[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15576-15591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Don't Ask, Don't Tell

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with all the talk about the small business 
bill and about the fact that we have an administration, with a majority 
in the House and the Senate, that has amassed unbelievable debts, 
raising it up to $13 trillion, and a deficit of $1.4 trillion in just 1 
year, the first year, people have forgotten other things that are going 
on.
  I am very much concerned, being the second-ranking member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, about the national defense 
authorization bill, which we have passed every year in all the years I 
have been here. Generally speaking, it is one we can bring out on the 
floor, Members can offer amendments, and normally it takes 2, 3, 
sometimes 4 weeks, and longer, to pass it. But certainly, particularly 
during times of war, it is the most important piece of legislation we 
have.
  I do not know what the majority is going to do. I just keep hearing 
rumors that they may very well not be wanting to bring it up or may 
bring it up by ``filling the tree,'' a little technical term, so 
Republicans would not be able to have amendments on the bill.
  Well, this is very much a concern of mine. I think it puts them in a 
position where they can say: Oh, Republicans certainly are going to 
vote for the Defense authorization bill. In times of war, we have to do 
it. Well, we do. But there is a limit as to what they can put in there 
that is purely right down party lines.
  There are a couple issues I wish to talk about in the Defense 
authorization bill that ended up being right down party lines. One is 
the issue of don't ask, don't tell. But before doing that, I would like 
to suggest that in May, in the final meeting we had of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, we passed this out, and two amendments were added 
on the very last day by the

[[Page 15577]]

Democrats, and they were passed virtually by all the Democrats right 
down party lines. One was opening our military hospitals for abortions, 
and that is something we need to talk about, but the other one was one 
we need to talk about more right now because this is the issue that so 
many people are not aware of. That is the repeal of don't ask, don't 
tell.
  I remember back in 1994, I was in the House, running for the Senate, 
and one of the three issues that was very prominent in that race, which 
I won, concerned gays in the military. At that time, there were some 
efforts saying: Well, we want to acknowledge gays in the military so 
they can be open in their practices and all that. Well, a compromise 
was reached that I did not think at the time was all that good of an 
idea. But that was 1993, I guess, the latter part of 1993. It has 
worked for--what--17 years. It was called don't ask, don't tell; that 
is, if someone wants to serve who is a gay person, a man or a woman, in 
the military, that person can do it if that person is not out in the 
open. The whole idea of this thing was so they could not use the 
military as a forum to advance very liberal causes.
  I am a veteran. I can remember when I was in the U.S. Army, and 
anyone who is a veteran knows the problems that would be associated 
with the practice of repealing don't ask, don't tell so people are 
openly gay in the military. You are going to have all kinds of 
billeting and other problems.
  So I think when the discussion came up that we were considering doing 
this, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, did the right thing on 
February 2 of 2010. He said: Let's go ahead and have a study. Let's 
have an independent study as to how unit cohesion and readiness would 
be impacted if we repealed don't ask, don't tell.
  In addition to the study, this is also going to conduct a survey of 
military members, people who are out there, in asking: Well, what is 
your feeling? You are out there in the fields, in many cases, out in 
the foxholes. What is your feeling about having open gays in the 
military?
  So they were all getting ready to respond to this when a surprise 
took place, when the Democrats, almost straight down party lines, came 
out and said: Well, we are going to go ahead and repeal it anyway. They 
worded it in such a way that we will repeal it, but, of course, that 
will not take place until after the study is complete. The study was to 
be completed in December of this year. It was going to be a 12-month 
study. All the Members of the military were going to participate in 
that.
  I can remember as recently as April 28 Secretary Gates and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said--and this 
is a joint statement:

       [We] believe in the strongest possible terms that the 
     Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed 
     the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and 
     systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change.

  Well, I was all for that. They were right, along with all the rest of 
the chiefs of the military and all the troops in the field. Of course, 
they obviously changed their minds. But if you want to know the effect, 
you need to go and talk to the troops in the field, and then you need 
to talk also to the chiefs of the military.
  I am going to go ahead and quote, so I can get it in the Record now, 
exactly the feelings of those Chiefs of the four services and what they 
are recommending. I am so sick and tired of having the administration 
make those decisions without any consultation of the people in uniform. 
We are going through that right now in some of the things that are 
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. The policy should be: The people in 
uniform know what to do. Quit trying to dictate their behavior.
  Well, anyway, General Casey, the Chief of the U.S. Army, said:

       I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a 
     better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are 
     on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit 
     cohesion might be. . . .

  He said:

       I also believe that repealing the law before the completion 
     of the review--

  That is the one that is supposed to be completed in December--

     will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal 
     of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.

  That is exactly what we are saying. We are saying: All right. We 
wanted your views, but we are not going to listen to your views now.
  Admiral Roughead of the U.S. Navy said:

       We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully 
     examine potential impacts of a change in the law. My concern 
     is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the 
     precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of 
     the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by 
     leading Sailors to question whether their input matters.

  Obviously, their input does not matter now because they have already 
made that decision.
  General Conway, of the U.S. Marine Corps--he is the Commandant--said:

       I encourage Congress to let the process the Secretary of 
     Defense created run its course. Collectively, we must make 
     logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies 
     of our Armed Forces--which so effectively defend this great 
     nation.

  General Schwartz, of the U.S. Air Force, said:

       I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with 
     those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the 
     Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before 
     there is any legislation to repeal the don't ask, don't tell 
     law. Such action allows me to provide the best military 
     advice to the President, and sends an important signal to our 
     Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do 
     otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect 
     an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed. . 
     . .

  Well, I agree with all that. These are the guys in the field. They 
are the ones who are making this decision. Yet, on May 27, both Gates 
and Mullen, who had already stated they should wait until after this 
study is completed--that would be in December--on May 27, they had what 
they called a compromise. Basically, the compromise is saying: Well, we 
are going to go ahead and repeal it. That was the motion that was in 
the last day before we passed the Defense authorization bill out of the 
House, and the same thing, the Defense authorization bill of the 
Senate.
  Why did they change? Why did Gates and Mullen change? Gates and 
Mullen answered to the President. The President, I truly believe--and I 
hate to throw this into it--but, obviously, this is something the vast 
majority of people in America would like to see happen the way we had 
said it was going to happen, so we could evaluate the effect on 
readiness and the effect on our troops in the field, the effect on the 
war that is taking place right now. Yet they went ahead and reversed 
that, and, again, that was right down party lines.
  There are so many other things having to do with this that are 
critical. Obviously, current chaplains are not able to be heard. But we 
have a letter from 41 of the retired chaplains stating that 
``normalizing homosexual behavior in the armed forces will pose a 
significant threat to chaplains' and Servicemembers' religious 
liberty.''
  So we have this that is taking place right now.
  I know a lot of people are concerned, as I am concerned, with a 
ruling that came from a district court out in California. This ruling 
came out and said: We think it is a violation of the first amendment 
rights of homosexuals not to be able to express their preferences in 
any way they want.
  However, the military is different. It is my understanding--and I am 
not a lawyer--this ruling may not have any effect. In fact, there is an 
article. It was on FOX News this morning: ``Pentagon: No Plans To 
Change `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling.'' Well, that 
was good news to me because I thought maybe it was all over once the 
courts ruled.
  But the only thing they would go through now with the compromise, 
they call it, that they passed, is that you would have to have Admiral 
Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense 
Gates, and President Obama making the statement as to what they prefer.

[[Page 15578]]

That is why I say this is over and done with, unless we have an 
opportunity to bring out the Defense authorization bill and to offer 
amendments on the Defense authorization bill. I have to tell you, there 
are several Democrats now who have joined Republicans in wanting to 
stop the repeal of don't ask, don't tell or at least to wait until this 
study is completed.
  But if you do not think the three I just mentioned have already made 
up their minds, I will go ahead and read their statements.
  President Obama:

       This year, I will work with Congress and our military to 
     finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to 
     serve the country they love because of who they are.

  Secretary Gates:

       I fully support the president's decision. The question 
     before us is not whether the military prepares to make this 
     change, but how we best prepare for it.

  Admiral Mullen:

       Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself . . . it is my personal 
     belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would 
     be the right thing to do.

  So you have to ask the question, Why? What was wrong with waiting 
until December? I will tell you what is wrong: because there is an 
election that is taking place November 2 and the gay lobby is a huge 
lobby. I think we all know that. All these people who think they have 
not been liberal enough, I cannot imagine there is anyone in America 
today who thinks this administration has not been liberal enough. But 
these individuals are the ones who want to have this done before the 
November 2 elections. I can think of no reason at all that they would 
take this stand other than the political reason.
  So here is what I believe. I think we are going to have to make a 
decision. I would certainly hope the majority leader and the Democrats 
who have this policy will allow this to come up and come up as soon as 
possible and allow a full and open debate, as we have always had. There 
is not a time in the history of this country that we have brought up a 
Defense authorization bill, particularly in time of war, without 
allowing everybody to get in there and to offer amendments. Perhaps it 
could be argued this is the most important bill of the year.
  So I am hoping people start talking about it. That is why I am 
bringing it up today. The fear I have is this is going to be shoved 
down our throats by the majority, and we cannot let this happen.
  Right now, we have a lot of men and women over in the various areas 
of combat. I have had the honor of being over there many times. I have 
worked with these individuals. We have more than our share in my State 
of Oklahoma. Our 45th is going to be going back over there. I would 
like to make sure these guys and gals know we are listening to them.
  A lot of people criticize me and others for spending so much time 
over there, but there are so many things we find out when we are over 
there--things we can't get in hearings back here. I am talking about 
finding out, as we did over there, about the need for the MRAP and some 
of the other capabilities we need to have so we can come back and make 
sure our kids who are over there fighting have everything they want. 
The very least we can do is keep our word, when we promised them that 
we are not going to do anything until we hear back from our military, 
our soldiers in the field, as to what they feel about the repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell. It is a very significant issue and it is one we 
are going to have to talk about this week.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we are in the process of debating the 
small business bill. I am so grateful to the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana who has fought so hard to get this bill through the process 
of cloture, including an amendment attached to that piece of 
legislation which makes available $30 billion for the community banks 
to help out small businesses. I hate that it has taken so much time to 
get these important pieces of legislation through this body and out 
where it will benefit those needing it. Based on that, I am hoping we 
will bring this piece of legislation to a very speedy and expeditious 
close and that we will not continue to find political maneuverings to 
hamper the passage of this small business bill.
  For the last 2 years, this country has been held in the grips of an 
unprecedented economic crisis. The housing market collapsed. The bottom 
dropped out of Wall Street. For the first time in generations, many 
Americans felt their hard-earned economic security begin to slip away. 
Too often, the focus of legislation has been on Wall Street rather than 
on Main Street. We have made some significant progress since the onset 
of our current crisis, but we still have a very long way to go, 
especially in creating new and sustainable jobs.
  But this is an election year, and that means partisan bickering is on 
the rise.
  So I believe my colleagues and I have a decision to make. We must 
make a decision. We can focus on winning the next news cycle, pitting 
Republicans against Democrats and falling into the same tired political 
battles that usually consume election years in Washington or we can 
reach for something better. We can tune out the partisan fights, reject 
the failed policies that got us into this mess, and prove to the 
American people that we have the will to make tough decisions to get 
our collective economy on the move again.
  Our recovery is far from complete. We need to create more jobs. We 
need to bring American families more relief. Government can put people 
to work, but only the private sector--especially the small business 
sector--can create real and lasting employment. I believe that if we 
fail to continue the bold policies that pulled us back from the brink 
of disaster--if we shrink away from the difficult decisions that will 
move this recovery forward--then we place our economy at risk by 
slipping back into a recession.
  This is a time for bold action, not pointless ideological battles. 
The Small Business Lending Act will move this economy forward in real 
and tangible ways. That is what the American people want and need, and 
they are asking us to get about the business of doing it.
  The bill before us gives small businesses $12 billion in tax cuts. It 
helps small businesses create 500,000 new jobs. It incentivizes and 
increases small business lending. It helps small business owners access 
private capital to finance expansion and to hire new workers. That is 
where the jobs are going to be created, is with these small businesses 
we are now seeking to help. It rewards entrepreneurs for investing in 
new small businesses. It helps Main Street businesses compete with 
large corporations.
  Just this past Friday, I hosted a small business forum in Chicago at 
Chicago State University and I spent the day talking with business 
owners from all walks of life from all over my State and from a wide 
range of industries. Everyone I spoke with said the same thing: We need 
help now. Pass the legislation. That is what they were telling me.
  Tomorrow I will host a small business forum in partnership with my 
good friends over in the other Chamber, in the House of 
Representatives, including Congressman Lacy Clay of Missouri and 
Congresswoman Yvette Clark. Together, we hope to work directly with 
these small business owners to get capital flowing again.
  These entrepreneurs are not asking for a handout from this 
government; they are asking for the tools and resources to grow 
themselves, to work and to build within their communities, and to 
create jobs for hard-working Americans. That is what they are asking 
for. Everyone I spoke with reminds me that there are many ways each of 
us can act to advance the interests of each of those small businesses 
in our own States. But together, by acting collectively and by 
supporting this bill, we can take a major step forward in strengthening 
our American economy.
  As I have reminded this Chamber before, long before I entered public 
service, I was a banker. As a matter of fact, I was the vice president 
of the largest bank in my State. It no longer exists

