Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about health reform. I would like to start by telling you the story of a little boy named Isaac. From the day his parents brought him home as a newborn to Isanti, MN, he was sick all the time. He had everything from the flu to bronchitis to ear infections. But unlike most little boys, Isaac never seemed to get better. His parents, as any parents would, did everything they could to help him. They brought him to every medical specialist they could think of but no one could figure out what was wrong. Finally, Isaac was diagnosed with a rare disease called common variable immunodeficiency. This means every 2 weeks a nurse has to visit his home to give him the medicine that lets his body fight off germs. Without this medicine, Isaac's body cannot fight off even a common cold. The home visits and IV medications Isaac needs are expensive. But Isaac's parents had health insurance, so Isaac was able to have a normal childhood. Today, Isaac is a 19-year-old college student in Minnesota with dreams of becoming an English teacher. Here is a picture of him. He is the one on the right. That is Isaac. Because of the toll his illness takes, his family decided that Isaac should go to school part-time. Unfortunately, before the health reform law was passed, young adults over 18 years of age generally had to be in school full time to stay on their parents' health insurance. If Isaac had not been able to stay on his parents' health plan, he would have been in a tremendous bind. His disease is the definition of a preexisting condition, and it would have been nearly impossible for him to find affordable individual coverage. But because of the health reform law that we passed last year, Isaac can now stay on his parents' health insurance, regardless of his school status, through his 26th birthday. He and his family were able to make the choices that made sense for their family without having to worry about Isaac's health insurance. In fact, in a few years, when he turns 26, a key provision of health reform will have kicked in and insurers will no longer be able to discriminate against him or any American because of a preexisting condition. Isaac's parents may not be doctors, but they are experts when it comes to the needs of their family. They know the truth about what the health reform law has already done for their family. Just like Isaac's family, Minnesotans may not know every word of the health reform law, but they are experts on what they need for their own families. Let me tell you about another Minnesota family who learned about the benefits of the new law. Maya, whom you can see right here, is one of 3 million Americans with epilepsy. She had her first seizure when she was just 3 years old. Modern medicine has not yet been able to find a way to stop her seizures, but by taking five medications per day she can control them. Recently, Maya's father was laid off and the family lost his health insurance. Maya's family suddenly had to confront the possibility that they would no longer be able to give Maya the medication she needs to fight her daily seizures. Without insurance, Maya's medications cost more than $1,500 a month, which would quickly bankrupt her family. Losing a job is stressful enough, but before the health reform law Maya's parents would have had to worry about buying health insurance on the individual market. Because of Maya's preexisting condition that would have been almost impossible. Fortunately, the health reform law has banned insurance companies from discriminating against children with preexisting conditions. So her family was able to get on to another insurance plan without being denied. The diagnosis of a chronic illness can happen to anyone at any time. Often, like Maya, it doesn't happen because of a lifestyle choice or genetic predisposition. It just happens. Maya was 3 years old when she was diagnosed. Paying for essential medications and health care services that can help control chronic conditions like Maya's can easily put a hard-working family into bankruptcy. Medical costs are the cause, wholly or in part, of 62 percent of all bankruptcies in this country. That will change dramatically because of this law. Americans will no longer be discriminated against because of preexisting conditions, and insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the dollar amount of care they will provide. This is an enormous, almost incalculable, benefit to Americans and their peace of mind. The truth is, Congress listened to people across this country, people such as Isaac and Maya and their families. By allowing kids to stay on their parents' insurance longer, we listened by ending insurance companies' discrimination against women and people with preexisting conditions, and we listened when the American people said lifetime caps on insurance benefits were forcing millions of chronically ill Americans into bankruptcy. The people of Minnesota believe, as I do, that a family who works hard should not be financially ruined if their kid gets sick. When I was campaigning I heard this again and again from families across Minnesota--and I was listening. The people asked this Congress to find a way to make health care affordable for everyone, and we did. Now the insurance companies and their political allies want you to believe the only way to keep your premiums low is to cap the amount of benefits you can receive in your lifetime. But this is just not true. In the health reform law, we worked hard to slow the growth of health care costs without abandoning the over one-third of American adults who struggle with chronic disease. The truth is, last year we passed a bill that will save the lives of countless Americans and will save billions of taxpayer dollars. That is right. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the referee that everyone here in Congress agrees to abide by whether we like their decisions or not--according to CBO the law saves us money, lots of money; in fact, hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, let me say a word about CBO to my colleagues. You cannot use CBO's numbers when you like them and then totally dismiss them when you do not. CBO is directed to provide unbiased and independent analysis and estimates. Their analysts use the best research available for their scores and projections. In fact, they established an independent review panel of expert health care economists to advise them in their analysis of the health reform bill. Not only are the experts' names published on CBO's Web site, but their analysis of the law is public as well. CBO is nothing if not transparent and independent. Of late, we have heard Members of this body frankly mischaracterize the process by which CBO does its job. They have said that CBO must rely solely on information and data fed to them by the majority-- ``garbage in, garbage out.'' ``Garbage in, garbage out'' is how they describe it here on the floor. This could not be further from the truth. Frankly, I find some of my colleagues' new refrain about CBO disturbing and not a little disingenuous. One of the things we tried to do in health reform was to take steps that would lower the costs of health care in this country. Take for example our efforts to reduce administrative costs by streamlining the way health care providers bill for their services. This is something I pushed for because we recently did it in Minnesota, and it saved $56 million in the first year alone. Nationwide, that should translate to around $25 to $30 billion over 10 years. Actually, the health reform law went well beyond what Minnesota did. So it is not surprising that outside experts such as those at the Commonwealth Fund, Rand, and others estimate much greater savings from administrative simplification, in the range of $162 to $187 billion over 10 years. So when CBO made their analysis and estimated savings of less than $20 billion in the same period, I admit I was a little miffed. But I did not attack CBO. I accepted their results. And we are all duty bound to do the same, even when CBO projects that the law as a whole will save over $100 billion in the first 10 years and over $1 trillion in the following decade. We accomplished