and imagine a mouse and you're clicking on something on a screen and dragging it. we see happening is new mexico going 300 miles to the south if you maintain business as usual and you get down the road about 75 years, although it's hard to look down that far. and if you put new mexico 300 miles so the south, you're down in the middle of the chihuahuan desert. it completely changes the landscape of new mexico. your forests are not going to

hold snowpack anymore. your temperatures are going to be much higher. everything is going to change pretty dramatically. and let me give you an example. one of our communities in new mexico has a watershed where they get 40% of their drinking water drawn from the snowpack and in two reservoirs. and many of our communities in new mexico are like that. with snowpack gone, they will have to then go to another way of getting water and making up 40% is very difficult, especially if the other areas -- for example, the aquifers that are under that particular area or town -- if those aquifers are also being drawn down because there's no snowpack, then you just continually, continually mine the waters. so that's -- that's the situation with -- with the snowpack. the other thing that's happening

in our forests is they're burning much hotter and they're burning out of control. we're seeing bigger and bigger fires. every couple of years we break the record from a few years back. and with these fires burning so much hotter than they've ever burned before, the kind of things you see is the soil turns to almost dust, it can't absorb water, it's not a natural forest environment. and so this has a devastating, devastating impact and it's overlanlain by a drought which o has been going on about 12 or 13 years. i just want to point out and read a recently issued report from one of our great national laboratories, los alamos national last laboratory, where they talk about the drought stress of our forests. "the drought stress of forests in the southwest is more severe

than any event since the late 1500's megadrought." late 1500's megadrought. and that probably led to the deaths of a large proportion of trees living at the time. climate projections predict the mean forest drought stress by the 2050's will exceed that of the most severe droughts in the past 1,000 years. so there's no doubt, madam president, that climate change is real, that the costs are real. and the costs aren't just monetary. this is a direct challenge to our way of life and no one can really put a price on that. so let me just conclude here and say that -- that once again i appreciate senator cruz for your courtesies. i want ask that my -- i have a fuller speech. i would ask that it be put into the record as if i spoke it all. and with that, i yield the floor to senator cruz. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate temporarily set aside all pending amendments so that i may offer my amendment number 1580. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: objection. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president, the amendment that i would have called up had not the majority party objected is an amendment that would have corrected one of the most egregious aspects of the gang of eight bill; namely, it is a penalty that is imposed on u.s. employers for hiring u.s. citizens and for hiring u.s. permanent residents. it is a striking result of the

gang of eight bill as it intersecretaries with the obama -- intersects with the obamacare legislation. let me explain how it operates. right now, madam president, for any company with 50 or more employees, if that company does not provide a sufficiently high dollar health insurance policy for low-income workers, that company faces a fine of $3,000 per worker. movmoreover, that fine is not deductible on the company's taxes, which means as an effective matter to the company, the penalty is in the order of $5,000 per employee when you factor in the tax consequences. that is the present status quo under obamacare. that is the penalty that is visited upon u.s. employers for hiring u.s. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants.

now, what does the gang of eight bill do to change that? well, the gang of eight bill takes some 11 million people who are here illegally and it grants them what is called r.p.i. status, registered provisional immigrants. now, i have many concerns about legalization prior to securing the border, but this concern is altogether separate from that and it is the simple reality that anyone granted r.p.i. status, anyone granted legalization under the gang of eight bill is exempted from obamacare, which means that the employers who would be hiring them do not face the obamacare tax of $5,000 per employee, whether u.s. citizen or legal immigrant. now, what does this mean reali reality? let's take an example, a simple hypothetical.

madam president, i would ask you to envision a small business, joe's burger shack. joe's burger shack is owned by a small business owner. it is a series of small fast-food restaurants in any given state t. could be my home state of -- given state. it could be my home state of texas or any state across the union. now, let's assume that joe's burger shack has 100 employees and joe's burger shack with 100 employees, business is doing relatively well, people are eating more hamburgers, joe decides he wants to hire five more people. now, if joe and joe's burger shack decides they want to hire five more people, if joe chooses to hire five u.s. citizens or if he chooses to hire five legal permanent residents, five legal immigrants, joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so. $5,000 apiece right off his bottom line to the i.r.s.

in contrast, if joe decides instead to hire five r.p.i.'s who came here illegally -- among those 11 million who are here illegally but granted r.p.i. legalization under the gang of eight bill -- joe pays a penalty of zero dollars. madam president, let me ask you a simple commonsense question: in this instance, joe, the small business owner, who is joe going to hire? mr. cruz: this bill creates an enormous incentive to hire those here illegally and at the same time it does it by creating a statutory penalty for hiring united states citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. madam president, that makes no sense. let me give a second example. a second example. suppose joe is facing harder times. because of obamacare penalties, joe makes a decision that a

great many fast-food restaurants have made to forcibly reduce workers' hours. obamacare kicks in when a worker works 30 hours a week and so a great many small businesses, and in particular, fast-food restaurants, have been forced to forcibly reduce their employees' hours to 29 hours a week or less. now, imagine that of joe's hundred employees, 25 of them are r.p.i.'s, are formerly illegal immigrants who received legalization under the gang of eight and 75 are either u.s. citizens or permanent residents. and if joe wants to reduce the hours of 25 of his employees below the 30-hour threshold because times are hard and can't afford the burdens that obamacare is putting on his business. if joe forcibly reduces the hours of 25 u.s. citizen employees or 25 legal immigrant

employees, to below 30 hours a week, joe saves potentially $125,000 a year in tax penalties. $5,000 apiece times 25 employees. in contrast, if 0 joe says instead i want to reduce the hours, forcibly, of those who are here illegally that received legalization through the gang of eight, joe saves zero dollars in tax penalties because he's not paying a tax penalty regardless of whether those here illegal he illegally are working 30 or 40 hours or more. the question i would pose to you, madam president, whose hours will joe reduce? this statute puts an enormous incentive, an incentive from congress, for joe to forcibly reduce the hours of united states citizens and of legal immigrants. and let me give a third and even

more stringent example. imagine if joe is facing great financial burdens as a lot of small businesses are, as a lot of small businesses are struggling. imagine if joe instead made the decision to fire all 100 workers, all 100 workers who happened to be united states citizens or legal permanent residents and instead hire only those who are here illegally or who have been legalized under the gang of eight. the consequence, simply doing the math at $5,000 an employee means that joe could save 5 -- $500,000 a year in tax penalties. the way obamacare works there is an alternative avenue where joe could well be paying $2,000 per employee minus 30 which would get down when you factor in the

tax savings to about $200,000. but any way you measure it under obamacare's complicated tax penalty formula, joe could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars by firing his u.s. employee -- u.s. citizen employees or his legal resident employees and instead hiring those who are here illegally. madam president, that doesn't make any sense. madam president, that's not an incentive that anyone rationally would set up and that is what this gang of eight bill does. you know, to share how real this incentive is, this penalty for hiring u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents, i'd like to read a letter from one of my constituents. mr. alan tharp, chairman and c.e.o. of old england's lion and rose l.t.d. in san antonio.

he wrote a letter that reads as follows. since 1985 i have been the sole owner and c.e.o. of alan tharp as well as the lion and rose and a partner in the golden chick restaurants. our corporate restaurants provide well over 1,000 jobs to fellow texans. and our franchise restaurants provide many more. i've been following the current debate over immigration reform very closely and want you to be aware that this bill coupled with the new obamacare legislation makes it much more affordable for a business like mine to employ registered provisional restaurants than american workers. i do not believe that was the intention of the legislation but it is the irrefutable effect of both. obamacare as documented in numerous news stories, already creates an incentive for businesses to cut hours in order to avoid triggering the 50

full-time employee threshold that requires businesses to pay a fine if they do not provide government-approved health insurance. because of this law, i have been forced to cut back every single hourly employee in each of my companies to no more than 28 hours a week. cutting schedules from 40 to 48 hours per week has caused some hardship on many employees. however, our choice is to either provide part-time work or no work at all because our business cannot afford to comply with the severe consequences that would be imposed on us under this law if we continue to provide full-time employment to all these employees. if the current immigration bill before the senate, however, is made law, a business could hire registered provisional immigrants instead of u.s. citizens and avoid triggering obamacare regulations and fines.