[[Page 15579]]

now, but it was Continental Illinois Bank and Trust Company. We were 
the seventh largest bank in America at that time. I ran a division that 
loaned money to small businesses. So I have firsthand knowledge and 
information of what it takes to finance and to run these businesses, 
because if I loaned you the bank's money, you were going to pay me 
back. It was not my money, it was the depositors' money, and I had to 
be the custodian of that money. Guess what. Just last Friday in 
Chicago, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of a company called Central 
City Productions--the largest black-owned production business in 
America--that produces TV programs and other marketing and competitive 
programs for the communities. They have been in business for 40 years. 
I loaned that young man in those days $50,000. Of course, that was 
1970, and $50,000 went a long way then. It probably would take about $1 
million to do what we did with $50,000 then, in today's market. So that 
is the knowledge I bring before this body and to this legislation we 
have on the floor: Knowing what small businesses take; knowing what we 
need to do to help those companies get the resources they need so they 
can get their inventory, so they can get their line of credit, so they 
can then put their people to work and sell their goods and services to 
their respective customers.
  There is no greater investment we can make if we are serious about 
sustainable job creation and growth and to encourage investment and 
loaning to small businesses.
  So I call upon my colleagues in this great body to seize this 
opportunity. Let's keep America on the road to recovery and restore the 
hard-earned security of ordinary folks who have suffered because of bad 
decisions on Wall Street. It will not be easy, but it is our 
responsibility, and it is the right thing to do. We have that 
responsibility. We have no other alternative than to, as the old saying 
goes, do the right thing. We must make sure this legislation is passed. 
We should start by increasing our support right now for this 
legislation for small businesses. These companies foster progress and 
they foster innovation. They have the power to create jobs and direct 
investment to local communities, where it can have the most and 
greatest impact and make a difference in our economic status.
  Small businesses form the backbone of our economy, but in many ways 
they have suffered the most as a result of this economic crisis. That 
is why this sector should be targeted for our strongest support. There 
should be no debate about this. It should not be Republican or 
Democrat. This should be about helping America create jobs. We have 
outsourced all our jobs already to the foreign markets, which have 
shipped the manufacturing jobs out to other markets. We have to get 
back to manufacturing. Our small innovative companies should come back 
in so they can then create manufacturing jobs, so we can have value-
added products and continue the workstream for people to be employed.
  I ask my colleagues to reject the tired politics that got us into 
this mess and embrace the spirit of bipartisanship that can lead us out 
of this mess.
  On behalf of small businesses, I call upon this body to take action. 
Our economic future may be uncertain, but with the Small Business 
Lending Act, we have the rare opportunity to influence that future. So 
let's pass this measure and guarantee some degree of relief for the 
people who continue to suffer the most. Let's renew our investment in 
America's small businesses and rely on them to drive our economic 
recovery. Let's do it now. Let's do it today. Let's don't even do it 
tomorrow.
  Thank you. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for as much time as I may consume and ask that the time be counted 
against the postcloture time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             American Jobs

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this country, as all of us know, faces 
very significant challenges these days. We have roughly 20 million 
people who woke up in America today without a job, who probably are out 
today looking for work and haven't found it yet. It is a pretty tough 
thing in a severe economic downturn--the worst since the Great 
Depression of the 1930s--to find that you lost your job, and in some 
cases your home, and you have lost hope and you wonder what is next for 
you and your family.
  I suppose it is in keeping with our politics these days that, at a 
time when we face the most significant economic challenges since the 
Great Depression, if you stop and watch and listen and hear the sounds 
of democracy, which sound a little like fingernails on a blackboard 
sometimes, what you hear on the news is something about someone's 
dysfunctional behavior somewhere. Someone does something absolutely 
goofy, just a nutty activity, and all of a sudden, it is on the 24/7 
news.
  In the last couple weeks, I have been traveling and hearing on the 
television, radio, and in print about some nut from Florida--apparently 
a minister with a church of 50 people--who decides he is going to burn 
the Koran. We heard about it every day, all day. There is some 
suggestion that if you give this a lot of publicity and hold it up to 
the light and say, ``Isn't it ugly?'' you would say, ``Yes, but it is 
not America; it is just some nut.'' You find someone's dysfunctional 
behavior and say, ``Isn't this awful?'' Sure, it is awful, but that is 
not the backbone of this country or what this country is about.
  We have to begin talking about what really matters to put this 
country back on track and to give people some hope for the future, that 
they are going to see more opportunity, that they are going to see 
expansion of hope and opportunity for themselves, their families, and 
their children.
  I think it is true that of all of the issues that matter most at this 
point, it is, how can you put people back to work? There is no social 
program that we debate in Congress that is more important than a good 
job that pays well. That makes almost everything else possible. If you 
have a good job that pays well, with job security and benefits, it 
allows you to take care of your family and do the other things that 
expand your opportunities in this great country.
  I have watched and observed what is happening, and I participate in 
the debates in the Congress about what is happening in our country. I 
am very worried about this issue of trying to turn the faucet on to 
create new jobs in America at the very time the drain is open, with 
jobs moving outside of this country very quickly.
  I have spoken about this and have offered 4 amendments over 9 or 10 
years, and I have gotten anywhere from 40 to 47 votes on an amendment 
that says: Let's decide to stand up for employment in America, stand up 
for jobs here. Let's shut down the insidious, perverse tax incentives 
that tell American businesses that if you shut down your business in 
America, fire your workers here at home, and you move it to China or 
Mexico, we will give you a big fat tax break. That is true. We have a 
tax incentive to say: Get rid of your American enterprise, ship it 
overseas, move it to Mexico, and we will give you a tax cut. I have 
tried four times in votes on the floor of the Senate to shut that down, 
and I lost all four times. But we need to try it again. We need to do 
this, especially when you have the deep economic abyss into which we 
have fallen. We now need to say to people that we are going to stand up 
for employers, those who run the manufacturing plants in this country, 
those who hire American workers, those who produce products that say 
``Made in America'' on the label. We are going to stand up for them, 
and we are not going to continue to give tax breaks to those who decide 
to do exactly the opposite and move their jobs overseas.

[[Page 15580]]

  I am going to talk about a few of those circumstances. I have done it 
many times, and sometimes people roll their eyes when I do. But it is 
important, it seems to me, to continue to talk about this failure in 
our economic system.
  The American Prospect--a magazine I was reading a while back--
estimates that since 2001, there are 42,400 American factories that 
have closed their doors. Roughly three-fourths of those employed over 
500 people. Why is that happening? Why is it that American factories 
are closing? Does it matter? Do we believe America will long remain a 
world economic power if it doesn't have world-class manufacturing? I 
don't. It will not be a world economic power without world-class 
manufacturing capability, and very quickly, it is dissipating. We are 
losing jobs and economic strength in the manufacturing sector. We see 
additional evidence of it every day.
  Here is a June New York Times piece:

       In Indiana, Centerpiece for a City Closes Shop.
       Whirlpool plans to close a plant on Friday and move the 
     operation to Mexico, eliminating 1,100 jobs here [in 
     Indiana]. Many in this city in southern Indiana are seething 
     and sad--sad about losing what was long the city's economic 
     centerpiece and a ticket to the middle class for one 
     generation after another.

  That is Whirlpool--1,100 jobs.
  Last week, I was in Pennsylvania with Congressman Sestak, in 
Philadelphia. I told a story that I have known pretty well about 
something that happened in Pennsylvania. I told it on the floor many 
times. It is about something called Pennsylvania House Furniture, which 
is upper end, fine furniture, made by craftsmen. It is very good 
furniture. They worked for over 100 years, using Pennsylvania wood, to 
create Pennsylvania House furniture. Then one day the company was 
bought by La-Z-Boy, and La-Z-Boy decided: You know what, we are going 
to get rid of those craftsmen who work in Pennsylvania and ship these 
jobs to China. What we will do is continue to use Pennsylvania wood, 
but we will just ship the wood to China and have the Chinese fashion it 
into furniture and then send it back to sell in the United States and 
call it Pennsylvania House furniture.
  What most people from Pennsylvania and across the country probably 
don't know is that on the last day of work, when those workers lost 
their jobs, after a century of making fine furniture in Pennsylvania, 
the last piece of furniture came down the line completed, and they 
turned it over and all of the craftsmen at Pennsylvania House furniture 
autographed it. Someone in America has an autographed piece of 
furniture by the craftsmen who cared so much about their jobs and had 
such pride in making the best furniture they could make. And then the 
jobs were gone. All the wood was sent to China and the furniture is 
sent back, and you have nearly 500 people out of work. So much for the 
story of Pennsylvania House furniture. Does it matter that we don't 
make Pennsylvania House furniture in this country? Well, it sure 
matters to the 500 or so people for whom it was their career, a job 
that made a difference for their families. It made a difference to them 
because they were out of work.
  I just mentioned Whirlpool deciding to get rid of 1,100 jobs. Well, 
it is interesting, here is a story in the Indiana Economic Digest. It 
says:

       U.S. based manufacturers are shipping jobs overseas.

  That is a familiar story.

       Whirlpool is just one local example of a story that has 
     played out across the nation for decades.
       The appliance-maker is in the process of shutting down its 
     Evansville refrigerator plant. March 26 was the last day for 
     455 [people in that plant.]

  Those jobs will go to Mexico in late June.
  But then it says something different. It says:

       But not all local manufacturers are interested in moving 
     overseas.
       HMC manufactures and refurbishes large precision gears and 
     other machinery components. . . . The company has 75 
     employees. It has never laid off an employee.
       Robert J. Smith III, the company's president and chief 
     executive officer, is dead-set against ever moving production 
     overseas.
       ``We wouldn't consider it in a 100 years.''

  His grandfather and grandmother started the company in 1921. 
``Offshoring in search of higher profits is a mistake,'' Smith said, 
``because it ignores manufacturing's larger purpose in U.S. society.'' 
And here is what he says finally:

       It's my belief that every American citizen, not only me, 
     should feel strongly about maintaining one of the most 
     important cultures we have, and that is manufacturing.