the savings with a number of commonsense solutions, such as stopping insurance companies from padding their bank accounts with profits from sky-high premiums. As part of health reform, we require insurance companies to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of the money they receive in premiums on actual health care, actual health care services--85 percent for large group plans, 80 percent for small group or individual plans. This is a provision I championed. The other 15 or 20 percent can be spent on administrative costs or marketing, on CEO bonuses, and on profits. This provision kicked in this year, and it will hold insurance companies accountable for costs and help contain health care costs in this country. We also changed the way health care is paid for in this country by starting to reward quality of care, not quantity--value not volume in Medicare. I was proud to fight alongside Senator Cantwell and Senator Klobuchar for the inclusion of the value-based payment modifier in the Medicare reimbursement formulas. Perhaps the most commonsense thing we did to control costs was making sure everyone has access to preventive care. In Minnesota alone, the law will give millions of people access to free preventive care. Women will be able to get mammograms without any out-of-pocket costs. Starting this year, seniors now have access to free preventive checkups each year without cost. This is completely contrary to claims I have heard on this floor. A large part of the cuts in Medicare spending--not cuts in benefits, a large part of the cuts in Medicare spending--is cuts to wasteful subsidies for insurance companies. One of my colleagues has taken to the floor and said this law will ``cut the funding, so people on Medicare Advantage who like it, who like the preventive medicine activities of it, are going to lose those opportunities.'' He goes on to say about the seniors in his State that ``once they lose this, they are going to lose preventive services.'' This is simply not the case. Thanks to this law, everyone on Medicare will enjoy preventive services, so their doctors will catch problems early. Seniors know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is why preventive services under this law will be covered for everyone without copays, contrary to what my friend on the other side says. This is what has bothered me about this debate--the constant stream of misinformation. This same colleague said this on the floor about the law: ``It doesn't solve America's doctor shortage. It does not even address it.'' It does not even address it. Now, no one is claiming this bill solves the doctor shortages we have in this country, but does not even address it? There is a whole title in the law that lays out a number of programs--over 96 pages--that make significant investments in the health care workforce, especially in primary care physicians. Most notably, it created a public health workforce loan repayment program that helps recruit and place more doctors, nurses, and other health care providers in medically underserved areas. That is important for States such as Minnesota. And this was an integral and vital part of health reform. Anyone who states that this law did nothing to address the shortfall of health care providers just has not read the law. We have seen misrepresentations from opponents right from the beginning with the so-called death panels, and it continues to this day: Medicare recipients are going to be denied preventive care; the law doesn't even address the doctor shortage; CBO is just fed garbage by the majority and is not allowed to look at anything else. In November, one of my colleagues cited an oft-discredited assertion originally made by some Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee. According to one analysis, my colleague said here on the floor, the Internal Revenue Service will need to hire 16,000 new IRS employees to enforce the individual mandate. Well, that is just not true. Some new IRS employees will be needed but nowhere near that number, and overwhelmingly they will be there to administer the tax breaks to small businesses for insuring their employees. What my colleagues said on the floor is simply not true. No matter how many times it is repeated, it will not become true. There was a colloquy from June of last year between two of my colleagues. The first Senator said that doctors are leaving Medicare. And that is true. Some are. He said: The president of the State of New York Medical Society is not taking new Medicare patients. Then the second Senator said: As well as the Mayo Clinic. The first Senator answered by responding: Mayo Clinic said, we cannot afford to keep our doors open if we are taking Medicare patients. Then he moved on. So is it true that the Mayo Clinic really is not taking new Medicare patients? Well, I called up Mayo, which happens to be in my State, to find out, and they gave me the facts. Do you know what. Of course it is not true. The Mayo Clinic has 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treats 526,000 patients a year. There is one Mayo Clinic, Arizona Family Practice--one--that isn't accepting Medicare payment for primary care services. Yet this is just part of a time-limited trial for this one clinic with just five physicians on staff. That is it. But this becomes, to quote my colleague: Mayo Clinic said, we cannot afford to keep our doors open if we are taking Medicare patients. Well, the Mayo Clinic is the largest private employer in Minnesota and, believe me, their doors are still open to new Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursements are low, and Mayo has actually lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the last year alone because of this. Mayo, like the rest of Minnesota, delivers higher value care at a lower cost than clinics and hospitals in other States. That is because Mayo provides coordinated integrated care. Mayo's outstanding doctors are on salaries, so they are not incentivized to order and perform unnecessary and expensive tests and procedures. And Mayo's outcomes are second to none. Yet Mayo is punished for all of this by receiving lower reimbursements for Medicare. That is why I pushed, with other colleagues, for the value index. That is why we need to pass the so- called doc fix that cancels scheduled cuts to reimbursement rates every year. By the way, the doc fix is something we would have to do whether or not we pass health reform. Yet, despite all of this, the Mayo Clinic is keeping its doors open to new Medicare patients and should be commended for that. It should not be accused of closing its doors to Medicare patients when it is not. Mayo should not be used as a political football. Look, I could go on and on with these, but the fact is, if we want to have a debate about the health care law, we really should make an effort to present a case based on what is really in the law and what is really happening on the ground. This is what the American people want from us. Health care is far too important to the lives of our constituents for us to indulge in gross distortion, obvious omission, and absurd extrapolations. The American people do not want that, not for something this important, not for something that affects their lives and the lives of people they love. The American people have given us all tremendous responsibilities. Minnesotans worry that the floor could drop from under them at any time and that no one will be there to catch them when it does. They worry about their families. They worry about their friends and their community. We owe it to them to be honest with them and with each other, to be responsible, to be real. So let's get real. As I mentioned in my story about Maya, the little girl with epilepsy, thanks to the new law, she can get health care because insurance companies now cannot discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. In 2014, insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against any American child or adult with a preexisting condition. And in 2014, that is when the mandate kicks in. Here is what one of my colleagues says about the provision in the law that now allows little 3-year-old Maya to be treated for her epilepsy: The health care