hiring r.p.i.'s over american workers from a purely economic point of view would be the best thing for my business. i personally do not believe this is the right thing to do, but surely some of my competitors would. obamacare and the immigration bill is forcing employers to make extremely difficult choices. i don't want to be in the position of choosing to grow my business or choosing to pay my fellow americans. i want to do both. obamacare and the immigration bill will prevent me from doing so. madam president, this is a real c.e.o. facing the real incentives of running a business under obamacare and looking at what would happen if this gang of eight bill passed into law. now, one of the potential counterarguments to this concern? in the way of washington we

don't actually have to predict because the proponents of this bill have followed a long tried and true path in washington, namely, they have gone to an ostensibly neutral reporter at a mainstream publication and urged them to, quote, fact check the claim that the gang of eight bill with obamacare would put a penalty on hiring u.s. citizens and legal immigrants. and the fact check, the reporter compliantly gave the answers, the responses given by the gang of eight, but i would suggest, madam president, that those responses are on their face singularly unpersuasive. the first response of "the washington post" fact checker put up was a claim that -- quote -- "cruz is really creating a mountain out of a mole hill because the impact on employers is almost too minuscule to be noticed." that's a quote from our friends

at "the washington post" and their so-called fact check and the basis of this is they said well gosh, there are a lot of companies that don't have 50 employees. the number of companies with more than 50 employees is really, really small or as they put it, almost too minuscule to be noticed. madam president, i'm going to suggest the claim that companies with more than 50 employees comprise a share of the economy that is minuscule is facially absurd. indeed, if you look at the data, 71% of all u.s. employees work in a business with more than 50 employees. so according to "the washington post," it is an objective fact that the employers for 71% of u.s. employees are -- quote -- "almost too minuscule to be noticed." to put that in raw numbers that's 80 million employees. madam president, i would

suggest 80 million employees is on any measure not minuscule. now, the second basis of the so-called fact check and the second response from the bill's proponents was that, well, under current law it is illegal for a potential employer to ask about a person's immigration status. madam president, i would note this is a particularly facile response that almost surely came from a lawyer and as a lawyer myself i will say it is precisely the sort of response that causes people to love lawyers as they do, oh, so much in today's society. because yes, it is true, there is a provision in statute that says you cannot ask about a person's immigration status and base employment decisions on that but the statute also requires you to check their immigration status before you hire them. moreover, there's no provision for employees volunteering this information, and if this bill passes, if there is a massive

incentive to hire r.p.i.'s over u.s. citizens, the simple reality is there will be massive economic incentives for employers to do so. and, madam president, let me note that this point is utterly irrelevant when it comes to reducing employees' hours. because even if you engage in the alice in wonderland world where employers don't know if an individual is an r.p.i. or a u.s. citizen, once they're hired as a matter of legal requirement, they do know that and if they're then subsequently making a decision on whose hours to reduce, the overwhelming economic incentive would be to reduce the hours of the u.s. citizen or the legal immigrant rather than those who are currently here illegally. madam president, i want to ask you, this penalty on hiring u.s. citizens and on legal

immigrants, who is this going to hurt the most? you know, it's not going to hurt companies that are doing nuclear science research. it's not going to hurt companies that are designing satellites. it is going to hurt the workers who are working in the sorts of jobs where they face competition from those who are here illegally, it is going to face workers, for example, in the fast food industry. it is going to hurt workers who are working in landscaping and construction. who is it going to hurt the most? if you look right now, today under the obama economy who is being hurt the most by the obama economy, those the most vulnerable among us. hispanics today have a 9.1% unemployment rate. hispanic u.s. citizens, hispanic legal immigrants will be directly harmed by this outcome. african-americans have a 13.5%

unemployment rate right now under the obama economy. it's gone up under president obama. african-american workers will be hurt by this statutory penalty on hiring u.s. citizens and legal immigrants. and teenagers, teenagers face an unemployment rate of 24.5%, and teenagers in particular if you look at jobs, for example, in the fast food industry, they are so often the first or second job a young teenager gets as he or she begins to climb the economic ladder. if congress passes a bill that puts a major economic penalty on hiring a u.s. citizen or legal permanent resident, he or she may never get that job. mr. president, i'd like to read a letter from another constituent who is president of the painless performance, a high-end car parts manufacturer in fort worth, texas. the letter read as follows. my name is adrian murray.

i am an immigrant. my parents moved to america from ireland 55 years ago to seek opportunity and a better life. at the time, new immigrants had to have a sponsor and proof of future employment. i still have the letters written to the i.n.s. on their behalf. my parents later became naturalized citizens and raised me to respect america, her customs and her laws. that was back in the day when being an american citizen was prized. to stand before a judge with hand raised pledging allegiance and fidelty to america was the dream of millions around the world. we devalue american citizenship by making it a cheap tool for political gain. my parents taught me to respect america's exceptionalism and therefore honor the institutions of this nation. because of their example, i have built a successful business with 52 employees. many of those in my plant are

legal immigrants from vietnam. they, too, came here the right way and endured much hardship to earn their citizen status. what am i to tell them? that their sacrifice was meaningless? that they should have just snuck in, that their citizenship has no value, that the joke is on them? well, i would never exercise the option of replacing them with cheaper obamacare-exempted workers, would they not be justified in questioning the motives and validity of a government which would even consider giving an employer that option? what has this nation come to? it is getting harder and harder to recognize america, a nation which once proudly held fast to the virtues of liberty and freedom is now seriously contemplating a law which amounts to nothing more than thinly disguised human trafficking. once the world's greatest

deliberative body, the senate is set to vote this bill into law without bothering even to read it. this cannot be, this must not stand." you know, it's not too late, mr. president,, at the outset of my remarks i asked unanimous consent to call up my amendment to fix this problem, and the democrats in this body objected. my amendment would address this problem by providing that obamacare shall be defunded until there are no longer any registered provisional immigrants in line. that is the one way to correct this problem, to correct the statutory penalty on u.s. citizens and legal immigrants if this bill were to pass. but as you've just seen, the majority party has chosen to object to bringing up that

amendment. and, indeed, so far we have not had an open debate on amendments on this bill. and i would note that a number of the proponents of this bill claimed they were going to fix this. here are a few of the comments sponsors of this bill have made concerning the amnesty tax loophole. from my friend, the senior senator from arizona, senator john mccain -- quote -- "i think that is an issue, and i think it needs to be addressed." also from senator mccain -- "we cannot get people who are not citizens the same benefits. that is the fundamental principle. we are trying to work around it so that an american citizen is competitive for a job." a quote from a senior democratic aide -- "we are willing to work through these issues as the bill works its way through the senate." mr. president, i'm sorry to tell you that those promises have not materialized. we haven't worked through these

issues. and, you know, i cannot help but think with an issue like this of the very real impacts it has in so many families, and at least in my family that impact would not have been hypothetical. 55 years ago my father came from cuba as a legal immigrant. he was 18. he couldn't speak english. and when he arrived in austin, texas, penniless, he took a job like so many other immigrants before him washing dishes, making 50 cents an hour. and i will say the food services industry has provided such an opening portal for millions of americans and for millions of immigrants from throughout the world. and yet, if the gang of eight bill had been law in 1957 along with obamacare, my father, who