  I have used examples previously--and I will again--because I think 
repetition is important. The peppermint pattie called York--it is a 
tiny little peppermint pattie in a silver encasing. It is made by 
Hershey's Chocolate, by the way. It says: ``The cool refreshing taste 
of mint dipped in dark chocolate will take you miles away.'' It sure 
did that. It took it all the way to Mexico. They decided to fire those 
American workers, and that mint chocolate went to Mexico to be 
produced.
  The list is actually pretty endless. I just described Whirlpool, 
1,100 jobs. They received millions in Recovery Act funds, and yet 
announced 1,100 job cuts--by the way, this is the long walk on the last 
day of work at a manufacturing plant. You go there to make it a career 
and then all of a sudden you discover the job is not there. Some 
foreign country has that job because America has decided to reward 
those who leave as opposed to those who stay.
  If you wear a Reebok NFL jersey--and a whole lot of folks wear these 
jerseys--this is made in a Chinese-owned sweatshop in El Salvador. How 
do we get to the point where it is not just made in El Salvador but it 
is made in a Chinese sweatshop in El Salvador? This has to do with 
various trade agreements we have made where we incentivize the 
production of these being made in the lowest common denominator 
sweatshop wage area in the world. This Reebok jersey is made in El 
Salvador by a working man who lives in this so-called house. That 
working man makes less than $1 for an $80 Reebok jersey.
  I have spoken on the floor of the Senate at great length about 
underwear--Fruit of the Loom underwear. I have said--and I know it is 
not chic to do so--I said I understand losing one's shirt, but Fruit of 
the Loom left the country with all of its underwear. It used to make 
underwear in America, and people appreciated those jobs. Fruit of the 
Loom left.
  As we know, Fruit of the Loom was advertising with dancing grapes. 
They put men and women in fruit uniforms. I do not know where one gets 
a grape uniform, but they march them down a road and put it on 
television and they all sing and sound happy--happy for reasons I do 
not understand because all those Fruit of the Loom jobs, all that 
underwear is made elsewhere.
  One might say: Who cares where underwear is made. I suppose the 
people who made underwear in the United States care because they had 
jobs at Fruit of the Loom, but it is gone.
  I have spoken at great length about Huffy bicycle and shall not speak 
at great length today except to say this. Anyone who purchased a Huffy 
bicycle at Wal-Mart or K Mart was purchasing a bicycle made in Ohio, 
made by wonderful workers who had a career making Huffy bicycles. They 
made Huffy bicycles for many decades. They made $11 an hour plus 
benefits to make these bicycles. Now the bicycles are gone. Now they 
are made in China.
  This is actually a trifecta. Everything that could have gone wrong 
went wrong. The company decided to fire American workers and build the 
bicycles in China. Then they declared bankruptcy and left American 
workers with no pension program so that the pension would have to be 
paid by the taxpayers out of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 
And now China owns the brand. They got the company, the brand, make the 
bicycles, the workers got fired, and the American taxpayer got to pick 
up the pensions. It is unbelievable when you think about it.
  Is this fair trade? I do not think so. It is a decision by a lot of 
people to decide we are going to move our manufacturing overseas.
  Every young child has ridden in a Radio Flyer wagon, a little red 
wagon.

[[Page 15581]]

They made those for 100 years in Chicago, IL. They do not anymore. They 
are all made in China as well.
  I know where these are made. I know where Huffy bicycles are made. I 
know they are made by people who make 50 cents an hour and work 12 to 
14 hours a day, 7 days a week with never a Sunday off. Is that with 
what we want the American people to compete--a lower standard of 
living? Is it probably something we would like to do to help lift 
others in the world, or is it we want Americans to compete with the 
lowest common denominator, lowest wages, the workplace with the worst 
safety record? Is that what we want?
  Those are other issues. The issue I came to talk about is the issue 
of what about the fact the company that makes the little red wagon and 
the Huffy bicycle and the York mint pattie and, yes, Fig Newton 
cookies--by the way, if you are wondering about Fig Newton cookies, 
they went to Mexico. They were made in New Jersey. Apparently when you 
make Fig Newton cookies, there is someone who shovels fig paste. You 
can get someone shoveling fig paste a lot less expensively by hiring 
them in Mexico rather than New Jersey. If somebody says, Let's get 
Mexican food, just buy Fig Newton cookies. They escaped to Mexico. The 
jobs are gone, and somebody down south is shoveling fig paste because 
you can pay cents on the hour to get that kind of labor.
  The question is: Does it matter? Does anybody care? Does it matter 
that we do not produce Fruit of the Loom shorts and t-shirts, that we 
do not produce little red wagons, Radio Flyer, that we do not produce 
Huffy bicycles, that we do not produce Pennsylvania House furniture, 
that Whirlpool refrigerators are made in Mexico, that product after 
product has gone to China?
  The fact is, people on this floor in this Congress and in other 
Congresses have voted affirmatively to say: We want to reward those who 
leave our country. We want to give you a tax break. Four separate times 
we have had votes on these issues, and four separate times the majority 
of the people in the Senate have said: We believe in giving tax breaks 
to those who ship American jobs overseas.
  The reason I raise this issue today is this: We have about 20 million 
people who are out of work today. They want to find work. They want a 
job and cannot find one. Everybody talks about restarting this American 
economy. How about trying to find a sparkplug that will lift the 
American economy? What is that? If you are going to keep the drain 
open, how are you going to fill the tub? You can work with the faucet 
on all day long, but if you have the drain open, Whirlpool decides one 
day, We are moving 1,100 jobs out of this country--and the list goes on 
and on--where are the jobs going to be? Who is going to incentivize the 
creation of new jobs? We have to do this. It is our responsibility. It 
is not our responsibility to provide economic recovery for the Chinese 
economy or the Mexican economy. It is our responsibility to try to see 
if we cannot restart this economic engine at home. It seems to me 
implausible that at least a majority of the Members of the Senate would 
not understand that we need to stand up for American jobs.
  I understand, because I have been involved in many trade debates and 
I subsequently wrote a book about it, that when you start talking about 
standing up for American jobs, there are a bunch of pointy-headed folks 
with thick glasses who call you a xenophobic isolationist stooge. You 
just don't get it; it is a world economy, Mr. Dorgan; you don't have 
the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Oh, really?
  All those people who say that wear dark suits, take showers in the 
morning, and have never been unemployed. Isn't that a great thing? How 
about people who require taking a shower after work because they worked 
hard, and find out they lost a job because pointy-headed folks describe 
a world economy that reduces all the standards we built up over a 
century?
  Think of the problems we went through to try to create the 
circumstances that built an expansion of the middle class in this 
country. Just think of it. In my book, I describe James Fyler, and I 
probably should not have. I said he died of lead poisoning. He was shot 
54 times. Why was James Fyler shot in the early part of the last 
century 54 times? Why did he give his life?
  Here is the radical proposition that James Fyler felt: He felt that 
people who went underground to dig for coal in this country ought to 
have an understanding that they are working in a workplace that is safe 
and ought to be paid a fair wage. For that he gave his life because 
that was unbelievably radical: insisting on behalf of workers that they 
work in a safe workplace and be paid a decent wage.
  We went through all of that and finally said: A safe workplace is 
important. We have to protect workers. A fair wage, a minimum wage, is 
important--all of these things that we went through to lift up America 
and expand opportunity and put people to work. We have been through 
that and at great struggle, at really great struggle.
  Yet now in the last decade and a half, the question is: Isn't that 
all old-fashioned? It is a world economy. Why can you not compete with 
a Chinese sweatshop in El Salvador making Reebok football jerseys? Why 
can you not compete with a worker in Shenzhen, China, willing to work 
for 50 cents an hour, working 7 days a week, 12-to-14-hour days? I say 
to you, the people at Huffy bicycle would have said: We cannot compete 
with that. We cannot live on those wages. And the people who employed 
them said: We don't care. Your jobs are gone.
  The last day of work at Huffy bicycle in Ohio, when they were all 
fired and all those jobs moved to China to make those bicycles, those 
workers left in the space where their cars parked at the plant, in the 
empty space they left a pair of shoes. That parking lot was filled with 
empty shoes, not cars. It was a plaintive way for those workers to say 
to those companies that fired them: You can fire us and get rid of our 
jobs but you will never replace us. You will never replace us.
  It seems to me if people in this country are wondering about where 
will the jobs come from, who is going to stand up for the economic 
interests of this country--no, not cut us off from the rest of the 
world, not suggest we are not part of the global economy, but rather 
suggest we will attempt to lift the rest of the world by saying: Here 
are the conditions under which we will involve ourselves in the global 
economy.
  We are a country with a huge trade deficit with the country of China. 
This year I suspect it will be between a $200 billion and $250 billion 
trade deficit with the country of China. Our trade deficit this year 
generally will probably be around $600 billion, perhaps a little less. 
Last month it was a $50 billion trade deficit. No country can continue 
with this. It is not sustainable. You cannot sustain a country by 
hollowing out the manufacturing base and deciding manufacturing does 
not matter, yet we want to remain a world economic power. You cannot 
sustain a country that says we are going to do $50 billion a month in 
trade deficits and that doesn't matter either. A trade deficit 
ultimately is going to be repaid with a lower standard of living in 
this country.
  We have a responsibility, and that responsibility now is to find a 
way to begin stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs overseas and decide to 
reward those companies that decide they are going to keep jobs in this 
country.
  I just read this today about HMC manufacturers and Robert Smith III, 
the company's president and chief executive. Good for him. He said: We 
wouldn't consider moving our jobs overseas, not in a hundred years. 
``Outshoring jobs in search of higher profits is a mistake,'' he said, 
``because it ignores our manufacturing's larger purpose in America.'' 
Good for him.
  How about doing something in this Chamber that says to people who are 
employing the manufacturing workers: Good for you. We stand with you. 
We want to incentivize you to continue, and then say to those who are 
shipping their jobs overseas: You know what, you want some help from 
this government? Go take a hike. Make something

[[Page 15582]]