law allows parents to wait until their child is sick before buying a policy. When only sick people buy health insurance, premiums have to go up. As the rate increases, more people drop their coverage. That is why we have the mandate. The mandate is crucial if you want to do things such as getting rid of denials for preexisting conditions. And, by the way, the mandate has been a Republican idea. The mandate was a Republican idea in their 1993 health reform bill. Let me tell you why. The health care law is like a three-legged stool. The first leg is accessibility. Everyone needs to be able to buy insurance so that when they get sick or hurt, they can access the care they need. So we banned insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. Banning discrimination against people with preexisting conditions is something that both parties say they like. In fact, in its Pledge to America, the document that Republicans ran on in 2010, in the health care section there is the heading ``Ensure Access for Patients with Preexisting Conditions.'' It goes on to say that they will ban insurance companies from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions. That is their pledge. That makes sense. Over one-third of all Americans have a preexisting condition. Actually, at the Minnesota State fair, a woman in her early 70s came up to me and said: You know, at my age, everything is preexisting. She was enrolled in Medicare, but Maya was not. And Maya's family should not have to choose between going without the care they need and going into bankruptcy. But as my colleague indicated, there is a risk that this provision would incentivize people to buy health insurance only after they get sick or hurt which would drive everyone's costs up. So because of this, this second leg of the stool is personal responsibility. We have an individual mandate to make sure that people don't wait until they get sick to go get insurance and to create a pool of insured people that is large enough to support all the folks who had previously been unable to get insurance. If everyone has health insurance, everyone will be able to access care when they need it. By the way, the rest of us who have insurance will benefit because today we are paying almost $1,000 a year per family in premiums to cover the emergency room visits of people who don't have insurance. But for some people, buying health insurance is too expensive. So the third leg of the stool is affordability. We provide assistance to those families who need to buy health coverage on a sliding scale, all the way up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. So that is our three-legged stool: accessibility, accountability, and affordability. We don't discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, and so we have a mandate so people don't wait until they get sick or hurt to get insurance. Because you are mandated to get health insurance, we make sure everyone can afford it. A three-legged stool. If you take any leg out, the stool collapses. When I have explained it this way to Minnesotans, I find they are no longer confused about the law. They know how important it is to have access to health insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, to take responsibility for themselves and their families, and to have health care they can afford. But some of my colleagues have been advocating that we cut off a leg or even two legs of the stool. But a two-legged stool collapses. And a one-legged stool? Maybe at best it is a spinning plate. The arguments for repealing this law remind me of an old Shalom Aleichem story I heard from my dad when I was growing up. You don't hear much about Shalom Aleichem on the Senate floor. I will tell you a little bit about it. Shalom Aleichem was a beloved 20th century writer who wrote stories, novels, and plays in Yiddish. The Broadway hit ``Fiddler on the Roof'' was based on his writings. In the story my dad told me, a man borrows a plate from his neighbor. The man takes the plate home and drops it accidentally and breaks it. He sneaks back into his neighbor's house and replaces the broken plate. The neighbor comes home, finds the broken plate, and goes over to the guy's house. He basically says: What is the deal with the broken plate? The guy says: Well, in the first place, I didn't borrow it. In the second place, when I borrowed it, it was already broken. And in the third place, when I returned it, it was in one piece. That is what I am hearing from the opponents of this bill who want to repeal it. In the first place, we are for banning discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. In the second place, we are against banning discrimination against people with preexisting conditions because then no one would buy health insurance until they get sick or hurt. That would drive up the cost of health insurance. And in the third place, we want to repeal the law because it makes healthy people buy health insurance or pay a fine in order to keep the cost of health insurance down. This is what I hear every day from the opponents of the health care bill. Opponents of the bill, my colleagues on the other side, pledge that they won't discriminate against people with preexisting conditions but then they say they don't want to ban discrimination because they don't want to encourage people to wait until they are sick to buy insurance. But they don't want to mandate that people take personal responsibility by buying health insurance. Then they stand up and say the American people are, to quote a colleague, ``sick of spin.'' I would like my colleagues to stand and admit that they broke the plate. We owe it to the people who elected us to this body to tell the truth about the health reform law. We owe it to the millions of Americans whose lives will be changed by the provisions in this law, such as Isaac, such as Maya. Already we have seen the positive changes that such reform can bring. Look no further than the State of Massachusetts which, in 2006, passed its own set of health reforms. Its reforms were similar to what the Affordable Care Act is doing at the national level, including an individual mandate, subsidies, and even an exchange. The result has been a huge increase in the number of people with health insurance, including an increase in the number of people who get insurance through their jobs. Let me put that another way: Because of the State's health care reform, more people have health insurance from their employer. At the same time Massachusetts has seen a decrease in the rate at which premiums are going up when compared to the rest of the country. As the rest of the country saw insurance premiums go up by 6.1 percent from 2007 to 2008, premiums in Massachusetts only went up by 5.0 percent. That is more than 20 percent less than the rest of the country just a year after its health care reform was passed. That is not a silver bullet, but it is certainly a step in the right direction for small business owners and for families. More than 98 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, as compared to less than 84 percent nationally. The effects of health reform in that State are pretty clear. More people are insured. Premiums are not going up as quickly as around the country. More people are getting their insurance through their employer. The health reform law is not a silver bullet but hopefully a series of steps in the right direction. You have to question the claims of my colleagues who say that health reform will cause the sky to fall, because there is good evidence to believe they are crying wolf. Yes, you heard me right, Chicken Little is crying wolf. Ask the people of Massachusetts. In a recent poll, nearly 80 percent of Massachusetts residents said they wanted to keep the health reform law they passed in 2006; nearly 80 percent. Here is another one. I have heard a colleague urging repeal of this law say: We need to allow small businesses to join together, to pool together, in order to offer affordable health insurance to their workers, get better deals with insurance costs. He said this as if it weren't in the law. In fact, he has said these exact words repeatedly here on the floor, each time creating the clear implication