couldn't speak english, who was very glad to make 50 cents an hour so he could take that money and pay his way through the university of texas and go on to get a higher-paying job and start a business and work towards the american dream, my father very well might have been fired because of the gang of eight bill, because the impact of this legislation would have been to cost his employer $5,000 for hiring him, a legal immigrant. and i have to tell you, my father's skills at age 18, i wouldn't characterize him as a high-skilled dishwasher. he told me he got that job because he couldn't speak english and you didn't have to speak english to wash dishes. you had to be able to take a dish and stick it under hot water. this incentive would have been a massive incentive to say rafael,

i'm sorry, you're out of a job because we're going to hire someone who didn't follow the rules, came here illegally because congress penalize us $5,000 for hiring you but puts zero penalty on someone who came here illegally. mr. president, i cannot think of a more irrational, a more indefensible system than a statutory penalty for hiring u.s. citizens or legal immigrants. if this bill passes, a number of things will happen. if this bill passes, african-american employment -- unemployment will almost sure go up. and it will be the united states senate's fault because this bill will penalize hiring african-americans who are u.s. citizens, or legal immigrants, and instead will incentivize hiring those who are here illegally. if this bill passes, hispanic

unemployment will almost surely go up because this bill penalizes hiring hispanics who are u.s. citizens or hispanics who are legal immigrants who followed the rules. if this bill passes, youth unemployment will almost certainly go up because it is young people in particular who are just beginning the journey up the economic ladder who will be most impacted by congress deciding to put a $5,000 penalty on hiring that u.s. citizen, hiring that legal immigrant, and instead give a preference for hiring those here illegally. mr. president, if this bill passes, union households unemployment will very likely go up because it is working-class households that are facing the most direct competition. and if that happens, it will be the fault of the united states senate.

and, mr. president, if this bill passes, unemployment among legal immigrants will almost certainly go up. because what this bill says is if you hire a legal immigrant, the i.r.s. is going to impose a $5,000 penalty on you, the employer. but if you don't hire that legal immigrant, if you reduce that legal immigrant's hours, if you hire instead someone who is here illegally, that penalty will go away. mr. president, i would suggest that is utterly and completely indefensible. nobody in this body wants to see african-american unemployment go up. nobody wants to see hispanic unemployment go up, youth unemployment go up, union household unemployment go up, legal immigrant unemployment go up. and yet every one of those will happen if this gang of eight bill passes without fix this go problem.

-- without fixing this problem. and if that happens all 100 members of the u.s. senate will be accountable to our constituents for explaining why we voted to put a federal penalty on hiring u.s. citizens and hiring legal immigrants. in my view, it makes no sense. and it's indefensible. and i very much hope this body will choose to pass my amendment and fix this grave defect in the gang of eight legislation. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. skinning skinning mr. president, i -- mr. king: mr. president, i rise in sadness today because america lost a friend yesterday. senator bill hathaway who served 14 years in the congress, 8 in

the house and 6 in the senate, in the senate from 1973 to 1978. i knew him well because i worked for him as a staff member here in the senate. in fact, i was sworn in as a united states senator 40 years to the day from the day that i entered senate service on behalf of bill hathaway in january of 1973. so i had a chance as all staff members do to see him up close, to see him operate as a senator and as a person. i was asked today several questions about him and what characterized bill hathaway. and the first thing i said was he always put people first. he really and truly didn't pay much attention to politics. he always wanted to do what is right. and i remember being in his office in the russell senate office building and talking about the political ramifications of some bill or

some vote, and he sat back in his chair and said, "you know, it's hard enough around here to figure out what the right thing to do is. when you add the politics on top of it, it becomes practically impossible." that was the way he thought, and that was the way he acted. in fact, i once sent him a memo as a young staff member that had in it some political ramifications of a particular vote. i wish i had saved the memo because in his inimitable scrawl at the top of the page when it came back to me it said, i pay you for policy, not political advice. and that was the kind of guy he was. and one of the things that i noticed about him, which was a tremendous influence on my life was he was exactly the same person in private as he was in public. there wasn't a different bill hathaway on the stump or in maine or making speeches or on television than the one i saw

behind closed doors driving around washington or around maine, through the small towns, getting a haircut, spending time together. he was always the same person with the same values and the same concern for the people of maine. if you haven't gathered it already, mr. president, bill hathaway taught me a lot about how to do this job. next to my dad, he was probably the most influential adult in my life when i was a young person. he was honest. he was smart. he was analytical. and he was motivated to do the right thing for the people of this country and the people of the state of maine. and i have one personal story as well. because i think it speaks to the kind of person that he was. unfortunately, when i was working here in 1974, i was stricken with a dangerous and unusual form of cancer. i ended up having to have significant surgery.

i, again, was one of many staff members who worked for bill hathaway. but one of the most vivid memories of my life was waking up in the hospital after my surgery in the recovery room and looking up, and i saw my wife on one side of the bed and standing at the end of the bed in hospital green scrubs was u.s. senator bill hathaway. that was the kind of man he was. he was a politician but in a good sense of the word. he was a man who really thought about the people, that took so seriously the responsibilities of this office. we lost him yesterday. i think he was about 90 years old, but he never lost his interest in maine or in people or in the issues of the country. i was fortunate to spend some time with him recently and he hadn't lost a step when it came to thinking about these kinds of questions. he was good-natured, he was

funny, and he was genuine. mr. president, as i said at the beginning, maine and the united states of america lost a friend yesterday, and it's one who i will misterably. thank you. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request. the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: mr. president, fixing the immigration system is an urgent priority. as a son of an immigrant myself i understand how important this is for families across the country and in my home state of new mexico. i know how hard immigrants work in this country, how much they believe in america, how much they're willing to give back to this nation. new mexico's remarkable spirit is rooted in our diversity, our

history and our culture, which is always been enriched by our immigrant communities and family members. at the same time the laws that govern our country's immigration system are antiquated and ineffective. i'm encouraged that we're finally making progress towards a solution and finding some common ground on this critical issue. we need a solution that includes a visa system that meets the needs of our economy, a tough but fair path to earned citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in our country who are undocumented, and a plan that ensures the security of our borders. our broken immigration system does not match the realities of our nation's economy. the h-2a program makes it difficult for farmers to hire the workers they need. and the h-1b program sends some of our most talented students back to their countries of

origin where they find themselves competing against american jobs rather than helping to create american jobs here. and the labor pool comprised of millions of undocumented workers allows for worker exploitation and low wages. we must ensure that our laws enable our companies to retain the highly-skilled foreign graduates of our universities in science, technology, engineering, and math me particulars, the stem fields, in order to harness their skills, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs here in america. a commitment to reform our country's immigration system also requires a commitment to our students. and as a strong supporter of the dream act, i am glad that this legislation acknowledges that students should be treated differently. and i want to especially thank senator durbin for his work seeing this through to the end. thousands of students across the country will gain more education

and training which translates into better and higher-paying jobs. all these extra wages will circulate through the economy, spurring economic growth and new job creation. i've met many dreamers in new mexico, mr. president, and they are incredibly bright, hardworking, and, frankly, most of them don't know how to be anything but an american. dreams represent much of what's best about our nation: hard work, motivation, and a willingness to serve this country in uniform. i believe it's time to make the dream act a reality. finally, those of us who represent border communities understand that there are a number of challenges that they face that are unique. we've made great advances in border security in recent years. a legal border crossing -- illegal border crossing apprehensions are at historically low levels and have fallen in new mexico by more than 90% since their peak back