in America. And, by the way, you are not going to get tax help. We are 
not going to give you a tax break, as has been done for far too long 
when you ship your jobs overseas. It is not going to happen.
  Unfortunately, it has been happening. I said it is not going to 
happen four times. We have had four votes, and I have lost on all four 
occasions. I hope at long last when we go through the deepest recession 
since the Great Depression, there might be enough of an urgency for 
people who come out here and bloviate and thumb their suspenders, cast 
the shine of their shoes on the magnificence of this great place that 
maybe that magnificence might spread to casting the right vote on 
something that stands up for this country's best economic interest.
  Mr. President, the list of challenges are very significant. I have 
been talking at length about one, and that is jobs because it makes 
everything else possible. If we can get the American engine working 
once again, put people to work once again, this country will do just 
fine. But it doesn't do just fine when it is in a very deep recession 
and we have incentives that say jobs don't matter.
  I grew up in a very small town, less than 300 people, and I knew 
every day that I was a kid--just because I understood it--that this 
country, this America, was the biggest, the best, the strongest, and 
that we could beat anybody in trade or economic issues with one hand 
tied behind our backs. That is how good this country was. We were good 
at almost everything. We invented, we created, you name it. We decided 
to split the atom. We spliced genes. We invented radar, the silicon 
chip, the telephone, the computer, the television. We cured smallpox 
and polio. We built airplanes and learned to fly them. Hundreds of 
attempts were made, and finally on December 3, 1917, they flew an 
airplane--the Wright brothers. Then we built rockets and walked on the 
Moon and planted an American flag. Nobody has done that, but we have 
done it. This is a great country.
  Yet somehow, in the shadow of this very deep recession--that, in my 
judgment, was not some natural thing to have happened to our country. 
This was something that was caused by unbelievable avarice and greed 
and things that went on particularly in the largest financial firms in 
this country that had nothing to do with investment, that had nothing 
to do with savings or real banking but had everything to do with 
building a casino society so people could buy what they wouldn't get 
from people who never had it. They were all making money, but it was a 
house of cards.
  I offered an amendment on something called naked credit default 
swaps. You know what. It sounds like a foreign language. Nobody even 
knew what a credit default swap was. We had tens of trillions of 
dollars of credit default swaps, and a fair amount of them were naked. 
What does that mean? It doesn't mean they didn't have clothes. It meant 
there was no insurable interest on either side. It was simply a wager, 
simply a bet, not on investment. I lost that amendment.
  I probably should talk about something I won. But the fact is, on the 
big issues in this country, in most cases the big interests are well 
organized to make certain their interests carry the day in the 
Congress. It just seems to me that as we tackle these issues of jobs 
and Federal budget deficits, which is a very significant issue, and the 
issue of taxes--who pays them and how much--energy policy--how we 
remove our addiction to foreign oil--the trade issues I have just 
described in great detail, we have to do better. The American people 
deserve better and expect better. Instead of getting the worst of what 
both parties offer, we need to get the best of what each has. Both 
parties can contribute something significant to our country, in my 
judgment.
  Mr. President, there is a lot, it seems to me, at stake. We can 
continue to see anemic economic growth--and as I say that, let me point 
out this President inherited a circumstance where just prior to his 
coming to office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. That is what he 
inherited. I know some people come and say: Well, how dare you talk 
about the economy this President inherited. What else would you talk 
about? Would you create a fiction about it?
  This economy was nearly in a free fall and, like it or not, this 
President took action. Like it or not, this President made proposals 
that began to put some capability under this economy to avoid a total 
collapse.
  Now the economy is growing, but slowly, and too slowly. The President 
knows that and says that. This growth is good. We didn't suffer a 
complete collapse. We caught it. This President's policies have worked. 
Those, by the way, who come to the floor of the Senate and say the 
economic recovery act didn't create any jobs know better than that. 
Look at the studies that have been done: 3 million jobs at least have 
been saved as a result of taking the action that had to be taken. Would 
they suggest we sit and watch and be simple observers?
  Now we come to this discussion about the economy and we are deep in 
debt and we have to get out of this. So the question is tax cuts. Who 
gets tax cuts? Well, 9 years ago, on the floor of this Senate, 
President George W. Bush said: Let's provide very substantial tax cuts. 
The bulk of them will go to the wealthy, but nonetheless everyone will 
get a tax cut. Why? Because for the first time in 30 years we had a 
budget surplus that year under President Clinton. The first time in 30 
years we had a budget surplus.
  So President Bush came to office and said: Well, it looks like we are 
going to have budget surpluses for the next 10 years, so let's provide 
very large tax cuts.
  I voted against them. I said: You are talking about projections. We 
don't have the tax surpluses yet. When we get them, let's figure out 
what we do with them, but they do not exist yet. They are simply 
projections. President Bush said: Well, Katey, bar the door. He and Mr. 
Greenspan and others said we need to do this. Mr. Greenspan said he 
couldn't even sleep he was so worried that we were going to have such 
big surpluses that it would ruin the economy and we would pay down the 
debt too fast. I hope he didn't lose a lot of sleep over that.
  So the Congress passed, without my vote, very large tax cuts for 9 
years after which they would expire. So they expire at the end of this 
year. Now the question is, What do we do with them? The debate is, 
Should they be extended?
  The President says let's extend them for the middle class. We are 
still in the middle of slow economic progress, so let's extend them for 
the middle class. The Republicans and others say: Well, let's make sure 
we extend them for everybody, including the wealthy.
  Well, it just seems to me this: We decided--without my vote--to 
provide very large tax cuts because we needed to give back a surplus 
which then didn't exist in the subsequent years. A surplus didn't 
exist. Then what happened? Within a couple of months after passing the 
tax cuts 9 years ago, we discovered we were in a recession. Not a deep 
one, but a recession. That, of course, enhanced instead of surpluses 
Federal budget deficits.
  Then what happened? We were hit on 9/11 with a terrorist attack and 
we went to war in Afghanistan and then we went to war in Iraq and not a 
penny of it was ever paid. In spite of the fact I and others came to 
the floor of the Senate and said: If you are going to ask our young men 
and women to go to war and to get up in the morning and strap on 
ceramic body armor, to be in harm's way and potentially lose their 
lives, the very least we can do in this Chamber is pay for the cost of 
the war. But, no, we couldn't do that. We have fought a war for 9 years 
and haven't paid for one penny of it. That is fundamentally 
irresponsible.
  Now, the question is, In the middle of a very serious economic 
situation, who is going to get the tax cuts extended? Some say: Well, 
you have to extend them for the upper income folks, the wealthiest 
Americans, because their philosophy is that things trickle down. Put 
things in the top and ultimately they trickle down. Others, my 
philosophy, is things percolate up. Give the

[[Page 15583]]

American family a little something to work with and get the engine 
working again and things will percolate up to help everybody.
  I do think this: The tax rates that were paid by the upper income 
people in the 1990s, when we had the most robust economic growth in our 
country, are tax rates that I think should continue to exist for upper 
income people. I think that is fair. Plus, that $800 billion that it 
would cost for the next 10 years to do those tax cuts for upper income 
Americans will be added right to the Federal budget deficit, and that 
doesn't make any sense to me at all. How would that give confidence to 
the American people; that at last--at long, long last--this Senate, 
this Congress was willing to tackle these destructive budget deficits? 
That is not much consolation to people who watch what is happening in 
this country.
  Now, Mr. President, let me finish by saying I have talked about a 
number of things, and things we need to correct. I remain hopeful about 
this country's future. I know we have a chattering class that spends 
all day and all night on the radio dial and television talking about 
what is wrong with America. I know there are plenty of challenges ahead 
of us. But I also believe there are a lot of people who, for two 
centuries, have bet against this country's future and lost. I think it 
would take a fool to decide this country would not get through this 
period.
  But this country deserves good leadership from Republicans and 
Democrats. It deserves a President who is aggressive, and I believe 
this President is aggressive, in tackling these problems. It deserves a 
Congress that is willing to work together. If ever we needed an 
outbreak of some minimum amount of bipartisanship, some minimum 
cooperation, it is now. I have just watched all of this year 
circumstances where every single thing is objected to, everything is 
blocked. It doesn't take much in this Chamber. The two most powerful 
words are ``I object.'' One person saying ``I object'' grinds this 
machinery to a halt.
  The fact is, I have seen circumstances in this Chamber this year 
where objections were raised and filibusters ensued on motions to 
proceed to noncontroversial items that ultimately got 96 or 98 votes, 
but it took a week to get through because of blocking and objections. I 
mean, if someone would have brought up a Mother's Day resolution, it 
would have been filibustered, I assume. Block everything, stop 
everything, make sure nothing gets done. That is not in the interest of 
this country. This country deserves better and expects more.
  I hope in the coming several weeks--we don't have a lot of time--the 
things I have just described, the issue of jobs moving overseas, the 
issue of an unbelievably ignorant tax provision that says if you get 
rid of your American workers, you lock your factory doors and ship 
those jobs overseas, tell you what we will do. We will give you a big 
old fat tax break. I hope finally, at last, at long, long last, enough 
Members of this Senate will agree that has to stop; that we would pass 
legislation to shut it down and at the same time say to those who are 
moving their jobs overseas: You are off the public dole. But you know 
what. We are going to stand up for those who keep their jobs here. We 
are going to say: If you are running a manufacturing plant in this 
country, good for you. We want to do the things that help you continue, 
that help you hire people and help you be a good employer. Good for 
you. You are the ones we stand up for because you are the ones who will 
rebuild opportunity in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that is 
timely and controversial; it is the issue of immigration. There has 
been a heated debate for over a year about the immigration law passed 
by the State of Arizona. This debate highlighted the need for Congress 
to fix our broken immigration system.
  Here is how the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police put it:

       We strongly urge the U.S. Congress to immediately initiate 
     the necessary steps to begin the process of comprehensively 
     addressing the immigration issue to provide solutions that 
     are fair, logical and equitable.

  I agree with the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. Congress 
has an obligation to the American people to fix our broken immigration 
system. This broken system harms our national security, it hurts our 
workers, and it falls short of the most basic standards of justice.
  First, we must secure our borders, strengthen enforcement of our 
immigration laws, and address the situation of approximately 11 million 
undocumented immigrants who live and work in our country. 
Unfortunately, the reality is that Congress is not likely to consider 
comprehensive immigration reform this year. I have supported every 
effort toward that end during the time I have served in the Senate.
  I recall not that long ago, just a few years ago, an amazing, 
bipartisan group of Senators which included, at that time, the two men 
who just ran for President of the United States, Senator McCain and 
then-Senator Barack Obama. It was an incredible effort, and it had the 
invested political capital of President George W. Bush, who was 
genuinely committed to immigration reform. I can recall the President 
saying in meetings and saying to me personally how much he wanted to 
see that done. I still salute him for his leadership on what was a 
tough issue then and still is.
  The reality is that we did not pass comprehensive immigration reform 
despite our best efforts. But that should not prevent us from moving 
forward with reforms so our broken immigration system is repaired and 
is improved over what we currently have.
  Let's take one example. In recent years, we have made dramatic 
progress in securing the border and reducing illegal immigration. The 
number of Border Patrol agents serving our country and protecting our 
borders has doubled from 10,000 in 2004 to 20,000 today. According to 
the Department of Homeland Security: ``Today the Border Patrol in 
America is better staffed than any time in its 86-year history.''
  The Department of Homeland Security has completed 646 miles of border 
fencing out of the 652 miles authorized by Congress. The remaining 6 
miles will be completed before the end of the year. In the first 9 
months of fiscal year 2010, the Department of Homeland Security has 
deported approximately 280,000 illegal immigrants. That is a 10-percent 
increase in the number of deportations over the same period in fiscal 
year 2008, which was the last year of the Bush administration.
  The Department of Homeland Security has focused on deporting illegal 
immigrants who have committed crimes. As a result, more than 136,000 
criminal aliens have been deported so far in this fiscal year. That is 
a 60-percent increase over the number of criminal aliens deported 
during the same period in fiscal year 2008, and it is the most criminal 
aliens ever deported during a single year.
  What is the result of all these efforts? Earlier this month, the Pew 
Hispanic Center released a new report on illegal immigration with two 
striking findings. First, the number of illegal immigrants entering the 
United States annually has decreased by two-thirds in the past decade, 
from 850,000 per year to 300,000 per year.
  Second, the total number of illegal immigrants living in the United 
States is down by 8 percent in just the last 2 years. The Pew Center 
said: ``The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the 
growth of the illegal immigrant population in America in 20 years.''
  Let me repeat that. The number of illegal immigrants entering our 
country

[[Page 15584]]