that the health reform law does not allow small businesses to pool together to get better deals on health insurance. But in fact this is exactly why we passed a health reform law that includes health insurance exchanges. We owe it to the American people to tell the truth about this. The truth is that health reform created State insurance exchanges so that health care will be available to the 43 million workers employed by the 5.9 million small businesses around the country. The exchanges will also make affordable health insurance available to 22 million self- employed Americans. Within these exchanges, insurance companies will compete and offer multiple plans so that everyone can choose a plan that works best for their family. And in all cases, they will be negotiated on behalf of the combined pools of all participating businesses with fewer than 100 employees in the State. This will give unprecedented negotiating power and competition that will directly benefit workers at small businesses. And not just the workers but especially the owners of those businesses who, by the way, are already receiving tax credits to help them pay for their employees' insurance. The fact is, the majority of Americans are supportive of what this law is trying to do, and they don't want to go back to the broken system we had before it passed. They know it is crucial that American families have health care when they need it. They know this law will give millions more American families access to this care while creating jobs and saving money. The truth is, the people have spoken on health care. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have not been listening. When you are talking about legislation, it is easy to fall into the trap of either promising the world or warning that it will cause the sky to fall. Neither is right, and the reality is far more complex. The truth is, the Affordable Care Act will change millions of lives but will not fix a very broken health care system overnight. It was the result of a lot of negotiation and compromise. The truth is, the American people want us to move forward and implement this law. They know some parts of it will work better than other parts. They want us to change what does not work and build on what does. They know provisions like the ban on discrimination against children with preexisting conditions are already helping families across this country, including Isaac, including Maya. I challenge my colleagues to talk to families with children like Isaac and Maya. Americans are experts on the health care needs of their own families. I have talked to families all over Minnesota, and they tell me they need accessible health care, they need affordable health care, and they want to take personal responsibility to insure their families. But the truth is, they need our help. They need us to make sure the stool keeps standing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be extended to my legislative fellow, Hannah Katch, for the duration of consideration of the FAA bill, S. 223.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the growing threat of corporate control on the flow of information in this country. Today we have been debating incredibly important issues, and I don't mean to detract from any of them. We need to be doing everything we can to protect our national security and to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. But while we debate these issues in front of the public, behind the scenes, away from public scrutiny, the Federal Communications Commission is about to decide two distinct but very closely related issues that have the potential to change dramatically the way we get our entertainment, the way we communicate with one another, and, most importantly, the way we use the Internet. The first matter before the FCC is the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC/Universal. There is no question in my mind that regardless of what you hear from industry, this merger will be bad for consumers on many levels. It will allow Comcast to exploit NBC/Universal's content, charging other cable networks more for access to NBC shows and movies. Do you know what that will do? It will raise your cable bills. And NBC/ Universal--which actually owns 37 broadcast or cable networks--will be favored by Comcast to the exclusion of other independent or competing networks. This means Comcast will pay less to carry channels such as the Discovery Network, the Food Channel, Bloomberg, or the Tennis Channel--threatening their financial viability--or these channels will be relegated to the graveyard around channel 690 or 691 or 692, or customers will have to pay even more each month to buy access to these channels. This is bad for consumers because it is going to put many of these networks out of business. That means less choice and more Comcast/NBC programming. But it doesn't end there. Comcast also happens to be the Nation's leading wireline broadband Internet provider, which means this single company will both own the programming and run the pipes that bring us that programming. Here again, Comcast will be able to use its overwhelming market share--and in many markets its near monopoly in the Internet business--to favor its own video services, say, its OnDemand service, over companies such as Netflix, that are cheaper and would otherwise win on a level playing field. These are all major problems with the deal. But it might be tough to understand in the abstract how this deal will affect you, so let me take a minute or two to make this more concrete. I ask the people sitting in the gallery, the Senate staff watching this speech, and everyone at home in Minnesota: How many of you like your cable and Internet provider? When you call Comcast or Verizon or AT&T about a problem, how many of you get good service? How many of you like the prices you pay? When you decide you want to sign up for broadband, and Comcast tells you that they aren't sure when they can come to install your service, and then finally you get an appointment and you have to take a day off from work to wait between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. for a repairman to come, and then he doesn't come, is that how you feel you deserve to be treated? Are you getting good service when you call Verizon and spend 10 minutes listening to automated messages and pressing numbers that direct you to more automated messages, and then finally--finally--you get a human being on the line but that person tells you that he or she can't help you and you get put on hold again; is that how you deserve to be treated? Are you getting good service? When you have had enough with bad service and rapidly rising bills and you decide you want to switch to another company, how many of you have found that you don't have another choice? That there is no other cable provider in your area? I can tell you that right now, Comcast has about 23 million cable subscribers and about 16 million Internet subscribers. They are already the largest provider of cable service to Americans by a very large margin, and in some areas, they have a total monopoly. And this is what cable and Internet customer service is like today. Do you think that merging the single largest cable provider, which is also the largest wireline Internet provider, with one of the biggest TV and movie studios in the country, will make any of this better? Do you think it will lead to lower prices on your cable and Internet bills? Do you think it will mean more choice for what you can watch and download at home? Do you think it will mean better customer service? I can assure you that the answer to these questions is no, no, no, and no. We count on competition in this country to keep corporations in check, and we have designed antitrust laws to ensure that companies are not getting too big or too powerful. These laws were designed to protect consumers, because the one thing we know about corporations is that they are created to maximize shareholder profit--not to protect consumers. There is nothing wrong with that. We want corporations to grow, and create jobs, and provide goods and services. There are some great corporations based in Minnesota, like General Mills and 3M. In addition