in 2005. we have more agents, more technology and infrastructure devoted to our border than ever before. our challenge moving forward is to continue to ensure our nation's safety while balancing the need of our border communities to thrive and benefit from their unique binational culture and economy. the mission of customs and border protection and to both safeguard our nation's borders and facilitate lawful international trade and commerce. however, in the paso del norte region, which includes both west texas and southern new mexico, not all of our port of entry are operating at full capacity. the high volume of commercial vehicles attempting to cross at the el paso ports make it extremely difficult for c.p.b. to efficiently service all the would-be crossers while also maintaining security. my amendment to extend the hours of operation at the nearby santa

theresa point of entry will lead to more efficient trade between the united states and mexico, will help to grow our economy and create new jobs and invest in border security effor effortt our nation's ports. on the subject of screed commerce in the paso del norte region, i'd like to thank secretary napolitano for doing her part. earlier this month she announced a plan to increase the border zone in southern new mexico. this effort was spearheaded by senator jeff bingaman here at this level and it received unanimous support back home in the new mexico state legislature. increasing the number of visitors traveling to the region will help u.s. businesses, local economies, and bring in more tax revenue. new mexicans, mr. president, are eager for a solution. dream act students deserve a solution. and, frankly, our economy requires a solution. with this in mind, i'll continue

to work with my colleagues to ensure that we achieve accountable immigration reform that works for new mexico and for our nation. ese de esa el nano, mr. president. and i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i'd ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to come to the floor tonight tonight just to talk briefly about where we are on immigration reform. we're moving along this week. we've come out of several weeks of committee work on this where there were a number of republican amendments that were adopted as part of the process, a number of democratic amendments adopted as part of the process. as somebody that was in the negotiating group that led to the bill reaching the judiciary committee, i -- i actual think it wa -- i actuallythink it wash

republicans and democrats and it's been an unusual bipartisan effort around here and it's the kind of effort that the american people, certainly the people of colorado, think is long, long overdue. they don't understand why we seem to be engaged in these fights that don't have anything to do with them instead of working together constructively to actually meet the challenges that this country faces. and i think when it comes to this very difficult issue of immigration -- and it is difficult, and there's strong feelings about it. it's been remarkable for that reason, that we've been able to see what i would describe not even as a bipartisan process but as nonpartisan process of people actually coming together to try to resolve this issue. and as a result of that, the objections to it, the substantive objections to it are falling away. you know, there was an objection that somehow the bill was being rushed through. well, no, it went through the regular order. very rare for this place.

it shouldn't be rare but it is rare. they got a full hearing in the judiciary committee. there was a full hearing on the senate floor. there is an argument that somehow it was going to create horrible deficits and it turns out the nonpartisan congressional budget office said actually, in the first ten yea years, it's going to improve our deficit situation by $190 billion over the -- and over the next 10 years by another $700 billion. almost a trillion dollars over the course of the -- of the next 20 years. then there was another argument which was there isn't border security as part of this legislation. and in the group of eight, we listened very hard to what the border senators, john mccain and jeff flake, two republican senators from arizona had to say about what they believe they needed at the border. we went and visited the border with john mccain and swref flak-- andjeff flake to see what

they needed on the arizona border. but there were other senators that weren't satisfied by what we put in that bill and there was an effort that was then led by senator corker from tennessee and senator hoeven to -- to amend this bill. and we supported it. i supported that amendment. in fact, it got 68 votes the other night, something like that. we were missing a couple senators. it would have had 68 or 69 if everybody had been here. and that's progress because that's built support for the bill. republicans and democrats coming together around the border security issue. i think it's very, very hard for anybody to make a real argument that this is not a significant attempt to strengthen the border in this country. we're already spending more on border enforcement than we do on

any other law enforcement combined as it was. we had gone to about 2,000 -- about 22,000 border patrol agents already as it was. now we are doubling that number. doubling it. as an attempt to respond to a very reasonable concern that the american people have that the border should be as secure as possible. and that's now part of this legislation. so those are three things that people have argued. the process is not going -- is too fast, the -- the bill is going to negatively affect the deficit, and our border is insecure. those are the arguments that they've made. now we don't hear those arguments so much anymore. now we hear scare stories about health care. i know that there is -- i see the majority leader is on the

floor. mr. president, we're now hearing scare stories about health care. we're hearing scare stories about how this will affect our economy even though the nonpartisan congressional budget office has said we're going to see five additional points of gross domestic product growth, g.d.p. growth, in the second ten years of this bill passing as a result of bringing people out of the shadows. it is not as if the 11 million people in are here that are undocumented are not working. they are working. many of them are working in this country. many of them are working in the agriculture sector in my state and in this country. many are working in other industries as well all across the united states of america. but they're working in an unlawful way. we're workinthey're working in h

economy. they're working in a situation where they are easily exploited. and because of that, they drag down the wages of everybody in america. because workers in my state that are here that are legal -- l-e-g-a-l -- are having to compete in a market place where they are people that can pay less because they're -- you -- we know that they're people that have to take less because they don't have a lawful recourse. all the protections that we put in this bill, all the protections to make sure, rightfully so, that an american is offered a job first, to assure, rightfully so, that we're not bringing in a whole bunch of new people when there are americans looking for wor work -- all of those protections pale in comparison to the protection of bringing 11 million people out of the shadows and out of a cash economy and into a place where

they're paid a lawful wage and they're paying their taxes to the united states government. if all you cared about, if the only thing you cared about when you got up in the morning and when you went to bed at night was rising wages for americans, solving this issue finally for the 11 million would be the most important thing you could do. and we do that in this bill. and the opponents of this bill who are not seriously suggesting that they're going to go to the expense of sending 11 million people back to where they've come from, who are not seriously suggesting an answer to this issue, are coming to this floor somehow saying that nothing in the c.b.o. report is true, that none of it makes sense, that this is about obamacare. when what we're really trying to do for once in this place is

solve a set of challenging issues in a bipartisan way. and, mr. president, even more than that, for a decade or more because of our broken immigration system, the policy of this country has been to turn back talented people, even people educated in our universities, even people educated to be engineers and mathematicians. when they've graduated from college here, at our expense in many cases, we've said to them, not stay here, not build your business here, not compete here, not help us grow this economy and start a business, like half of the fortune 100 or 500 companies have been started by immigrants -- not start a business. we've said, go home. go home to india and compete with us from there. go home to china and hire other people over there. if we pass this bill, we will say once again that this nation of immigrants is open for

business, that we're open to the most creative people and talented people in the world, that we want them to drive our economy in the united states, just as they have generation after generation going back to the founders. it is a great testament to who we are and to the nature of our country that people want to come here. and under the right circumstances, we should have them here. and the c.b.o. report makes it very clear, makes very clear -- i don't even care about the c.b.o. report. but what it makes clear is what business people in my state kn know. it makes it clear to the agriculture industry in my sta state, the high-tech industry in my state, the ski resorts in my state -- i see the majority leader is rising. but so let me just say this, flnmr. president. i believe that the objections of

people of goodwill on this bill have been met through embryo myh compromise, through principled agreement. it's a good piece of legislation. we shouldn't in this ninth or 11th hour, or whatever it is, ninth inning allow ourselves to get distracted by the politics that are seeking to divide us in this chamber or in this country. and i don't believe we will. so i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill. and with that, i will yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i hope the president wasn't rushed into completing his statement because i was listening intently and appreciating all he's said today. but, mr. president, i haven't had the opportunity to express through the instruments of this floor how much i appreciate the senator

from colorado. he's done such a terrific job, he's been one of the four, four democrats. he hasn't sought a lot of press on this, but he has been a stalwart in getting this done for a couple of reasons. one is the state of colorado is a perfect example as to why we need this bill. the demographics have changed in that state remarkably, just like they have in my state of nevada. and his quiet concern for what we need to do and then his quiet movement to make sure we get the things done we need to do is evident in this immigration bill. but, frankly, mr. president, we had a discussion today and in our caucus as we have on several occasions about student loans. no one is better prepared to talk about that issue than the senator from colorado. he is not only concerned about what happens to students who are in college but also he was a

school superintendent, understanding what people who want to go to college have to deal with. so i appreciate very much the statement of the senator from colorado. he's done a remarkably good job and the people of colorado are so fortunate to have this good man in the united states senate. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent we now proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted pernld. -- up to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate proceed to s. res. 186. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 186 congratulating the miami heat for winning the 2013 national basketball association finals. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the senate adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow

morning june 26, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved the morning business be deemed expired, the journal be approved to indicate dait, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of s. 744 and that the time until 11:30 be equally divided and controlled between the two managers or their designees, that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the reported substitute be 10:30 tomorrow morning. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be three roll call votes, as has been announced earlier starting at 11:30 tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

return here on c-span2. you can learn more about senate members in the congressional directly. it's a handy guide. we have updates and listing for each member. also, information about the cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. the directly is $12.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/shop. there are about 1400 monuments.