has decreased by two-thirds, and for the first time in 20 years there 
has been a significant decline in the number of illegal immigrants 
living in America. So we are making remarkable progress in our fight 
against illegal immigration.
  Our efforts will not end there. Last month, Congress passed the 2010 
emergency border security supplemental appropriations bill, legislation 
authored by my colleague from New York and the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Schumer, cosponsored by Senators 
McCain and Kyl of Arizona. That bill provided $600 million more 
additional funding to enhance border security.
  Let me tell you how we will spend it: $176 million for 1,000 more 
additional Border Patrol agents, $68 million for 520 Customs and Border 
Protection officers, $80 million for 250 new Immigration and Customs 
enforcement personnel, and $32 million for 2 unmanned aerial vehicles 
to monitor the border.
  We have taken this challenge seriously. We are investing the 
resources on a bipartisan basis, and we can see the results. When I sat 
down with Senator Jon Kyl, my Republican counterpart, and talked about 
this issue, he showed me a map of Arizona, and he pointed to a section 
of the border which has had a dramatically positive change when it 
comes to illegal immigration. He then pointed to another section which 
he said needed improvement. But he conceded, and most do, that we have 
made a commitment. We have dedicated the resources, and the Obama 
administration has joined with Republicans in Congress to produce real 
results when it comes to illegal immigration.
  We are making great progress in securing the border and reducing 
illegal immigration, but let's be clear. Border security alone will not 
fix our broken immigration system. There are other critical reforms we 
can make right now. One important step Congress should immediately take 
up is passing the DREAM Act. This is bipartisan legislation I have 
introduced with Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana.
  Let me say a word of thanks to Senator Lugar for stepping out on this 
important issue and joining me in this effort. The DREAM Act is a bill 
which I introduced 10 years ago. If you have been around the Senate, 
that is considered a brief period of time. But I cannot imagine I am 
standing here 10 years later still arguing for this bill. I think it is 
worth recounting how I happened to introduce it.
  About 85 percent of all of the case work, constituent work we receive 
in our Chicago office relates to immigration. Chicago is a great city, 
a diverse city, with people from all over the world. It is no surprise 
many of them come to our office with immigration issues. So 10 years 
ago we received a phone call. It was from a Korean-American lady, a 
single mom who ran a dry cleaners.
  As I have mentioned in previous debates, in our great city of 
Chicago, about 85 percent of the dry cleaners are owned by Koreans. It 
is one of their commitments in entrepreneurial skill, and they work 
hard, with long days.
  Well, she called to tell me about her little girl who was now 
graduating high school. It turns out, her little girl was an amazing 
pianist, an amazing musician, and had been accepted by the highly 
acclaimed Juilliard School of Music in New York. Her mom was so 
excited. But as her daughter filled out the application form to go to 
Juilliard, there was a little box there that said ``nationality,'' and 
she turned to her mom and said: I know I was born in Korea, but what am 
I?
  Her mom said: I don't know. We brought you here at the age of 2, but 
we never filed any papers. We better call Durbin. So they called our 
office, and we checked into it. We learned, through the Immigration 
Service, that she had an option. They said it was her only option, and 
it was very clear.
  We said: What is it?
  They said: She can go back to Korea--back to Korea, to a place where 
she did not speak the language, where she had no memory of ever living, 
a place she had not even visited in 16 or 17 years.
  This woman also married in the United States and had other children 
who were American citizens, but this one daughter, brought over on a 
plane from Seoul, Korea, was living in Chicago, thinking everything was 
just fine and normal, and now, at the age of 18 or 19, learned she was 
about to be deported to a place where she did not even speak the 
language.
  It seemed to me fundamentally unfair. If you arrest someone for 
speeding and they have an infant in the car seat behind them, you do 
not charge the infant with speeding, do you? It would not make sense. 
There is no blame there, no liability, no culpability. So why in this 
case, if this mother came to the country and did not file the papers, 
would this girl, this young woman, be denied an opportunity to become 
legal in the United States?
  So I wrote a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act says basically 
this: If you came to the United States under the age of 16, if you have 
lived in this country for at least 5 years, if you have no criminal 
record, if you graduate from high school, we will give you two chances 
to become legal in our system. The first opportunity: We will allow you 
to serve in our Armed Forces. If you will enlist for 2 years of Active 
Duty, we will allow you to become legal in the United States. If you 
are willing to risk your life for our Nation, we are prepared to give 
you legal status. Secondly, if you complete 2 years of college, we will 
also give you that same option.
  That is it. That is the DREAM Act. It gives to these young people who 
have no country and literally no future because they have no 
citizenship, an opportunity.
  Well, that is what I introduced 10 years ago. I still think it is 
valid. The DREAM Act will give a select group of immigrant students the 
chance to earn legal status if they grew up in the United States, have 
good moral character, attend college, or enlist in our military.
  Today, in America, there are tens of thousands of immigrant students 
who were brought to the United States when they were too young to 
understand the consequences of their parents' decisions. It was not 
their decision to come to this country. They came along for the ride, 
and many of them were infants. They grew up here. They became part of 
our country. It is the only home they have ever known, and now they are 
without a country.
  These young people are the presidents of student councils, 
valedictorians, junior ROTC leaders, and star athletes. They are 
tomorrow's scientists, doctors, teachers, engineers, and soldiers. They 
will be our leaders.
  The fundamental premise of the DREAM Act is that we should not punish 
the children for the decisions of their parents. It is not the American 
way. Instead, the DREAM Act says to these students: We will give you a 
chance, a chance to prove yourself, and a chance to improve America.
  Here is how former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee 
explained it. Mike, as you know, was a former Governor of the State of 
Arkansas. Here is what he said:

       A kid comes to this country, and he's four years old and he 
     had no choice in it--his parents came illegally. . . .That 
     kid is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th 
     grade. He graduates as valedictorian because he's a smart 
     kid.

  Governor Huckabee said:

       The question is: Is he better off going to college and 
     becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might 
     become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to 
     apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick 
     tomatoes? I think it's better if he goes to college and 
     becomes a citizen.

  That is what Governor Huckabee said.
  The DREAM Act has broad bipartisan support. The last time the Senate 
considered it on the Senate floor a few years back, it received 52 
votes, including 11 Republicans. Since then, support for the DREAM Act 
has grown. The bill now has 40 cosponsors, and the DREAM Act is the 
only immigration bill--the only one--this President, his 
administration, has endorsed.
  The DREAM Act is also supported by a broad coalition of education, 
business, labor, civil rights, and religious

[[Page 15585]]

leaders, including, just to name a few, the American Jewish Committee, 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National PTA, the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies such 
as Microsoft and Pfizer, the AFL-CIO, and dozens upon dozens of 
colleges and universities across the country, including Arizona State, 
Penn State, the University of Utah, and the University of Florida.
  It also has broad support from the American people. According to a 
recent poll by Opinion Research Corporation, 70 percent of likely 
voters favor the DREAM Act, including 60 percent of Republicans.
  The DREAM Act is not just the right thing to do, it would be good for 
America. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, knows something 
about economic development. He sent me a letter supporting the DREAM 
Act, and here is what he said:

       Why shouldn't our economy benefit from the skills these 
     young people have obtained here? It is senseless for us to 
     chase out the home-grown talent that has the potential to 
     contribute so significantly to our society. They're the ones 
     who are going to start companies, invest in new technologies, 
     pioneer medical advances.

  Our country would also benefit from thousands of highly qualified, 
well-educated young people who are eager to serve in the Armed Forces 
during a time of war. Since the Bush administration, we have worked 
closely with the Defense Department on the DREAM Act. Defense 
Department officials have said the DREAM Act is ``very appealing'' 
because it would apply to the ``cream of the crop'' of students and be 
``good for military readiness.''
  Military experts agree. LTC Margaret Stock, a professor at the U.S. 
Military Academy at West Point, wrote an article supporting the DREAM 
Act. She concluded:

       Passage of the DREAM Act would be highly beneficial to the 
     United States military. The DREAM Act promises to enlarge 
     dramatically the pool of highly qualified recruits for the 
     U.S. Armed Forces.

  The Army says high school graduation is ``the best single predictor'' 
of success in the military. However, in recent years, the Army has 
accepted more applicants who are high school dropouts, have low scores 
on the military's aptitude test, and some who have had criminal 
backgrounds. In contrast, under the DREAM Act, all recruits would be 
well qualified high school graduates with no criminal record and good 
moral character.
  Many DREAM Act students come from a demographic group that is already 
predisposed toward military service. The RAND Corporation found that 
``Hispanic youth are more likely than other groups to express a 
positive attitude toward the military'' and ``Hispanics consistently 
have higher retention and faster promotion speeds than their white 
counterparts.''
  Immigrants have an outstanding tradition in America's military. More 
than 65,000 immigrants are currently on Active Duty in the United 
States. The Center for Naval Analyses has concluded ``non-citizens have 
high rates of success while serving--they are far more likely, for 
example, to fulfill their enlistment obligations than their U.S.-born 
counterparts.''
  The DREAM Act is not a free pass to citizenship. It is designed to 
assist only a select group of young people who would be required to 
earn their way to legal status. Here is how it works. A student would 
have the chance to qualify only if he or she meets these requirements: 
came to the United States as a child, has lived here for more than 5 
years, has good moral character, has not engaged in criminal activity, 
does not pose any threat to national security, passes a thorough 
background check, and graduates from an American high school.
  If a student fulfills each and every one of these requirements, they 
can receive temporary legal status. Next, they can serve in the 
military or attend college for at least 2 years.
  Then, after 6 years, if--and only if--this requirement is completed, 
the student could apply for permanent legal status. If this requirement 
is not completed, the student would lose his legal status and be 
subject to deportation.
  These requirements are fair, but they are tough. Only a select group 
of students would be able to earn legal status under the DREAM Act. In 
fact, according to a recent study by the Migration Policy Institute, 
only 38 percent of those who are potentially eligible for the DREAM Act 
would ultimately obtain legal status.
  The DREAM Act also includes other important restrictions to ensure it 
is not abused. I will mention a few: Students who obtain conditional 
legal status under the DREAM Act would not be eligible for Pell grants. 
Of course, that is up to $5,000 or more each year to go to college. 
Residents of the United States, American citizens, who qualify can 
receive that help. These students, in the process of going to college, 
could not receive them. Students who apply for the DREAM Act would be 
subject to tough criminal penalties for fraud. The DREAM Act would not 
allow what is known as ``chain migration.'' In fact, DREAM Act students 
would have very limited ability to sponsor their family members for 
legal status.
  I first introduced this bill 10 years ago. Since that time, I have 
met a lot of young people who would at least be eligible to be 
considered for this legislation. They have been waiting a long time for 
this opportunity. Every week--every week without fail--when I go back 
home, I meet young students, receive calls, e-mails, and letters. I 
want to mention just a few of them here. I want to put a face on this 
issue so you can understand the lives that would be affected.
  Here is the first one, as shown in this photograph I have in the 
Chamber. This is Benita Veliz. She was brought to the United States by 
her parents in 1993, when Benita was 8 years old. She graduated as the 
valedictorian of her high school class at the age of 16. She received a 
full scholarship to St. Mary's University. She graduated from the 
honor's program with a double major in biology and sociology. Benita's 
honors thesis was on the DREAM Act. She sent me a letter, and here is 
what she said:

       I can't wait to be able to give back to the community that 
     has given me so much. I was recently asked to sing the 
     National Anthem for both the U.S. and Mexico at a Cinco de 
     Mayo community assembly. Without missing a beat, I quickly 
     belted out The Star-Spangled Banner. I then realized that I 
     had no idea how to sing the Mexican national anthem.

  She writes:

       I am American. My dream is American. It's time to make our 
     dreams a reality. It's time to pass the DREAM Act.

  This is Minchul Suk. Minchul was brought to the United States from 
South Korea by his parents in 1991 at the age of 9. Minchul graduated 
from high school with a 4.2 GPA. He graduated from UCLA with a degree 
in microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics. With support from 
the Korean-American community, Minchul was able to graduate from dental 
school. He has passed the national boards and licensing exam to become 
a dentist, but he can't obtain a license because he does not have legal 
status. Minchul is a person without a country. He sent me a letter 
recently, and here is what he wrote:

       After spending the majority of my life here, with all my 
     friends and family here, I could not simply pack my things 
     and go to a country I barely remember. I am willing to accept 
     whatever punishment is deemed fitting for that crime; let me 
     just stay and pay for it. . . . I am begging for a chance to 
     prove to everyone that I am not a waste of a human being, 
     that I am not a criminal set on leeching off taxpayers' 
     money. Please give me the chance to serve my community as a 
     dentist.

  Without the DREAM Act, Minchul won't be able to serve his community 
as a dentist.
  This is my Mayra Garcia. Mayra was brought to the United States by 
her parents when she was 2 years old. Mayra, who is now 18, is the 
president of Cottonwood Youth Advisory Commission in her hometown of 
Cottonwood, AZ. She is a member of the National Honor Society. She 
graduated from high school last spring with a 3.98 GPA. Mayra just 
started her freshman year at a prestigious university in California. In 
an essay about the DREAM Act, Mayra wrote:

       From the time I was capable of understanding its 
     significance, my dream was to

[[Page 15586]]

     be the first college graduate in my immediate and extended 
     family. . . . College means more to me than just a 4-year 
     degree. It means the breaking of a family cycle. It means 
     progression and fulfillment of an obligation.

  Here is what she told me about growing up in the United States:

       According to my mother, I cried every day in preschool 
     because of the language barrier. By kindergarten, though, I 
     was fluent in English. . . . English became my way of 
     understanding the world and myself.