to providing you Cheerios and Post-it notes, these companies put a lot of Minnesotans to work. But when you go shopping for cereal, you have a lot of choice. General Mills may produce Cheerios, but they have to compete with companies such as Kellogg's, which makes Corn Flakes, and Post, which makes Fruity Pebbles. And they all have to compete with the store or value brands. Let's look at another example of the benefits of competition. When you go out for dinner at a restaurant, you usually have a lot of options. I am guessing you don't go back to the restaurant that served you limp lettuce, mediocre meatloaf, and cold, lumpy mashed potatoes. And I am guessing you wouldn't go back if they told you that you would be served sometime between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Unfortunately, you don't always have that kind of choice when it comes to your cable and Internet service. And this is only going to get worse if the FCC allows the merger between Comcast and NBC to sail through. It is competition--and regulation where there isn't competition--that keeps corporations accountable to consumers. But don't take my word for it. You can already see what Comcast has up its sleeve. If the merger is allowed to go through, as I mentioned before, we can expect Comcast to favor its own content and leave consumers with less choice. Take the Tennis Channel, which filed a complaint against Comcast earlier this year. It alleged that Comcast has been favoring the Golf Channel and its own sports channel, Versus, by making those channels available as part of its basic cable package, while putting the Tennis Channel on a so-called ``premium tier.'' In other words, if you get cable from Comcast, you get the Golf Channel and Versus for free, but if you want to watch the Australian Open on the Tennis Channel, you need to pay another $5 to $8 per month. Yet, Comcast pays the Tennis Channel only a fraction of what it pays itself to carry the Golf Channel or Versus, which are much less popular. I fear this is a sign of things to come. As media conglomerates get bigger and bigger, they have every incentive to make their own content easier and cheaper to access than everyone else's content. Now, I have been talking to a lot of people about the possible impact of this merger, and do you know what I keep hearing? Do you know what small businesses and cable programmers are telling me? They are coming to my office discreetly, and they are saying that they oppose this merger--but they can't speak out because they are worried about retaliation from Comcast. And to me, that is the definition of a company with too much market share. Comcast has put out the word that this merger is a fait accompli. They have announced a slate of 43 officers for NBC, despite promising to refrain from doing so until the review of the merger is complete. So it is no surprise that small--and some not so small--cable networks see the writing on the wall and are not willing to take the chance of opposing this deal publicly, again, for fear of retaliation by Comcast. And they are probably right. If this deal goes through, Comcast will have the power to put them out of business. If you knew that, would you stand up and complain to the FCC about Comcast? Probably not. This type of anticompetitive conduct is exactly why we need the Department of Justice and the FCC to stop this merger. And this merger is only the first domino in a cascade that is sure to come. Make no mistake, if this merger is approved, if this deal goes through, it will be only a year or 2 before we see AT&T trying to buy ABC/Disney, or Verizon trying to buy CBS/Viacom. And you know what these companies will say? ``You let Comcast and NBC do it, now it is our turn.'' And what will the FCC or the Department of Justice say then? Now is the time to decide whether we want four or five companies owning and delivering all content. Imagine a world with no independent voices, and no competition. But now let me go back specifically to Comcast. Not just its cable profile. Let's talk about Comcast's control of the Internet. There is no better example of how Comcast plans to use its virtual monopoly than what we have seen in the last few weeks with its treatment of Netflix. I think we can all agree that Netflix has changed the way many Americans watch movies, and it all started because one of its founders was sick of paying late fees for movie rentals. This company is one of our Nation's great success stories--it now has almost 17 million subscribers and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue-- and it all happened in just over a decade. But most importantly, it offered an alternative and less expensive option for consumers to watch movies. Netflix now has a lot of money and can write big checks to buy movies and video content, so I didn't think I needed to worry about them. But then I heard that being the highest bidder for content may not be enough. As it turns out, cable companies are worried about Netflix's success. It represents the first real competition they have seen in a long time, and they want to shut Netflix down. How can they do that? By cutting off Netflix's access to the things people want to watch. And when is this most problematic? First, it is when Netflix's competitors--like Comcast or Time Warner Cable--also own the programming that Netflix carries. Second, it is when Netflix's competitors are also the ones that sell--and control--access to the Internet. Neither of these are theoretical. Just last week, Time Warner's CEO brazenly stated that Netflix's deals with Time Warner may not be renewed. Other studio executives are saying the same thing. And what I am hearing is that Comcast, which is not yet even in control of NBC, plans to reverse course and ultimately pull NBC/ Universal's programming from Netflix. Comcast also recently announced that they are imposing a new fee on Level 3 Communications, the company slated to become the primary delivery mechanism and backbone for Netflix's online streaming movies and TV shows. Coincidentally, Netflix is one of Comcast's main competitors for video delivery, which makes this price hike seem just a little fishy to me. Regardless of Comcast's motives for charging Level 3, this is a clear warning sign of what we can all expect if this deal goes through. If this deal goes through, Comcast will make it harder and more expensive for you to watch movies online through any service other than its own. If this deal goes through, Comcast will have the power to limit your choices to watching Comcast-owned content over Comcast's services, like its video OnDemand service. I use the phrase ``if this deal goes through'' because this is exactly the sort of anticompetitive behavior that the Department of Justice and the FCC are supposed to stop. What is even more ludicrous is that this is happening when Comcast and NBC should be on their best behavior. Right now, they are under close scrutiny by two Federal agencies, the FCC and the DOJ. Yet they seem to be making even more bold-faced power grabs without any concern about government oversight. But in addition to the Comcast-NBC merger, what is also before the FCC is a new set of proposed rules that will make it easier for large media conglomerates--like Comcast--to do nothing short of controlling the Internet. The chairman of the FCC is calling this a ``net neutrality'' proposal. But let's be clear. This is not real net neutrality. I believe this is one of the most serious issues facing our country today. Let me take a step back and explain what net neutrality is. Put simply, it is the idea that big corporations shouldn't be able to decide who wins or loses on the Internet. It is the idea that the Internet should be a level playing field for everyone, from a blogger to a media conglomerate, from a small businessperson to a powerful corporation. I believe that net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time. The Internet wasn't created by corporations. It was created using taxpayer dollars, and it has dramatically altered our daily lives in more ways than any of us could have ever dreamed. It is an incredible source of innovation, a hotbed for creativity, and an unbelievable producer of wealth and