the men who fought in the battle want to make sure it's remembered. they do that by building monuments. in modern times we have other ways of commemorating things like that. back then this is how they -- by the time the war ends, there's not a lot of money in the south to build a monument. especially in northern states. live all day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg.

followed at 5:30 with the calls and tweets. all day sunday on american history tv on c-span 3. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring coverage of the live coverage of the u.s. senate. every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules on our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites.

bill under consideration in the senate, both sides say they expect work on the bill to finish this week. they also talk about the president's climated change speech, and the -- we hear first from senator majority leader mitch mcconnell. [inaudible conversations] apparently the president is in the middle of the speech right now from a kentucky point of view could be best described as announcing a war on coal. that was the exact termnologist as -- terminology used on one of the president's advisers in putting together the speech he's making

today. the war on coal is more than just an impact on this particular form of energy, it also has a huge impact on manufacturing. my state, for example, we have very low utility rates, largely because of the coal we produce relatively close to the utilities. it is the way in which we are allowed to be competitive. so the war on coal impacts my states in two ways. it creates a depression in central appalachia, and also since we have a number of automobile plants and a lot of auto supply plants in our state, it drives the cost of production of parts and vehicles up. so this is a huge step in the wrong direction. particularly in the middle of the most tee paid -- tepid recovery of the recession in anyone's memory.

>> reportedly, the president is announcing the latest tax on energy producers which passed along directly to consumer in a time when they could least afford it. i wish the president would look at the good news in america, which it the fact that we are producing more natural gas, more domestic energy here at home. and our carbon emissions are decreasing dramatically in large part because the greater use of natural gas. yet the.and his administration continues to burden and overregulate the domestic -- the production of domestic energy in ways that disadvantage the american consumer, and hurt jobs. in texas, one reason we've been doing better than the rest of the country, we have distinct region we are raising our developing oil and natural gas. it's creating a lot of jobs, a love helping the economy grow, and making it a place where people want to come, work, and

raise their family. the president could learn a lot of lessons from that instead of burdening and taxing america's energy producers and having it passed along to consumers. tee needs to take the foot off the neblg of energy and job producer and allow the important sector of our economy to prosper. this week is the one-year anniversary since the supreme court upheld the obamacare tax. what have we seen? premium goes up, hours worked go down, and seen take home pay be reduced for many americans. and the president's credibility gap is growing with the american people when it comes to the economy, and then, as my colleague said today, he's announcing yet a new national energy tax, which is going to hit people on fixed incomes and senior citizens the most. those are people most vulnerable and most effected by the president's new national energy

tax. i think the question that needs to be asked are the senate democrats going to go along with the president's new national energy tax, what it's going to do to jobs and the economy and this country. because when you begin -- combine the impact with higher premium and reduced take home pais with the obamacare with the energy tax, it's a one-two gut punch to the american economy and jobs. >> the president's energy tax is going to be a direct hit to american jobs and the american economy. it's an attack on a affordable energy and an attack on coal as the most available, affordable, reliable secure source of energy. it it sounds it's been reported the president is talking about the keystone x l pipeline and putting conditions on it. it's surrendering our opportunity to put more americans to work, essentially. i'm looking forward to putting the senate on record and seeing

where democrats stands on the president's plans. do they support hard working americans and affordable energy, or do they support the agenda of the president? i also have a significant concerns about gina mccarthy the president's pick to be head of the environmental agency. she reported to the senate that the things the president is talking about today is nothing she knows nothing about. either she's ignorant at epa where she's been a assistant director. and is arrogant and wants the senate not to know what she knows. it tarnishes her nomination. american people need somebody at the epa they can trust. >> if there's a simpler economic formula than more energy equals

more more jobs. i don't know what it is. a corollary more expensive energy equals less expensive jobs. the president is talking about the kinds of things, when the senate was a democratic senate, there was a dmaik house, they passed a cap-and-trade bill on the house side. democrats in the senate wouldn't bring it to the floor it was going to increase energy costs in our country. my state is about 82% dependent on coal. the president, a few months ago, was for all of the above. appears to be a little leer slice of the above. i one of the supporters saying yesterday that these policies would force people to conservative energy. senator thune said the last people to get the senior citizens people, people on a fixed income, people struggling at the bottom of the economy are the last people to get the energy efficient reridge rate we shall the last people to get the new window, the last people to

get more insulation, the people most impacted by energy policies that drive their individual costs up, and also the most likely to be impacted by energy policies that make it harder to get a job. these are -- this is the wrong direction for the country at the time. we are doing better not use energy we have. all the metrics you measure air quality by are much better than were in a country that could take advantage of the all-of the above strategy. let's focus what we have and figure out how to create the most opportunity out of that. [inaudible conversations] >> reporter: senator mcconnell -- [inaudible conversations] is it your opinion that the staff gap here is the house of representatives, which might view this bill similarly or might not be able to do anything

at all? >> i think it's correct we're moving toward completion of the immigration bill this week. i hope the house will be able to pass a companion measure and we'll have a conference and deal with an issue of the magnitude in the way we should. so i look forward to seeing what the house can do, and hopefully we'll be able to get to a product, a conference report here later in the year that the house and senate can express themselves on. >> reporter: do you think that john boehner through the -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> reporter: and the supreme court ruling on the voting rights act? >> well, i haven't read it yet. obviously it's an important bill that passed back in the '60ss at the time when we had a very different america than we have today. my state is not covered by the voting rights act, and maybe others who want to comment on it. at this point, i think i'm going to have to read it first, but i

would say, i do think that america is very different today from what it was in the 1960s. anybody else? i'm going it take one more. >> reporter: do you expect to reach an agreement with the further amendment -- [inaudible] do you think those -- [inaudible] >> yeah, you're asking me a process question. i simply don't know the answer. i think we are moving toward completion of the bill. it won't surprise you to know in the amenity we would rather have more than fewer. we are hoping to get additional amendments whether we do or don't. it looks to me it's heading toward completion later this week. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, everyone. sorry you had to wait for me.

