mr. franken: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the growing threat of it corporate control on the flow of information in this country. right now, today, we've been debating incredibly important issues and i don't mean to detract from any of them. we need to be doing anything we can to protect our national security and reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. while we debate these issues in front of the public, behind the scenes away from public scrutiny, the federal communications commission is about to decide two distinct but very closely related issues that have the potential to change dramatically the way we get our entertainment, the way we communicate with one another, and, most importantly, the way we use the internet. the first matter before the f.c.c. is the proposed merger of comcast and nbc universal. there is no question in my mind that regardless of what you hear from industry, this merger will be bad for consumers and on many levels sms it will allow comcast to exploit nbc universal

mr. franken: i thank the chairman for the clarification. mr. president, i rise today to discuss missile defense and the new start treaty. missile is one of the persistent areas of concern of the treaty raised by some of my colleagues. however, the reasonable questions that have been raised on the subject can be answered in a very straightforward manner. the treatment of missile defense in the treaty is no cause to oppose it. quite the opposite, it should garner support for the treaty. most of those who have raised concern understand that long-standing russian anxiety about our missile defense is misplaced. the purpose of our missile defense is not to undermine russia's deterrent. it is to protect us from attack from the likes of iran or north korea. in fact, the senator who raised the objection about it coming up now after their requests for delay pointed out as if i didn't understand that, for some reason. this is long-standing u.s. policy and law across administrations, and congresses controlled by both parties, going back to at least the adm

mr. franken: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: mr. president, i rise today to speak about my decision, after a lot of serious contemplation, to support the legislation before us. i believe that minnesotans deserve a better deal than this one. but, unfortunately, this is the one we have. for minnesota's middle class, there is a lot in this bill that will not only be helpful but is absolutely critical. it stops our taxes from going up on january 1, it provides a payroll tax holiday that gives families making $50,000 a year a $1,000 tax break. and for minnesotans who are truly suffering right now, men, women, and children on the edge of economic disaster, it reinstates emergency federal unemployment benefits that expired at the end of last mon month. not restoring these benefits would be devastating to minnesota families and to our economy, leading to a lot more pain for working families, a lot more homeless kids spending christmas in a shelter or a car. i came here to make people's lives better, and so i'm -- i must vote to

mr. franken: mr. president, i rise to speak about extending tax cuts to all americans on knack up to $250,000. mr. president, i was presiding this monday when one of my friends on the other side of the aisle was speaking on the floor, and he said with great conviction, and i quote -- "we need to do everything to see that the deficit does not increase." now less than a week later, he will vote to increase the deficit by $700 billion. that's an impressive reversal, don't you think? now, many of my colleagues on the other side ran for re-election this fall saying that the deficit is a cancer, that we owe it to our children and grandchildren to cut the deficit. well, to them i say congratulations because one of your first votes back, you're going to vote to put over $9,300 more debt on the head of every child in america. way to go. and what is that for? to give an average tax cut of $100,000 to americans making over $1 million a year. now, my friends on this subject have been saying to us haven't you lear

the clerk: senator franken to in turley, isn't what happened before he was a federal judge relevant if he subsequently lied about it? mr. turley: senator franken, what i would say is that we've agreed if those lies occurred during a confirmation hearing, if it was an act of perjury, then certainly you would have a potential impeachable offense. i think that the lying is -- that the line being drawn here is i think this may be the thrust of your question is that if it is pre-federal conduct, the answer is no. that is -- this body has stated in cases like archbald that it will not consider pre-federal conduct for a very good reason, the constitution guarantees life tenure for good behavior in office. that's how the framers defined it. if you allow for the house to go back in this case three decades -- three decades and say look at all these things you did before you became a judge, we're going to have a doover. we think that now you should be removed because of those things. not because of what you did as a federal judge. and i think there is a distinction. i'm willing -- i believe that if -- if there was perjury in the

the clerk: senator franken to in turley, isn't what happened before he was a federal judge relevant if he subsequently lied about it? mr. turley: senator franken, what i would say is that we've agreed if those lies occurred during a confirmation hearing, if it was an act of perjury, then certainly you would have a potential impeachable offense. i think that the lying is -- that the line being drawn here is i think this may be the thrust of your question is that if it is pre-federal conduct, the answer is no. that is -- this body has stated in cases like archbald that it will not consider pre-federal conduct for a very good reason, the constitution guarantees life tenure for good behavior in office. that's how the framers defined it. if you allow for the house to go back in this case three decades -- three decades and say look at all these things you did before you became a judge, we're going to have a doover. we think that now you should be removed because of those things. not because of what you did as a federal judge. and i think there is a distinction. i'm willing -- i believe that if -- if there was perjury in the

the clerk: senator franken to in turley, isn't what happened before he was a federal judge relevant if he subsequently lied about it? mr. turley: senator franken, what i would say is that we've agreed if those lies occurred during a confirmation hearing, if it was an act of perjury, then certainly you would have a potential impeachable offense. i think that the lying is -- that the line being drawn here is i think this may be the thrust of your question is that if it is pre-federal conduct, the answer is no. that is -- this body has stated in cases like archbald that it will not consider pre-federal conduct for a very good reason, the constitution guarantees life tenure for good behavior in office. that's how the framers defined it. if you allow for the house to go back in this case three decades -- three decades and say look at all these things you did before you became a judge, we're going to have a doover. we think that now you should be removed because of those things. not because of what you did as a federal judge. and i think there is a distinction. i'm willing -- i believe that if -- if there was perjury in the

mr. fattah, you're thinking politically is rush limbaugh right. >> al franken, barbara boxer voted for this in the senate. as liberal as they come in our party. i'll vote for them in the house. i'm part of the liberal left in the house. there will be members who disagree in and on legitimate points they may disagree. anytime that a deal is struck, some people are not going to like it. there will be enough votes to pass, this will pass out of house. will send it to the president for his signature and we'll get a few more things done. i think that the senate's going to pass don't ask, don't tell. we'll get the appropriations bill done. and then these republicans who want to celebrate christmas, i guess, will get a chance to, like most americans, they have to work up until christmas, some have to work on christmas day. but we'll get the work done. >> well, some people are lucky to be working. let's take a look at his tax. the polling data. i know that mr. capuano is not a politician so let's take a look at the poll dat. you and me, mr. fattah we'll look at these numbers. that's in our poll. an

nevada, gillibrand, schumer, casey, murray, franken, bingaman, cardin, inouye, bennet of colorado, shaheen, menendez, boxer, lautenberg, dodd and durbin. mr. reid: mr. president, regarding the h.r. 847, the zagroda legislation, have we stated that motion and have i asked that the reading of the names be waived? the presiding officer: the motion has been state and the names have been read. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to calendar number 662, s. 3991 our upon the conclusion of the impeachment proceedings and the senate resume legislative session. and that the senate then resume the motion to proceed to calendar number 662 and the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 as it relates to all these matters and i filed cloture on be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume consideration of the articles of impeachment against judge g. thomas porteous -- let's try this again. his name is judge g. thomas porteous jr. the district of louis