jobs in this Nation. It was instrumental in putting President Obama in office--but it was also equally instrumental in helping the Tea Party become a powerful force in American politics. I may not agree with everything the Tea Party movement has done, or everything it stands for, but I do firmly believe that the Tea Party has a right to organize and to post its views on the Internet. Strong net neutrality principles would ensure that everyone--from the most liberal blogger on Daily Kos--to the most conservative fan of Fox News--would continue to have an equal right of access and an equal ability to communicate with like-minded people. If corporations are allowed to control the Internet, all of that would change. The Internet has become the public square of the 21st century. This is why Tea Party activists and anyone who cares about personal liberties and freedoms should care about net neutrality. One popular Minnesota blogger should be able to get his or her information to you as quickly as MSNBC. Or to say it another way, MSNBC shouldn't be able to pay millions to get their Web site to load faster on your computer. We do not want corporations to be able to drown out the voices of smaller, less powerful individuals. Unfortunately, the proposal before the FCC--which I will admit I haven't seen because it has not been made public--would reportedly allow companies to do just that. It would allow Internet providers to create a fast lane for companies that can afford to pay a premium. It would allow mobile networks, like AT&T and Verizon Wireless, to completely block content and applications whenever it suits them--for either political or business reasons. Let me underscore this--this is the first time the FCC has allowed discrimination on the Internet. Let me give you an example. Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough. If the FCC passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cutoff access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good, even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free. If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech. The Obama campaign used a mobile app to help organize volunteers. And now there are a bunch of Tea Party apps you can download. But maybe not for long. Not if your wireless carrier doesn't want you to get them. And that is something every American should care very deeply about. I am here on the floor today because I think Americans need to understand just how critical net neutrality really is. This is complicated stuff. But it directly affects all of us. And it is not just about speech, it is also about entrepreneurship and innovation. It is about our economy. There is no question in my mind that without significant changes, the proposal currently pending before the FCC would be bad for our economy. Think about companies like YouTube, which started in a tiny office above a pizzeria, and grew to be worth billions of dollars. At the time, Google had a competing product, Google Video, which was then the standard but was widely seen as inferior. Had Google been able to pay Comcast large amounts of money to make its website faster than YouTube's, YouTube would be nowhere. Fortunately, Google could not pay for priority access, and the rest is history. Think about Facebook. Once upon a time, it was a small startup. Remember Friendster or MySpace? They were once the dominant social networking sites before Facebook won over users with a vastly superior product. But that might have never happened if Friendster or MySpace had paid lots of money to reach users faster. If Facebook had taken a significantly longer time to load on your computer, it never would have succeeded. These are just some examples of how today's free and open Internet has fostered innovation, which has created jobs, and has spurred competition, which has benefited all consumers. Now think of the next Facebook or the next YouTube or the next Amazon. The only way to guarantee that innovation will continue is to have strong net neutrality rules that will protect and maintain today's free and open Internet. So the FCC has to make two big decisions, one on the Comcast-NBC merger, and one on net neutrality. These decisions will impact every American for years to come. You may not know this, but the FCC is an independent agency. Independent agencies are nonpartisan. They are not beholden to Congress or to the President, and they certainly should not be beholden to the industries they regulate. That is why I am concerned when I hear that the Chairman of the FCC is calling the CEOs of companies they are supposed to be regulating, seeking their public endorsement of his net neutrality proposal. Independent agencies are charged with acting in the public interest. So when I hear that the FCC is considering a net neutrality proposal that is supported by the largest media corporations in America, I am suspicious, and you should be too. The FCC should not be worrying about getting the sign-off from the very corporations that it is supposed to be regulating, period. The FCC has made public its plans to act on its flawed net neutrality proposal this coming Tuesday. I sincerely hope that the FCC will make significant improvements before then, and that each of the Commissioners will think long and hard before they vote to approve a proposal that could actually make things worse for all Americans. I have also heard that the FCC is going to be acting very soon on the NBC-Comcast merger, and it needs to do this in the light of day, not hidden in the middle of Christmas and New Year's. The American people have a right to know about this merger. I will be supremely disappointed if approval of the merger is slipped through when most of America is unwrapping presents and spending time with their families, not worrying about their cable or Internet bills. We are at a pivotal moment and we need to stop the cascade of dominos that will forever change how we pay for TV and browse the Internet. But it is not too late. The government has a role to play here, and I hope the FCC will step up, be brave, and do what is right for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, may I ask Senator Kerry one question. When I was presiding yesterday, a Member rose in opposition to the treaty. He was complaining about it coming up now. He pointed to when we got the treaty from the White House, which was in May; is that right?

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification. I rise to discuss missile defense and the New START treaty. Missile defense is one of the persistent areas of concern of the treaty raised by some of my colleagues. However, the reasonable questions that have been raised on the subject can be answered in a very straightforward manner. The treatment of missile defense in the treaty is no cause to oppose it--quite the opposite. It should garner support for the treaty. Most of those who have raised concerns understand that longstanding Russian anxiety about our missile defense is misplaced. The purpose of our missile defense is not to undermine Russia's deterrent; it is to protect us from attack from the likes of Iran or North Korea. In fact, the Senator who raised the objection about it coming up now, after their request for delay, pointed that out, as if our side didn't understand that, for some reason. This is longstanding U.S. policy and law across administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties, going back to at least the administration of George H.W. Bush. Nothing in the treaty bars the development and deployment of missile defense from countering those very real threats from the likes of Iran and North Korea, nor does the treaty give the Russians any say over missile defense or any kind of veto over it. The fact that we and the Russians remain at odds over missile defense is, to some degree, nothing new. It has not prevented overwhelming support for arms control agreements in the past, including this treaty's predecessor, the original START treaty. A more radical strand of criticism argues that our missile defense should target Russian forces and should, in fact, seek to render Russian strategic forces useless. I won't have much to say about this criticism. In