we're working our way through immigration. we are going wrap up immigration either thursday or friday. the only question now is whether we can come up with a list of amendments, and i think both sides want to do that, but having said that, i don't know if we can do it. i want to do everything i can to maximize the number of votes we get on the bill, and i want to make sure that everyone feels it's a fair process. my concern and they wrote me a letter saying we need more amendments. the same people stopped us from having amendments. the first couple of weeks of the legislation, so on the other issue, student loans. i met with republican senators today alexander, berg, along with the chairman of the committee senator heart attacken --

harkin to see if we can bridge the gap. there's been progress made, but the issues this the republicans want deficit redorks. we don't think there should be deficit reduction based on the backings of young men and women going to college. we feel there should be a cap and the republicans won't give us a cap, but we, you know, -- it's seems that we should be able to get something done. but as some of you know, i got a letter addressed to me and senator mcconnell from all the student groups, not students, but the groups that support them. the american federation of teachers and lots of other organizations. nonorganized labor, and they say -- all the proposals they have seen will raise the rate of 6.8%. they don't want 6.8%. they want 3.4%. they are convinced that

republican proposal from the house, republican proposal from the senate all call for -- in just a few short years, the rates being far above 6.8%. it's based on interest rates, as you know, they are going up not down. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> pardon me, everybody. i don't get to -- going down the hall. [laughter] okay what was the question? >> reporter: you said you would max out the vote on immigration -- [inaudible] the senate provide bipartisan vote for the house of representatives. what we have seen problems in

the past couple of years, the farm bill -- >> post office. how about one of my favorites is the interest on -- i'm sorry. main street whatever we call it. make sure that my little strip malls in nevada the small businesses don't get ripped off by people on on the sales tax on the interpret. that was -- [inaudible] yeah. and everybody supports that, except republicans on the house. yeah. i'm going try to get as many votes as i can. it always helps. on the one i mentioned, the online sales tax 69 votes on that one. >> reporter: senator reid? >> yes. >> reporter: the leadership is going to vote against the

immigration bill at the edged of the week. what do you think about it says when john boehner is going to do in the house with the immigration bill? >> you are asking me? [laughter] i don't a -- the speaker has said within a period of little over 24 hours we're going to pass immigration but have democratic votes to do it. and as soon as the crazy is heard back, i guess they talked to him and the next day said i will pass it if i have a majority of the majority. >> reporter: senator -- >> so the point is i'm not sure that me or anyone else in the house really know what they're doing. >> reporter: just predicted you would have new more amendments on the immigration bill because they think that -- [inaudible conversations] i know he's one of the no-votes. >> here is where we are. the observation is that senator

cornyn said there would be no more votes on amendments. remember, i can't have more amendments unless i have all 100 senates agree. if cornyn stays where he is, we're not going to have anymore amendments. >> your reaction to the voting rights act, can you discuss a little bit. do you think congress is capable of taking any action? >> chairman leahy just said in the caucus just now, i adopt like to speak for others, he will hold hearings on this next month. there's a general displeasure, that's an understatement in my caucus about what the supreme court did. especially light of what happened this last election cycle with republicans doing everything they could to suppress voting. bill nelson reminded us in miami, florida, they wait as long as seven hours to vote. we didn't like that.

all over the country they did everything they could to tamp down the people that came to vote, and so this is a dark day for the supreme court. but it's been pretty cloudy over there for quite some time now. >> and the senator, do you think that what you do in the senate will just address the states that or the subject at this -- >> senator leahy is going to have wide ranging hearings on this. you have to ask him what he means by that. he's going to make sure that we do what the supreme court directed and we give them the areas -- they didn't strike section 5 only section 4. as i understand section 4 it enumerates where they have to total the mark, so to speak. [inaudible conversations] >> you are very quiet and soft spoken. almost every time i give you a question.

i'm glad to do that. go ahead. that shows you don't have to be rude to be noticed around here. like all the rest of us. >> there's no -- [laughter] no way without a unanimous consent agreement, there's no way to keep the student loan rates from going up. >> without legislation, that's right. yep. >> reporter: is it complained president obama has to take -- [inaudible] kind of a three-way debate now and you are kind of left to take a -- [inaudible] >> the president -- no matter where he's been, he's always been available. so that's no problem. air force one, as you know, is a very easy for him to call. we can call him if it's important enough. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] in some ways had there not been a sherman, lincoln would

maybe have been nominated. he surely wouldn't have won the election. he went on to defeat 156% of the popular vote. george mckell had a lot of momentum. he was writing letters to the sherman and others expecting to become the president. sherman took atlanta for one week he didn't say a word. lincoln didn't say much. as he would say often, he wept in to one hole, i don't know where he is now. he came up in another hole. all is good. william and sherman save the union after -- i can't think of anybody in the time george thomas even. >> military historian victor davis hanson talk about five generals that he says singled handily reversed the direction of the war to their country's favor. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. at the conference hosted by the "the wall street journal," white house counsel of economic

advisers chairman allen crewinger discuss the economic forecast and the effect of the budgettest sequester on the economic growth. he talk about the deficit, income gap, and implementation of the health care law. this is a half hour. [no audio. ] i want to start with main of your themes at the rock and roll hall of fame. you observe the gap between the best off americans and the worst off americans has been growing

substantially over time. you argue it wasn't just wrong as a matter of politics or values. it was bad for the economy. you said a more equal distribution of wages could be good for business. it would raise morale and productivity. and you basically said that the u.s. economy would probably grow better, faster, if this gap between, say chief checktive -- executive and the janitor was narrower. in other words, these guys are either making too much money, or paying their staff too low. and their companies would be better off if it were different? >> i think that's right. let me put in context. did no. -- >> the point i was making we reached a point in our society where inequality is harmful for the economy. and i think throughout most of our history there was a trade-off between inequality and inefficiency. over the last thirty years, the vast majority of north carolina

-- income growth from the over 100 percent of the income growth went to the top. with that it's going to be the top tenth of 1%. so i think in our current environment, the notion of a trade-off between equality and efficient sincerity is not always correct. i'll tell you what i'm particularly concerned about, i think the cfo and all americans should be concerned about. is this growing gap that we've had between the middle and the bottom and the top is creating an opportunity's gap. if you look at the increase in post secondary school enrollment, college attendance. it's coming from the top half. if you look at the amount that is being invested in children from disadvantaged families, it's at best, staying constant. many cases it's declining compared to growing investment in the top half and the top

quarter. it means we're not using our resources efficiently. .. >> perform better at work, and that is in the company's interest. put those all together, and i think we've reached a point in this country where it's in our national interest. increase the size of the pie if we have more of a national

effort, both government and private sector, and one of the points i made in the speech is to a considerable extent it's up to the private sector, up for shareholders to recognize it's in the interest to treat the workers, in many cases, better. >> let's see what the people think about this. can we have the first question? maybe? >> here we go. >> increases the worker improves productivity in american business. yes or no? assuming everybody has an ipad and knows how to use them? if not, wave your hand, we'll get somebody to help you. allen, are you allowed to vote? >> which allen. >> allen murray. >> apparently not. it didn't let me. >> that's our crack security. >> smarter than i am. >> by the way, didn't give me the opportunity to describe the study on stock market values and whether a company is listed in