  Mayra Garcia, like all DREAM Act students, grew up in this country. 
America is her home. English is her language. As one of these students 
once said to me, ``I dream in English.''
  The next person I wish my colleagues to meet is Cesar Vargas. Cesar 
was brought to the United States when he was 5 years old. He is 
currently a student at the City University of New York School of Law, 
where he has a 3.8 GPA. Cesar founded the Prosecutor Law Students 
Association. His dream is to serve our country as a military lawyer, 
but without the DREAM Act, Cesar cannot even volunteer to enlist in the 
military, despite the fact that he is in law school.
  The last person's story I wish to share is Eric Balderas. This is an 
amazing story. Eric's mother brought him to the United States from 
Mexico in 1994 when he was 4 years old. Eric was valedictorian and 
student council president at his high school in San Antonio, TX. Eric 
just began his sophomore year at Harvard University, where he is 
majoring in molecular and cellular biology. His goal in life is to 
become a cancer researcher, but he can't reach that goal because he has 
no country. He has no citizenship. He needs the DREAM Act.
  Wouldn't America be a stronger country if someone such as Eric 
Balderas could become a cancer researcher? Wouldn't our military be a 
better place with Cesar Vargas, who wants nothing more than to serve as 
a lawyer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps? Wouldn't we be better 
off if these talented young immigrants were able to contribute more 
fully to this country they love? The DREAM Act would give immigrants 
such as Eric Balderas and Cesar Vargas a chance to earn their way to 
legal status--earn their way to legal status--by contributing their 
talents to America. This is the choice the DREAM Act presents to us. We 
can allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and 
ambitions to contribute more fully to our society and our national 
security or we can relegate them to a future in the shadows, which 
would be a loss for us all.
  I am going to conclude. I see my colleague waiting patiently over 
there. I wish to conclude by saying this: I stand here today as a 
Senator from the great State of Illinois. I feel blessed in so many 
ways to have been given this opportunity to serve, but I also feel 
blessed because my mother was an immigrant to this country. She was 
brought by her mother at the age of 2 in 1911. As they came down the 
gangplank off the boat in Baltimore, my grandmother had my mom in her 
arms and my aunt and uncle by her side. Somehow, they made it from 
Baltimore, MD, to East Saint Louis, IL, to join my grandfather, who was 
an immigrant and who worked in the most basic immigrant jobs. My 
grandmother and grandfather never spoke much English--just enough to 
get by. My mom spoke Lithuanian and English, and I speak English only. 
It is kind of the story of America, I guess.
  My mom didn't become a naturalized citizen until after she was 
married and had my two older brothers. I went to her later in her life, 
just a few months before she passed away, and said: Mom, I have never 
seen your naturalization certificate. Do you still have it?
  She said: Sure.
  She got up.
  I said: No, you don't have to.
  She said: No, I am going to go get it.
  So she went in the other room, wasn't gone a minute, and came back 
with the naturalization certificate. Then a little piece of paper 
floated to the floor. I picked it up and I said: What is this?
  She said: That is the receipt for the $2.50 filing fee that I paid 
when I became a naturalized citizen back in the 1930s.
  My mom was tighter than the bark on a tree, and she was going to have 
proof if any government bureaucrat ever came around to challenge her if 
she ever paid her fee. She was also a proud American and proud of her 
three sons and family, and I am glad she got to see me sworn in to the 
U.S. Senate before she passed away.
  I stand here today as a Senator in this great body and the proud son 
of an immigrant mother. If my mother and grandmother had entered this 
country illegally and my mother had been somehow denied an opportunity 
for citizenship, I don't know where I would be today. But I have tried 
to make a contribution to this country, and that is all these young 
people are asking for--a chance to make a contribution to this country.
  Let's not get caught up in the emotional and angry rhetoric about 
immigrants and immigration, but let's give these young people a chance. 
Let's try to gather on a bipartisan basis to put enough votes on the 
board to give them a chance to serve our country in the military or to 
serve our Nation with their great talents. That is their dream, it 
should be our dream, and that is why we should pass the DREAM Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Senate 
returns to give a doctor's second opinion of the health care law. As 
the Presiding Officer knows because he has been here for so many of 
these speeches every week since this bill was signed into law, I have 
come to the Senate floor as a physician, an orthopedic surgeon, as 
someone who has taken care of families in the State of Wyoming since 
1983, to give a doctor's second opinion of the new health care law and 
what I view is the impact it is going to have on health care in this 
country.
  The Presiding Officer knows that during the debate and discussions at 
the time of the health bill and now the health care law, I had many 
reservations. My concern was that it was going to be bad for patients, 
bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of those 
patients--and bad for payers, the people paying their health care 
costs, as well as the taxpayers of this country.
  When the health care bill was signed into law, Democrats were 
extremely proud of it, and they were actually eager at that time to 
tell all of America about their vote. As a matter of fact, the Senate 
majority leader, Senator Reid, said:

       This is a happy day. We are going to hear an earful, but it 
     is going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that 
     people waited for a long time.

  Here we are just 6 months later, but the new law is not greeted with 
happiness. It is not greeted with wonderment. Now the Democrats of this 
country are singing a very different tune. In fact, 56 percent of 
Americans want the law repealed. Each week, as I have given my second 
opinion, I have said it is time to repeal and replace this health care 
law. Now Democrats are completely changing their message about the new 
law. Now they no longer say the law will lower costs. They no longer 
say it will improve care. Instead, they now admit the law has some 
shortfalls, and they are talking about how they are working to improve 
it. This law needs to be repealed and replaced.
  I think that now the people of America know what Nancy Pelosi meant 
when she said, ``First we have to pass the law before you get to find 
out what is in it.'' That is what she said. Well, now the people of 
this country have found out what is in it, and they recognize that it 
is not good for the country.
  There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last 
Friday. Kimberly Strassel talked about the health care law, and she 
said:

       A total of 279 House and Senate Democrats voted for 
     ObamaCare. Now not one is running an ad touting that vote. 
     How can they, given the headlines?

  But she does quote a number of Democrats who are running for election 
this year, and those Democrats

[[Page 15587]]

are talking about why they voted against--against--the bill that the 
President claimed would be good for the country. These are Democrats 
voting against what they call ``massive government health care.'' That 
was one Member of the House. Another said she voted against the 
``trillion-dollar health care plan.'' A former Governor of Georgia, a 
Democrat, said:

       Not only is ObamaCare ``financially devastating,'' it is 
     ``the greatest failure, modern failure, of political 
     leadership in my lifetime.''

  While Congress was out of session in August, Politico ran a story 
entitled ``Dems Retreat on Health Care Cost Pitch.'' I ask unanimous 
consent to have that article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From POLITICO, Aug. 19, 2010]

                 DEMs Retreat on Health Care Cost Pitch

                             (By Ben Smith)

       Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their 
     attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims 
     that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead 
     stressing a promise to ``improve it.''
       The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a 
     conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by 
     FamiliesUSA--one of the central groups in the push for the 
     initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the 
     Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and 
     other health care allies. It was based on polling from three 
     top Democratic pollsters, John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and 
     Stan Greenberg.
       The confidential presentation, available in full here and 
     provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that 
     Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions 
     that the health care legislation would grow more popular 
     after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric 
     cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a 
     skeptical public and to defend the legislation--in 
     particular, the individual mandate--from a push for repeal.
       The presentation concedes that groups typically supportive 
     of Democratic causes--people under 40, non-college-educated 
     women and Hispanic voters--have not been won over by the 
     plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly, many are unaware that 
     the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the 
     White House's all-out communications effort.
       ``Straightforward `policy' defenses fail to [move] voters' 
     opinions about the law,'' says one slide. ``Women in 
     particular are concerned that health care law will mean less 
     provider availability--scarcity an issue.''
       The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic 
     arguments that were the White House's first and most 
     aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.
       ``Many don't believe health care reform will help the 
     economy,'' says one slide.
       The presentation's final page of ``Don'ts'' counsels 
     against claiming ``the law will reduce costs and [the] 
     deficit.''
       The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play 
     on personal narratives and promises to change the 
     legislation.
       ``People can be moved from initial skepticism and support 
     for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting 
     repeal,'' it says. ``Use personal stories--coupled with 
     clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at 
     the individual level--to convey critical benefits of 
     reform.''
       The presentation also counsels against the kind of grand 
     claims of change that accompanied the legislation's passage.
       ``Keep claims small and credible; don't overpromise or 
     `spin' what the law delivers,'' it says, suggesting 
     supporters say, ``The law is not perfect, but it does good 
     things and helps many people. Now we'll work to improve it.''
       The Herndon Alliance, which presented the research, is a 
     low-profile group that coordinated liberal messaging in favor 
     of the public option in health care. Its ``partners'' include 
     health care legislation's heavyweight supporters: AARP, AFL-
     CIO, SEIU, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn and La Raza, 
     among many others.
       Today's presentation cites three private research projects 
     by top Democratic pollsters: eight focus groups by Lake, 
     Anzalone's 1,000-person national survey and an online survey 
     of 2,000 people by Greenberg's firm.
       ``If we are to preserve the gains made by the law and build 
     on this foundation, the American public must understand what 
     the law means for them,'' says Herndon's website. ``We must 
     overcome fear and mistrust, and we must once again use our 
     collective voice to connect with the public on the values we 
     share as Americans.''

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I thought it was so important that more 
Americans should know about this. The article explains that:

       Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their 
     attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims 
     that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead 
     stressing a promise to ``improve it.''

  Well, this new Democratic message strategy on health care was 
developed by key Democratic strategists and pollsters, and it was 
detailed in a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation. The language in the 
presentation is remarkable, and it is radically different from what 
President Obama and the Democrats on this floor promised during the 
debate about health care. This new Democratic spin demonstrates that 
people who voted for this bad law now recognize how unpopular it is 
with the people of this country and how it will never live up to the 
grand promises. That is why people all around the country were saying, 
``Don't vote for this'' as people in this body were cramming this 
bill--and now law--down the throats of the American people.
  Well, rather than walk through all 24 slides, I wish to hit some of 
the highlights of the new Democratic health care message.
  Let's take a look at what they call ``Challenging Environment.'' They 
say:

       Straightforward policy defenses fail to be moving voters' 
     opinions about the law.

  They say:

       The public is disappointed, anxious, and depressed by the 
     current direction of the country--not trusting.
       Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and 
     believe costs will continue to rise.

  That is in spite of promises made on this floor that it wouldn't 
happen.
  They say:

       Women in particular are concerned that the health care law 
     will mean less provider availability--scarcity an issue.

  They say:

       Many don't believe health reform will help the economy.

  Well, there is a reason people don't trust Washington. There is a 
reason the policy defenses in the new law fail to move voter opinions, 
and it is because the new law is not good for patients; the new law is 
not good for providers--the nurses, the doctors, the hospitals, the 
home health aides, hospice care; and the new health care law is not 
good for the people who are going to be paying the bill.
  Let's take the next slide and make it personal. It says:

       Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple 
     descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual 
     level to convey critical benefits of reform.

  Well, there are a lot of personal stories they won't tell you, and 
those are the personal stories including the small business owners all 
across this country who are being strangled by the redtape in this law, 
strangled by rules and regulations and expense. That is why we are 
looking at 9.6 percent unemployment in this country--because of the 
lack of certainty for small businesses and the increased expenses they 
are having to deal with as a result of this law.
  They won't tell you the stories about patients with preexisting 
conditions who did have insurance but now have been penalized by the 
new law because they played by the rules.
  Let's look at another slide. It says ``improve the law.'' The 
recommendation of the pollsters to the Democrats is ``use transition or 
bridge language to meet public where they are and relax their 
defenses.'' The American people know what they are talking about. Then 
they say:

       The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps 
     many people. Now we'll work to improve it.