reality, it is criticism of the entire foreign policy consensus of the United States that has prevailed across party lines at least since the end of the Cold War. Secretary Gates has spoken about the danger and the needless budget-busting expense of this perspective. Setting this view aside, I want to focus on the more reasonable skeptics of the New START treaty. They have expressed concerns about each of the two mentions of missile defense in the treaty. Article V, section 3 of the treaty states: Each party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers-- That is submarine-launched ballistic missiles. for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. Each party further shall not convert and shall not use launchers of missile defense interceptors for replacement of ICBM and SLBMs therein. This provision shall not apply to ICBM launchers that were converted prior to signature of this treaty for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. In other words, this provision prohibits the conversion and use of ICBM and SLBM launchers from missile defense interceptors and vice versa. However, it grandfathers the five missile silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base that have already been converted to launchers for missile defense interceptors. Some have seized on this provision as a constraint on our missile defense. In reality, this provision effectively keeps missile defense outside the scope of the treaty--an objective that proponents of missile defense surely desire--at no real cost to us. The ban on conversion of ICBM silos or SLBM launchers to missile defense is not a meaningful constraint. As LTG Patrick O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, testified, his agency has no plans and never had any plans to convert additional ICBM silos at Vandenberg. It is both less expensive and operationally more effective to build new ground-based interceptors. As General O'Reilly explained, replacing ICBMs with interceptors or adapting SLBMs to be interceptors would be ``a major setback to the development of our missile defenses.'' Substantial conversion of ICBM silos to missile defense would also be unnecessarily risky. Mixing interceptors with their ICBMs, especially in or near ICBM fields, would create an ambiguity problem for the Russians that risks tragic misunderstanding and devastating miscalculation. As GEN Kevin Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, put it, seeing a missile launch, the other side may well be uncertain whether the launch was of an offensive or defensive missile. Eliminating conversion of ICBM silos to defense is eliminating an unnecessary and undesirable option. That is why this so-called limitation on missile defense in article V of the New START treaty is-- to use Senator McCain's phrase from the committee hearings--not a meaningful one. Nevertheless, Senator McCain and others have gone on to ask: Even if the limitation is meaningful in itself, why did the administration agree to include it in the treaty? Why did we make this concession on missile defense to the Russians? The short answer is because we got a very good deal on missile defense, gaining several benefits by agreeing not to do something we were never going to do. That is pretty good negotiating I think. The five converted missile silos at Vandenberg were a major source of contention in the context of the existing original START treaty. The Russians considered the conversion of those silos a compliance problem. They worried we would be able to convert them back and forth and undermine the treaty's central numerical limits on nuclear weapons. Apparently, in negotiations over this new treaty, the Russians pushed us to either undo the conversions to missile defense at Vandenberg or to count the silos under the New START central limitations on our arsenal. We met neither of those Russian demands. Instead, in return for agreeing not to perform future conversions that are unnecessary and undesirable, we got the five existing missile defense silos at Vandenberg grandfathered. That means not only do they continue as defense silos, but Russia can no longer raise compliance complaints because we converted those silos to defense. More importantly, with the conversion ban in place, our missile defenses are not subject to the treaty and its inspection regime. It is true we will exhibit the Vandenberg silos to the Russians on two occasions in the future, to assure them that the five converted silos remain unable to launch ICBMs. But by keeping Vandenberg out of the regular inspection and verification regime established by the new treaty, we deprive the Russians of a precedent for extending inspections to our defenses elsewhere. If conversion were allowed under the New START treaty, our missile defenses at Fort Greely, for instance, would potentially be subject to intrusive inspection by the Russians, to determine whether any such conversions had taken place. Instead, with the conversion ban in place, Fort Greely and other missile defenses are off limits. I am not entirely sure why the Russians agreed to this, but it is very good for us, and our negotiators deserve praise for article V, section 3. We kept something of value--namely the existing Vandenberg converted silos--we cleared up a source of contention with the Russians, and we kept our missile defenses out of the New START regime, ensuring they are not subject to intrusive inspection by the Russians. In exchange, we agreed to ban something that, again, we were never going to do--further convert silos--because that would be unwise in the first place. In other words, article V is a good reason to support the treaty. But I think the deepest concern of those who have raised questions about missile defense go to the treaty's other reference to missile defense in the preamble, together with the unilateral statement Russia issued on its own on the subject, and the so-called withdrawal clause in the treaty. The treaty's preamble recognizes: The existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties. I don't think anyone would deny that there is such an interrelationship. It is simply a fact. Nor does the preamble impose any obligation on us or on the Russians. It is not a binding limit on us, it requires nothing of us, and has no effect on the nuclear forces limited or not limited by the treaty. Russia also issued a unilateral statement on missile defense at the time the treaty was signed. This is not part of the treaty and there is no binding force whatsoever on us or on the Russians. We issued a statement in response as well. Russia's unilateral statement asserts the treaty can only be effective and viable where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in our missile defense system capabilities. That is not what the actual treaty's preamble says. Beyond that, the statement goes on to state that a missile defense buildup ``such that it would give rise to a threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation'' would count as an extraordinary event under article XIV of the treaty. Article XIV includes the withdrawal clause, which is a standard part of arms control treaties. That clause makes clear that each country has the right to withdraw from the treaty if it judges that extraordinary events related to the treaty's subject matter have jeopardized its supreme interests. That judgment cannot be second-guessed. Russia or the United States can always make a decision that its supreme interests require it to withdraw from the treaty under article XIV, and there is nothing the other party can do about it. Some of my colleagues on the other side are troubled and worried that Russia will seek to leverage the mention of missile defense in the preamble and their unilateral statement to pressure the United States to limit our missile defense. These worries are without foundation. The preamble and unilateral statement add no force whatsoever to article XIV's power of withdrawal from the treaty. And as Secretary Gates testified, we know the Russians have hated missile defense for decades, since strategic arms talks started. There is no surprise here. So it is no surprise that the Russians say a fundamental change in the strategic balance