100 best places to work in america based on employee morale. >> 2-4% or something. >> exactly. nice event study. >> you didn't do a good job. 2 to 1 against you. >> i'm surprised at the 3 # 1%. i thought it would be lower. >> the enlightened 31%? [laughter] get your cea coffee mug after this. okay. turn to the economy, allen, so the u.s. economy is growing, and it's better than not growing, better than say, europe, for example, but we're not back to where we were before the recession, like two and a half million fewer jobs today than at the peak before the recession, and as you look over the next year, do you think that -- reason to believe the pace of the economy is going to quicken,

that we'll see the next 12 # months being substantially better than the last 12 months? are we doomed to this slow crawl at two, two and a quarter percent? >> in terms of gdp, we are above where we were in the previous peak. in terms of employment, we lost 9 million jobs during the great recession at 4 million during the first 10-12 months of the president's first term, and we regained over the last 389 months almost half a million private sector jobs on a better path than we have been on. our forecast is given the head winds that we face because of government sequester, the recovery program still, that that will be a head wind for expansion in 2013. i expect, unless we replace the

sequester with smarter policy, that this year it's going to look like last year in terms of job growth and gdp growth. if we had support from the congress, i think we'd have the stronger year, but i think weaver looking at 2013 in terms of gdp and job growth in the same range. >> in 2014? >> in 2014, i think you'll -- i think if the sequester remains in place -- >> likely. >> it will take effect. some of it will bleed into next year because of the outlays, but it won't be as severe next year seeing growth closer to 3% next year. the growth rate would have been close to 3 #% this year without the sequester. >> i see. can we have the second question? the question with the economy? all right. compared to today, the pace of the u.s. economic growth in june 2014 will be -- well, you can

read the choices. much, much better, much better, about the same, much worse, much, much worse. we need the "jeopardy" music or something. [laughter] okay. let's see. you did belter. i think they are pretty much with you, all right? good, good. last night -- >> they did better. [laughter] >> well i'm judging how persuasive you are. last night, we, allen introviewed dave cody from honeywell, and some of the conversation was bout the deficit, and i was struck about the contrast how on the one hand the international monetary fund which said -- describe the the

deaf -- described the deficit reduction as rapid and ill-designed. treasury secretary jack lew said we're over achieving on deficit reduction, and the sense you suggested as much that we're doing too much too soon to turn the economy, and cody's view that we've become so complacent about the long run that that was actually hurting us in the short run. how do you square the circle? what is the right way to think about the deficit? are we being complacent or overly aggressive? >> you know, my fear, the biggest fear is that we're eating our seed corn, cutting into key investments in research and development, medical research. it's, you know, you look at what's powering the u.s. economy now, and it's partly because of the advances in horizontal drilling, fracking, and horizontal drilling. >> al gore invent that too? >> no, but the long term

investment, you never know what bears fruit. he's an example of the u.s.-government private sector, withing extremely well where you have government sponsored research and private sector took off with it, implementing it, and the cmv of the world today. that's the kind of research, which i think is going to be sacrificed because of the se -- sequester e, and on that, you cut children in head start. >> we raised income taxes on people at the top. it's not just the sequester. do you agree with jack lew we do too much now, or do you agree with david cody we are complacent about the long run? >> look, what the president has proposed all along is that we support the economy when the unemployment rate is still unsatisfactorily high, 7.6%, still too high, and that we make

adjustments in the interimmediate long term to be on a sustainable fiscal path. we adjusted. bowles-simpson says we need $4 trillion in deficit reduction in the next decade because of the budget caps in the dca, the american taxpayer relief act, we've don 2.5 trillion or so worth of adjustment. we can kind of see the end line and the way to get to a point where the debt is stable relevant to the size of the economy, and in the meantime, we're hurting the economy. what the president proposed is the best path for the economy. >> so it would be fair to say we're doing too much deficit reduction now given they have not taken any of the president's proposals for the long run not enough for the long run? >> it's fair to say we're not fixing our problems in the long run. the worst part is after ten years, the sequester is gone not addressing the main drivers of health care costs, which are of the deficit, the health care costs. we have done something for the

long run. if you look at what's happened, i'm sure you've seen health care costs and private sector jexes for medicare have come down significantly, and we -- i brought just to advertise to the audience the economic report of the president, you know, we've gone through calculations in here how sensitive the deficit is to health care spending, and so those are some significant long term adjustments. want to go further, and they want to do it because they want the programs to be around to help families for decades to come. >> now, of course, one the presidents biggest achievements is the affordable care act, obamacare, and you spoke a moment ago about job creation, and i hear quite a bit concern that the combination of all the things in the affordable care act, you know, what happens to discouraging people from hiring full-time workers and preferring part-time, the levies that some employers have to pay, the effect that some employers has to pay more for health insurance

because they are required to have more. the project is retarding the pace of job growth. your -- before you came to washington r washington, you were a labor economist, and when you go back to princeton, you're a labor economist. give us the labor economist answer. >> first of all, i'm still a labor economist. >> the academic answer rather than the talking points. >> the answer's always the same. the affordable care act is a complex law with a number of different effects and a real challenge for the research community to say what would the world look like on the previous path we were on? if the aca is implemented well, you'll see health insurance costs slow, we're beginning to see signs of that already. i think the exchanges work well, you'll see more competition, more choice, making workers better off, subsidies for small firms, and the effects are complex. i can tell you from looking at the data, and i looked hard, i

see no sign that there's been an adverse effect in the job market. if you look at the kinds of things with, you know, first things you look at, what's happened to job growth and industries with the lowest health insurance coverage? all right. they have grown more quickly than industries at with health insurance coverage affected by the vca. maybe that's a normal cyclical thing. they've grown more strongly than in the last we cover ri, and if you look at part-time employment, what's striking about the recovery is since the end of the recession, almost all the job growth is in full-time jobs, not part-time jobs. some of the fears that people claim really don't materialize. they said how many jobs have we created since health care law passed? you know, the health care law passed, i think it was march, the turning point. that's when private sector job growth started, and we're not seeing the slow down in the pace, and job growth in this recovery in the private sector

is twice as strong as it was in the first 39 months of the last recovery. you know, just looking at the objective evidence, i think there's no sign that the aca is has adverse effects. >> all right. let me ask you something about where we are in the financial sector. i'm not going to ask you to predict that berne berne's going to say -- ben bernanke's going to say tomorrow because you wouldn't tell us, and i already know because the staff told us. one wonders if the interest rates had been at 0 since 2008 when we are seeing long-term interest rates lower, despite the recent increase we've seen in generations, that there will be this temptation to reach for yield, and we've begun to see signs of financial frock that sound familiar. there's even a few days there where it looked like they were going to do synthetic cdos, and, they couldn't find anybody to

buy them, the future of humanity, but if you talk to the risk, do you worry, and are there imbalances that concern you or not? >> we're always scanning the horizon to see if there's imbalances. >> right. >> 10% in the last year, and if you look, however, at costs versus owning or fundmental building costs, there's an imbalance there. if you look at the value of a stock market type earnings ratios, doesn't look like we are too far out of historical norms. this is something we are scanning for. obviously, we don't want a repeat of the kind of boom-and-bust cycle we had in the past. it's been made clear, an economy that lasts. that's something we devote a lot of effort to. >> you don't see, at the moment, you don't see the bonfires on

the horizontal ryeson that -- horizon that make you nervous? >> economists never sleep well, but that aside, we've done a lot of the adjustment in the u.s., and some return of risk appetite is a positive thing for the economy. >> let's have the time question, one i'm not asking allen because he won't answer it, which is, when do you expect the fed to start tapering bond buying, and i know there's a lot of choices there. >> the single montra with the press conference, and that's why it seems like -- right. the four, five, and six should say 2014. the years are all off. add one. we want to make you work.

what are you doing as a professor when the multiple choice questions are all off? [laughter] >> then we grade on a curve. [laughter] >> actually, if we were really good, we'd have dots to show where all the things are. let's see the answers. so 39% say sometime this year, and most of the rest say in the first quarter of next year, substantial saying not for a long time. a final question before we turn to the audience, and you can raise your hand to ask a question or send it on your ipad, and allen or john will

pose it. europe. the president's in europe now. i suspect that the european economy won't be much better when he comes back than when he left. hog -- how big a risk to us is the current political gridlock and the long stagnation in europe? >> i think sort of a real trade channel has -- is already having an effect. >> meaning we're exporting less? >> exporting less to europe, our biggest trading partner. over the past several months, we've been on a flatter decline in terms of the exports to europe. i think that's one of the head winds we face. i think bigger risk, although hopefully lower probability is through the financial challenge. >> right. >> and, you know, that's, i think, impossible to put odds on. the europeans are, you know, aware of the problems they face, dealing with all they have to deal with is not easy.