  The question is, does this new law help you, the American citizen, at 
home? That is the question. That is what people ask themselves. What is 
the impact of this going to be on my own health care? Is the new law 
helping you? Is the new law helping small businesses that can't seem to 
qualify for the tax credit the administration and the congressional 
Democrats promised, in spite of the fact that 4 million postcards were 
sent out to small businesses, and only a very small percentage of those 
could qualify for any of these tax opportunities? Were those people 
willing to cut the salaries of the employed and lay off others? That is 
why we voted against this bill.
  Is this new law helping individuals who, thanks to the new 
administration

[[Page 15588]]

grandfathering rules and regulations, will lose their employer-
sponsored health insurance plan? Is the new law helping seniors, who 
will see more than $500 billion robbed from Medicare--seniors on 
Medicare Advantage, a program they signed up for intentionally because 
they know there is an advantage to being on that program, because it 
works with preventive care and it coordinates care? That is all gone.
  Is the new law helping the 18 million people who will find themselves 
locked into the Medicaid Program? Is the new law helping the millions 
of Americans who will see their health insurance premiums go up next 
year to comply with benefit mandates in the law?
  Instead of working to improve the law now, those on the other side of 
the aisle should have improved it before it was passed. Members of my 
party repeatedly wanted to work with Democrats to improve this 
legislation. Unfortunately, we were shut out of the process.
  Let's look at the next chart. It says ``blunt'' the mandate. Part of 
the new Democratic spin is to blunt the mandate. It says:

       Tap into the individual responsibility to blunt opposition 
     to the mandate to have health insurance.

  Mandate? What is this mandate? It is a mandate that everybody in 
America has to have insurance. All individuals have to have it. All 
employers have to offer it. People either must buy insurance or 
employers must provide insurance. There is a mandate. Currently, 20 
States are suing the Federal Government about the mandate. It also 
says:

       Those who choose not to have insurance and use the 
     emergency room for routine care are increasing costs for the 
     rest of us who have insurance.

  Well, let's look at a report from the Centers for Disease Control, 
which came out in May. It confirms that, as opposed to what this slide 
says, the uninsured don't visit the emergency room more often. Do you 
know who does? It is Medicaid patients. It shows that more than 30 
percent of Medicaid patients under the age of 65 visited emergency 
rooms in this country at least once in 2007. This health care law locks 
18 million more Americans into Medicaid, forcing them into the 
emergency rooms, because doctors frequently cannot afford to see them 
in their offices. So the question is: Will these 18 million more 
Americans who have been locked into Medicaid be able to find a 
physician to treat them? If not, how will the emergency rooms of this 
country cope when these patients use the ER as their primary care 
provider?
  We all know that the health care law was modeled after the 
Massachusetts State health reform plan. The Boston Globe reported on 
July 4 of this year that recent State data proved emergency room visits 
rose in Massachusetts by 9 percent, from 2004 to 2008--about 3 million 
visits a year. According to the Massachusetts Division of Health Care 
Finance and their policy plan, providing insurance coverage may have 
actually contributed to the ER visit increase. But the goal was to 
lower the number of visits to the emergency room.
  Let's look at another chart that talks about what health care 
coverage Members of Congress have. It says:

       Supporters of the law and those campaigning need to 
     highlight that Members of Congress will participate in the 
     same plan.

  It is important to remember that the only reason Members of Congress 
are on the same plan is because Senators Coburn and Grassley fought for 
this. It is also important to remember that members of the 
congressional leadership, their staffs, White House employees, and 
other Federal employees will not be on the plan. Then let's look at the 
new head of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Berwick, who is someone named to 
that post in a recess appointment. His name didn't surface during the 
entire debate of the health care bill. Nobody was in charge of Medicare 
and Medicaid during the health care debate. Why? Because the President 
chose to not even name someone. When he finally named someone, this is 
someone who is in love with the British health care system. He made a 
number of quotes about rationing of care and ways that he envisioned 
the British health care system to be so much better than the U.S. 
health care system.
  Yet, Dr. Berwick has, as a result of his contract, from the group he 
worked with in Boston before taking this new job--a job that the 
President made a recess appointment for--somebody who never came to 
Congress to testify, never presented himself to the American people--I 
don't know what he is hiding. He doesn't have to live under the plan 
forced down the throats of the American people because his contract, 
when he left Boston, said that he will get care under them for life. So 
will his wife. So he is making rules and regulations that apply to the 
rest of the country but not to him.
  Let's look at another slide having to do with Medicare cuts. The new 
Democratic spin says:

       It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not 
     be cut.

  Then it says:

       Free preventive care.

  This is absolutely absurd and untrue. It is clear that the new law 
cuts $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare. It is not to save 
Medicare. It doesn't just start a whole new government program for 
someone else, but when I talk to seniors--and I have done this all over 
the last month, traveling around the State of Wyoming, visiting 
parades, picnics, fairs, and rodeos--the seniors say: If you want to 
change Medicare to save Medicare, we can deal with that, but not to 
start a whole new government program for someone else.
  The final slide I think is most telling. It is a slide that is a list 
of the don'ts. The new Democratic spin says:

       Don't assume that the public knows the health reform law 
     passed, or if they know it passed, understand how it will 
     affect them; don't list benefits outside of any personal 
     context; don't barrage voters with a long list of benefits; 
     don't use complex language or insider jargon; don't use 
     heated political rhetoric or congratulatory language.

  And believe it or not, it also says on the slide the Democrats' 
pollsters put out:

       Don't say the law will reduce costs and deficit.

  Well, let's take a look at some of the quotes we heard leading up to 
passage of the law--promises by the President of the United States, by 
House Speaker Pelosi, and by Majority Leader Reid. The President met 
with Senate Democrats in December of 2009, before a vote in the Senate. 
He said:

       We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of 
     health care.

  He says:

       Families will save on their premiums.

  He said:

       This will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a 
     decade.

  Now the Democrats are being told:

       Don't say the law will reduce costs and the deficit.

  Isn't that what the President said to the Democrats in December of 
2009?
  The American people have been misled. They can see through this. That 
is why they were screaming: Do not pass this law. Yet what the 
President said and now what the American people know to be the truth is 
the exact opposite.
  Let's look at what House Speaker Pelosi said. In March of this year 
she said:

       This is a triumph for the American people in terms of 
     deficit reduction.

  This isn't going to reduce the deficit. Now, finally 6 months after 
it has been passed into law, the Democrats are admitting that this is 
not a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction.
  Then Senator Reid, from that desk on the Senate floor, in November of 
last year, said:

       One of the major goals of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act is to lower Federal health care costs and 
     reduce the deficit.

  He then said:

       Our bill does that.

  The bill signed into law does not do that. And now even the 
Democrats, with their new spin, are saying that we better not keep 
saying it because the American people don't believe it. That is why 56 
percent of the American people want this law repealed and replaced.
  The American people are sick of the spin. They deserve the truth 
about the

[[Page 15589]]

new law and how it will impact their lives. It is clear that this law 
is not good for patients, it is not good for providers--the nurses and 
doctors who take care of the patients--and it is not good for the 
payers--the taxpayers of this country and the people who pay their own 
health care costs. We need to repeal and replace this new law with a 
plan that will actually help our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                Tax Cuts

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, just yesterday the Republican minority 
leader indicated that every Republican in the Senate would join him in 
filibustering legislation that would provide middle-class tax relief to 
over 97 percent of American workers and their families unless the Bush 
tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent were extended as well.
  In my view, what we have to do is stand up to that filibuster no 
matter how long it takes. If it means being in here 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, that is what we have to do. Senate Republicans should not 
be allowed to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage in order to give even 
bigger tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at a time when this 
Nation has a $13 trillion national debt and a widening gap between the 
very rich and everyone else.
  In fact, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income 
of any major country on Earth. The dumbest thing we could probably do 
at this moment is to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country. That would be 
totally absurd.
  Today, the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 
percent. The top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, 
and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. 
We have the dubious distinction--not a good distinction--of having, by 
far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major 
country on Earth.
  In 2007, the wealthiest 1 percent took in 23\1/2\ percent of all 
income earned in the United States. That is not an issue we talk about 
in the Senate. Apparently, in polite organizations, polite groups, we 
are not allowed to talk about that. But let me repeat it. The top 1 
percent in 2007 earned 23\1/2\ percent of all the income earned in the 
United States.
  That is the latest data available. There is no reason to believe that 
income is not even greater right now. It is not a coincidence that the 
last time that income was this concentrated was in the year 1928. 1928. 
Those of us who remember history know what happened in 1929. The stock 
market crashed, and we plunged into the Great Depression.
  Louis Brandeis, one of the great Supreme Court Justices in the 
history of this country who served on the Supreme Court during both the 
Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression once said: ``We may have 
democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, 
but we cannot have both.''
  Mr. Brandeis was right then and his words ring true today. Today, the 
wealthiest 400 Americans make an average of $345 million a year--$345 
million a year, on average, for the top 400 American earners.
  Under the Bush administration, these 400 individuals saw their 
incomes double--double--while their Federal tax rate was cut almost in 
half over the last 15 years, before Bush, through Bush. So during the 
Bush years their incomes doubled while their tax rates went way down.
  Now our Republican friends, and maybe some Democrats, are saying: We 
should give these people huge tax breaks at this moment. We have a 
Federal Tax Code that is so absurd, that is so unfair that Warren 
Buffett, one of the wealthiest Americans and certainly one of the 
wealthiest people in the entire world, who is worth tens of billions of 
dollars, himself, what he has often stated is that he, one of the 
richest people in the world, pays a lower effective tax rate than does 
his secretary.
  Hedge fund managers who made $1 billion last year now pay a lower 
effective--by ``effective'' I mean real because of all the loopholes--a 
lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses, firefighters, and 
police officers, and our Republican friends want to make that absurd 
situation even worse by maintaining huge tax breaks to millionaires and 
billionaires.
  During the Bush years, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw their wealth 
increase by some $400 billion. Let me repeat that. Four hundred 
families--not a whole lot of people--saw their wealth increase by some 
$400 billion, and all the while, while the people on top have seen an 
explosion in their incomes and in their wealth, the middle class is 
rapidly disappearing, poverty is increasing, and we are moving toward 
an oligarchic form of society, where so few have so much, so many have 
so little.
  Our Republican friends have argued that these massive tax breaks, 
some $700 billion in a 10-year period for the top 2 percent, would 
trickle down, trickle down to all Americans. Give tax breaks to 
billionaires and it is going to trickle down and improve our economy 
and do well by everybody.
  We have been told over and over by Republican colleagues that 
millionaires and billionaires would use the massive tax breaks they 
received under President Bush to create jobs in the private sector. 
Well, guess what. The results are in. During the 8 years of the Bush 
administration, a time in which the wealthiest Americans received one 
of the largest tax cuts in this Nation's history, the United States of 
America lost over 600,000 private sector jobs and only gained, over 
that 8-year period, a net total of 1 million new jobs, all of them, by 
the way, government jobs.
  So we saw the experiment in action. We gave huge tax breaks to the 
rich, and we ended up having one of the worst job creation records in 
the history of the United States--losing over 600,000 jobs. It is an 
interesting theory. We have seen it in practice. It does not work.
  In addition, under President Bush, median family incomes went down by 
over $2,000. Let me repeat that. Do you know why people are angry in 
North Carolina, Vermont or all over this country? They are angry 
because during an 8-year period, their median family income went down 
by $2,000 a family, and we lost 600,000 private sector jobs.
  During those same 8 years, more than 8 million Americans slipped out 
of the middle class and into poverty, over 7 million lost their health 
insurance, more than 4 million manufacturing jobs were lost, and over 3 
million Americans lost their pensions. In other words, we went through 
that exercise. It failed. How could anybody want to go back to those 
policies?
  Our Republican friends do. That is what they want. That is what they 
want to see us move toward--more tax breaks for the wealthy, more 
inequality, more power concentrated in the hands of a few, and more 
middle-class Americans slipping into poverty. Do we provide tax breaks 
to millionaires and billionaires or do we invest in the middle class? 
That is what this debate is all about.
  My Republican friends have told us the worst thing you can do in a 
recession is to increase taxes on the wealthy. Well, the Republicans 
told us the same thing when Bill Clinton was President.
  When Bill Clinton's economic plans were signed into law in 1993--as a 
Member of the House I voted for it, it won by one vote--a plan which 
increases taxes by a few percentage points, guess what happened. We 
raised taxes on the wealthy. We lowered the deficit. Guess what 
happened. Unlike the Bush years, where we lost 600,000 private sector 
jobs, during the Clinton years, over 22 million jobs were created. We 
had the longest peacetime expansion in our economy in our Nation's 
history, and budget deficits turned into budget surpluses. Those are 
the facts. No one can deny them.
  Further, what conservative and progressive economists of all stripes 
have