they made progress. they got some ways to go. >> is there a question out there? if not, john, do you have one? >> why is the inequality of income issue generally framed as the fault of the successful people? this regimely leads to redistribution of wealth as the government solution. are there private market solutions? >> oh, that's an excellent question, and first of all, if you read my speech as david did, i said that we celebrate the success of the top 1%, and we should. what i tried to emphasize in the remarks is what we want to make sure we do is provide opportunities for people who are raised in less fortunate circumstances. that's why the president proposed preschool education for

all. research shows high return to preschool education, for example. look at what the president's agenda has been which is closing loopholes. that's widespread support for broadening the tax base, and investing more in education, investing more in infrastructure, trying to -- one of the other things i tried to emphasize in the speech in cleveland is, you know, what's been causing the rise in inequality is technological revolution which has made the most successful to reach a wider audience in a lot of cases. luck plays a role. when the price of oil goes up, compensation of oil executives rise. that has nothing to do with their talents or performance. i showed evidence in the music industry about the role of luck. globalization has played a big

role, and i do think that we've had a break down in the norms and the institutions that maintain fairness in the private sector. trying to strengthen those institutions. >> the questioner was about private sectors. aren't unions? >> that's where i was going. union, other ways in this workers can organize and bargain with employers. the point i wanted to make, there's a line in the speech i wanted people to pick up on, and no one did, that the only force stronger than globalization is community, and if you think about it, there are synergies within communities, and all functioning cities work well. you know, look at silicon valley, boston, baltimore, and so how do we strengthen communities, and the president proposed promise zones to ring

in private sector investment in the disstressed community and all resources of the federal government to strengthen them. i'll tell you, i was quite impressed when i was in cleveland. i met with the center for community solutions and the civic leaders and private foundation leaders in cleveland. they knew about the problems in the city and focused on how to revitalize the city. that made me optimistic there's leadership in the private sector to address the problems, and i was pleased that 31% of the cfos recognize it would be in their company's interest if we had -- >> anybody else with a question or -- >> i have another from the audience. >> okay. >> how does the administration get reliable perspective from business lerdz when there's a birth of representation in the administration? >> well, the president meets with business leaders all the time. i went with him to the brt not long ago. we're in frequent contact with business leaders, and i'm not

sure there is a dirth. the nominee for the commerce secretary, from the business community, and so i think the president meets with a wide range of people, and i'd say one of the problems is confirmation process that's difficult. the business people don't want to go through it. that's something i think that, you know, perhaps the business community can think about. >> the reason he aced the confirmation hearing was your father or father-in-law? >> father. >> his father is an accountant, did his taxes for years so there was no blemish in the senate committee. >> [laughter] >> do you think the committee followed through the obligation under dodd-frank to identify and regulate risky banks? >> oh, you know, i think the

framework that we have now with the fsoc is an improvement over what we had before. i think we're still in the stage we're setting things up. i think, again, i'll put some of the blame on congress. they were slow to confirm ahead of the office of financial research. they did an excellent one. richard who came from the business community, so those -- >> wall street. >> those processes are getting set up, and i think we made quite a bit of progress there. >> do you have a perspective op the likelihood of tax reform this year or next? >> i think it's a high priority for the administration. there's no question. i think comprehensive tax reform makes a great deal of sense where you address both problems in our corporate tax system and

personal income tax. they interagent so it makes sense to do them together. there's a lot of interest in the congress. it's always difficult because of the interest groups, but it's certainly priority of the treasury secretaries. >> john, the last question, quick one. >> sir, you talked about stabilizing the debt to gdp ratio. i wanted to follow-up -- follow up on that. is stabilizing the debt to gdp ratio good enough in the long run for the u.s. economy, or does it need to be reduced? if yes it'sed good enough, explain why, and if, no, it meeds to be reduced, explain how. >> i think it's necessary. i think as an economist, it's preferable to be in a situation where debt a lower. for no other reason, there could be a crisis down the road. when i left government in the

mid-1990s, we were on the way to surpluses that turned it deficits. it would have been much easier to address the financial economic crisis with an environment where we still had surpluses. for that reason, economists prefer to have lower debt. on the other hand, look at what are you using your resources for? are you investing in the future? are you providing opportunities for people which as i emphasized earlier is something that spans the size of the pie given where we are today in the u.s. if we invest more in disadvantaged populations. i think a necessary first step is to sablize debt to gdp at a manageable level. look at the cbo scoring, the congress budget office's scoring of the president's budget, it puts us on a downward trajectory in the 10-year window below 70% debt to gdp ratio.

the animal -- analogy i use when in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging. that's necessary. i think it would be a remarkable achievement, frankly, given the economic crisis we went through, given the costly wars taken place when the president came to office, the expansion of medicare without paying for it, to stabilize the debt to gdp. >> with that, thank you very much, join me in thanking allen krugar. [applause] he's been with us before, and i hope he comes back again, but he's back with princeton in august. thank you for the questions. >> there's 1400 monuments here on this battlefield. the 1880s and 90s as the men who fought in the battle are older, they want to make sure what they did here is remembered, and they are going to do that by building monuments.

in modern times, we have other ways of commemorating things like that, but back in those days, that's how they commemorated the soldiers and the leaders, and monuments interpret the story, they are placed on the ground where the units fat. most are union monuments. the battle is a union victory, in a northern state, the war will be a union victory, and by the time the war ends, there's not a lot of money in the south to build monuments. , especially in northern states. >> live all day coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysberg sunday at 9:30 eastern with scholars and masters.

>> today in a 5-4 ruling, the supreme court struck down part of the voting rights act requiring congress to create a new formula for determines which states require advanced approval before changing their voting laws. vice president biden commented op the supreme court's decision. >> i have to say that, like so many across the country, i'm disappointed in the supreme court's decision today. you may or may not have heard of

in shelby county, and the thing that got me engaged in politics as a young kid got me to run for the united states senate in -- when i was 29 years old. that law, today's decision upset a well-established practice. the voting rights act has been repeatedly enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the congress. for 17 years, i was chairman of or the ranking member of the judiciary committee. every time it came up for reauthorization, we got support. if i'm not mistaken, last time, thurman voted to reauthorize it as well, no, i'm serious. in 2006, it was reauthorized by unanimous support of the united states senate and near unanimous

support in the house of representatives. this support is based on recognition of voting rights that voting is a fundamental right. it's the foundation of our democracy. the voting rights agent has been critical and effective means to guarantee that core right. as the supreme court acknowledged, we made progress as a nation. the supreme court also recognized volting discrimination still exists. between 1982 and 2006, the justice department bought 700 changes in local voting rules, 700 changes. based on their determination that the changes were designed to be discriminatory. they discriminated. in 2011, south carolina passed a law requiring voters to show certain forms of id at the polls. the justice department octobered to the law. at the trial, showing that there

were 60,000 black voters in the state who would have been denied to vote the day the law took effect. folks, as we move forward, remember not all of the voting rights act was struck down. the court -- i won't go into the detail of the decision -- but the congress says they can pass new legislation. they struck down a section talking about new regulations ensuring that every american has equal access to the polls. we'll work with congress in the effort, and the administration can do everything in our power to ensure fair and equal voting processes are maintained so there's a lot of work to be done. it's disappointing that court made the change, made the decision it did.

>> president obama today gave a speech outlining his proposal for dealing with climate change. it includes new regulations on carbon emissions from power plants. from georgetown university in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes. ♪ [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, georgetown! [cheers and applause] thank you so much. [applause] now -- [applause] thank you, georgetown. everybody, please be seated, and my first announcemented today is that you should all take off your jackets. i'm going to do the same. [cheers and applause] it's not that sexy. [laughter] it is good to be back on