[[Page 15590]]

told us is that providing tax breaks for the rich is the least 
effective way--the least effective way--to stimulate or improve the 
economy.
  That is not Senator Bernie Sanders talking. That is what both the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Senator John McCain's top 
economic adviser during the Presidential campaign, Mark Zandi, have 
told us. According to Mr. Zandi, again, an economic adviser to 
Presidential Candidate McCain, every $1 provider in tax breaks to the 
wealthy pumps only 32 cents into the economy.
  On the other hand, we know that one of the best ways to grow the 
economy and to create decent-paying jobs is to invest in our Nation's 
crumbling infrastructure so we build the roads, the bridges, the 
railways, the culverts, the tunnels we desperately need.
  According to Mr. Zandi, for every $1 invested in infrastructure, it 
generates $1.57 in economic activity. Without a strong and vibrant 
transportation system, businesses fail, the Nation fails. Increasingly, 
as people travel around the world, go to airports, ride on trains, use 
roads, they tell us the United States has an infrastructure which is 
falling way behind much of the rest of the world.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers gave us a D several years ago 
and has told us we need to invest trillions of dollars in our crumbling 
infrastructure in order to bring us to the level we have to be.
  Not only is rebuilding our infrastructure good for our future, it is 
also good for the moment in dealing with the need to create jobs in 
this terrible recession. Every $1 billion invested in infrastructure 
creates or saves over 45,000 American jobs. Not only is investing in 
infrastructure good for the economy, it is something we have to do 
sooner or later.
  I am a former mayor. What I can tell you is, you can ignore your 
roads and bridges this year or the next year, but at some point you are 
going to have to deal with them. They do not get better by not 
rebuilding them. In fact, it is often more expensive to have to rebuild 
them than it is to maintain them.
  As I mentioned a moment ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
tells us that over the next 5 years we need to invest $2.2 trillion in 
our Nation's infrastructure. Why not do this work now when we have 
millions of Americans who desperately want to go back to work? We are 
going to have to do it sometime. Let's do it now.
  Allowing the Bush tax breaks to expire for the wealthiest 2 percent 
will bring in $700 billion in revenue over the next 10 years--$700 
billion. In my view, what we should do with that $700 billion is pretty 
simple. I would take half of that--$350 billion--and use it for deficit 
reduction so that we begin to cut back on our national debt and our 
deficit. The other thing I would do is invest the other half--$350 
billion--in our infrastructure so we create the desperately needed jobs 
that our economy calls for.
  Our Republican friends are dead wrong, are irresponsible, are not 
keeping faith with our kids and grandchildren when they want to 
maintain these tax breaks for the top 2 percent, for many millionaires 
and billionaires, which would result in increasing the deficit by 
nearly $1 trillion over a 10-year period counting interest and that 
would provide an average break of over $100,000 a year to some of the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  So that is what the choice is: Do we put money into deficit 
reduction, lowering our interest costs, helping our kids and 
grandchildren a little bit in terms of the kind of debt they are going 
to have to assume--$350 billion over a 10-year period for deficit 
reduction is significant--do we use another $350 billion to invest in 
our infrastructure so we can create millions of jobs rebuilding America 
or do we make the richest people in this country even richer?
  I think the answer is pretty clear. I think the American people have 
spoken out with their views on this issue. They do not believe, when 
the middle class is collapsing, the wealthiest people are becoming 
richer, and when we have a $13 trillion national debt, it makes any 
sense at all to give huge tax breaks to the rich.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Learning From History

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, yesterday on the floor of the 
Senate I told the story of something that happened in Lordstown, OH, a 
community not too far from Youngstown, in the Mahoning Valley in 
northeast Ohio 1 week ago today. This story was a celebration of the 
first car coming off the line in the Lordstown Chevrolet-GM plant, the 
car the Chevy Cruz. It is a high mileage car, I believe the highest 
mileage car GM ever produced. It is a relatively inexpensive car. They 
expect it to be a huge seller all over the United States. It is a good 
economy car with a lot to it that recommends itself.
  I am not here to endorse the car or even endorse the company. I am 
here to say that this celebration was a direct result of what the 
Presiding Officer and others in this body and the President of the 
United States did a year and a half ago.
  Turn the clock back to the beginning of the Presiding Officer's 
service in the Senate in early 2009. President Obama had just taken 
office. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. The banking industry 
almost collapsed. President Bush had begun the bailout of the banks to 
make sure they did not collapse. President Obama continued working on 
this issue.
  We know where the auto industry was at the same time. Sales were down 
40 percent in the auto industry, 1 million jobs were at risk of being 
lost, on top of the 8 million jobs that had already been lost by the 
time President Obama raised his right hand to be sworn in on January 
20, 2009.
  It was not just the Big Three--Chrysler, Ford, and GM--that were in 
trouble, two of which declared bankruptcy. It was also the tier 1 
suppliers, those large companies that made products that go directly 
into the assembly of a car. It was also all the other component 
manufacturers--tier 2, tier 3 companies--that make everything from door 
handles to tires to bolts to hold the car together to windshields to 
side panels, the stamping plants, the component plants, the engine 
plants, and ultimately the automobile itself.
  I take special pride in the Chevy Cruz because it is such an Ohio 
car. The engine is made in Defiance, OH. The transmission is made in 
Toledo, OH. The bumpers are made in Northwood, OH. Most of the metal is 
stamped in Parma, OH. Some of the rest of the metal is stamped in 
Lordstown, and the assembly is done in Lordstown. The Cruz is really an 
Ohio car.
  The good news is that 1,100 jobs were added for a third shift on the 
Cruz. That is the Lordstown plant alone. That is just that plant. That 
is not counting all the job increases for the component manufacturers.
  Again, looking back a year and a half when there was so much trauma 
in this country, when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month--we had 
already lost 8 million jobs the last year of President Bush's term. The 
auto industry was about to go belly up. Conservative politicians, the 
naysayers, the doom-and-gloom crowd in this body and across the way and 
others were saying: Let the market work. If the auto industry fails, 
that is the market's decision. If the dealers go out of business--
dealers not just in Ohio but in Colorado and everywhere else--that is 
the market. If the suppliers go out of business, that is the market 
speaking. If the communities where these companies are lose jobs and 
lose revenue and they lay off teachers, firefighters, police officers, 
and mental health counselors, that is the free market working. If the 
auto

[[Page 15591]]

dealer in Lima, OH, goes out of business, that means the Little League 
that car dealer used to sponsor will not have new uniforms. That is the 
market working.
  In spite of the naysayers, in spite of the conservative politicians 
in this country and in this body who said, Wash our hands, we didn't 
cause it, we are not going to do anything about it, we did not do that. 
We did not turn our back on that. Mr. President, 400,000 Ohio jobs are 
directly or indirectly dependent on the auto industry. Tens and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs in every State of this country depend on 
the auto industry, not to mention the retirees, many of whom get 
pensions because of their 25, 30, 40, sometimes 45, years of work in 
this industry.
  We did not turn our backs. We invested in the auto industry. That is 
why we had that celebration last Tuesday in Lordstown, OH, because the 
naysayers lost, the doom-and-gloom crowd was cast aside, and those of 
us who thought we should invest in the auto industry were successful. 
We were successful in that 1,100 people in Lordstown are back at work 
and hundreds of thousands of others did not lose their jobs because of 
that. And we are all in a much better position because of that.
  We need to learn from our history. If we had turned our back on this 
industry, we would have been in a depression. Almost any economist 
thinks that. Auto and housing are, I believe, the two biggest 
industries in our country.
  I want to go back a little further to the whole idea of letting the 
market work and the government never being involved. Let me take--and 
do it very fairly--January 20, 1993, to January 20, 2001, the 8 years 
of Bill Clinton's Presidency, then January 20, 2001, to January 20, 
2009, the 8 years of George Bush's Presidency. I am not shading this. I 
am just taking these 8 years.
  During the 8 years of President Clinton's Presidency, we increased 
taxes on the wealthy, balanced the budget, and had smart--not too much 
regulation--had smart regulation. During the 8 years of President 
Clinton, a net 22 million jobs were created in this country, more than 
a 22 million net increase of jobs during Bill Clinton's 8 years. During 
George Bush's 8 years, there was a net increase of 1.1 million: 22 
million during President Clinton's 8 years; 1.1 million during 
President Bush's 8 years.
  During President Clinton's 8 years, incomes went up for the average 
person in this country. During President Bush's 8 years, income for the 
average person went down.
  At the end of President Clinton's 8 years--in other words, January 
20, 2001--when he left the White House, we had the largest budget 
surplus in American history. When George Bush left the White House on 
January 20, 2009, we had the largest budget deficit in this Nation's 
history.
  Yet too many people in this body think that we should go back to the 
years of deregulation of Wall Street, cutting taxes on the rich, and 
passing trade agreements that send jobs to China, Mexico, and all over 
the world.
  I will take you back further. If you do not quite believe that--
although it is provably true--go back to the Reagan tax cuts. Ronald 
Reagan staked his whole reputation on them. When he was campaigning, he 
said: We are going to cut taxes. In 1981, the Reagan administration 
pushed through a tax cut. Congress voted for it. It was a major tax 
cut, overwhelmingly for corporations and the wealthiest wage earners of 
the country.
  For the next 16 months, we lost jobs in this country. For the next 16 
months, we had a net decrease in employment--for 16 months. Only when 
President Reagan signed a tax increase to balance the budget did we 
begin to have job growth.
  The same thing happened with President Obama. President Obama came in 
and passed the stimulus package. We were losing a lot of jobs. We kept 
losing jobs because that is what was happening to the economy.
  When we passed the Recovery Act, we began to see the economy get 
better. It has not gotten better quickly enough. We have gotten no help 
from the other side of the aisle, which opposed everything because they 
wanted to go back to the Bush ideas and tax cuts for the wealthy, 
deregulation of Wall Street, and passing trade agreements that 
outsource jobs.
  We are not going to do that with President Obama. We are not going to 
do that with the Democrats in the majority in the House and the Senate. 
We are not going back to tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of Wall 
Street, and trade agreements that send jobs overseas.
  Instead, we are beginning the recovery. For the last several months, 
we have seen a net increase every month in private sector job creation. 
That increased not as fast as we wanted. Too many 22-year-olds come 
home from the Army and college and cannot get a job. I know that. There 
are too many people laid off who cannot get a job. There are too many 
people working but not working as many hours, not working 40 hours, 
even though they want to.
  We know this economy is not where it should be. If the voters this 
year elect people who subscribe to the George Bush philosophy of tax 
cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street and more trade 
agreements that outsource jobs to China and Mexico, we are making a 
terrible mistake. We do not want to look back. We want to look forward.
  We can learn from history, and the best way to learn from history is 
to see who has been President, what their governing philosophy has been 
and what works. Twenty-two million jobs during the Clinton years and 
one million jobs during the Bush years. When President Bush cut taxes--
at the beginning of his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--you know what happened? 
Wealthy Americans saved their money. They didn't invest it or spend it 
on job creation; they saved it. Good for them. But why would we pass a 
tax cut instead of doing it right, the way we have done it, and put 
people to work on bridge projects and water and sewer projects and 
helping small businesses?
  We are passing legislation this week that Senator Landrieu has pushed 
so hard on. My colleague, Senator Voinovich, is one of only two 
Republicans to support it, even though the Chamber of Commerce is a 
strong supporter of it. It will make a difference in creating jobs 
because we know most jobs--two out of three--are created by small 
business.
  Facts are facts, Mr. President. We can learn from history. We 
shouldn't turn back the clock and do things the way we did in the first 
part of this decade.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________