between our countries because of missile defense might lead them to withdraw from the treaty. But even that threat is far less than it has been made out to be by the treaty's critics. Even the Russians' own unilateral statements count only a missile defense buildup that ``would give rise to a threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation'' as potential cause for withdrawal. Right now, we have 30 ground-based interceptors and the Russians will be able to deploy up to 1,500 nuclear warheads. It is accepted you need at least two interceptors for each threat missile. We can and will continue to improve and deploy our missile defense without changing the fundamental situation with Russia. We can improve and expand our missile defense without threatening strategic stability with Russia. U.S. missile defense simply won't meet the Russians' own description of cause for withdrawal. But suppose the Russians see things otherwise. What is it that the Russians are actually threatening? Are they threatening to withdraw from the treaty? No. Here is what President Medvedev said on April 9, the day after the treaty was signed, with reference to missile defense: If events develop in such a way to ultimately change the fundamental situation, Russia would be able to raise this issue with the USA. This is the sense of the interpretation and the verbal statement made yesterday. So if the Russians decide there has been a change in the fundamental situation on missile defense and offense, then they will ``raise this issue with the USA.'' Not withdraw from the treaty but raise the issue with us. That is a threat I think we can handle. There is another reason not to be overly concerned. Around the time the United States and Soviet Union signed the original START treaty in 1991, the Soviet Union issued a unilateral statement on the antiballistic missile--or ABM--treaty, which language is virtually identical to the unilateral statement the Russians just issued in connection with the New START treaty. As you know, the United States did withdraw from the ABM treaty, and Russia, the successor to the U.S.S.R, did not in turn withdraw from the original START treaty, as they threatened to do in the unilateral statement. Why would the Russians structure their unilateral statement exactly like their previous one if they wanted us to take the threat more seriously than the last one? The Russian objection to missile defense is well known and well understood. Their threat to withdraw from the treaty, such as it is, is not strong and the treaty's actual preamble imposes no obligation, restraint or pressure upon us. The bottom line is that whatever decisions the Obama administration and Congress make on missile defense policy can and will be made independent of Russian threats. Frankly, our missile defense will not threaten strategic stability with them. The New START treaty doesn't alter our calculations on missile defense one iota. If this is Russia's effort to pressure us on missile defense, it is very weak and easily resisted. I, personally, pledge to make judgments about our missile defense policy on the basis of technical and strategic considerations, entirely independent of Russian pressure, and I am sure my colleagues will do the same. To sum up, the limitation on conversion of launchers in article V of the New START treaty is, in fact, a major success of our negotiators. In return for agreeing not to convert more ICBM silos, which we were never going to do anyway, we kept our missile defense out of the treaty and away from regular Russian inspection, and we put to rest Russian complaints about our existing converted silos. We got several things of value at very low cost. Similarly, the mention of missile defense in the preamble and the nonbinding statement made by the Russians will not allow them to pressure us or exercise a veto on our missile defense. There is no meaningful pressure there. The threat is exceedingly weak and it is hard to see how my colleagues would take it seriously. There is simply not a missile defense problem with this treaty, but don't just take it from me. In addition to the extraordinary support this treaty has garnered from foreign policy experts across the political spectrum, there is remarkable support amongst our defense leadership responsible for missile defense. This ranges from the Secretary of Defense to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the service chiefs, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command responsible for our nuclear deterrent, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. What is more, seven former commanders of Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command recently wrote to the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees to express their support for ratification of the treaty and specifically dismissed objections based on missile defense. I hope we consider the resolution of ratification on the floor of the Senate as soon as possible. The substantive case for the treaty could not be stronger. It is time to bring it into force. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN. I ask the chairman, when this Senator was presiding, another Senator was on the floor saying that we got this in May, and now it is close to the end of the year, and it is outrageous that we are doing it now. I ask Senator Kerry, didn't he accommodate those on the other side of this issue several times when they asked for delay themselves?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my decision, after a lot of serious contemplation, to support the legislation before us. I believe that Minnesotans deserve a better deal than this one. But unfortunately, this is the one we have. For Minnesota's middle class, there is a lot in this bill that will not only be helpful but is absolutely critical. It stops their taxes from going up on January 1. It provides a payroll tax holiday that gives families making $50,000 a year a $1,000 tax break. For Minnesotans who are truly suffering right now--men, women, and children on the edge of economic disaster--it reinstates emergency Federal unemployment benefits that expired at the end of last month. Not restoring these benefits would be devastating to Minnesota families and to our economy, leading to a lot more pain for working families, a lot more homeless kids spending Christmas in a shelter or a car. I came here to make people's lives better, and so I must vote to pass this legislation. But this was perhaps the hardest vote I have ever taken so far as a Senator. I wish to tell you why. We have spent the better part of a year talking about the ballooning deficit. Republicans and Democrats agree--in every decision we make, every penny we spend, we need to keep in mind that it will be added to our national debt. At the same time, we need to be mindful of our fragile economic recovery. Are we spending it in the most efficient and responsible way possible--to get people back to work and get our economy back on track? I was hoping to see a tax package that would reflect these priorities--mindful of the debt, helpful to our economic recovery, fair to the American people. But instead, this legislation spends billions of dollars on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. These are Americans who have prospered in recent years. According to the Economic Policy Institute, during the past 20 years, 56 percent of all income growth has gone to the top 1 percent of households. Even more unbelievable, a third of all income growth went to just the top tenth of 1 percent. At the same time, middle-class families have done decidedly worse. When you adjust for inflation, the median household income declined over the last decade. During those years, while the rich were getting richer, the rest of working America was struggling to keep up. We have been growing apart in our Nation. We should be tackling this kind of inequality, not exacerbating it. And that is what I find so frustrating about this legislation. It keeps our country on the same path of widening inequality. We are securing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires twice as long as we are maintaining Federal unemployment benefits. This bill's estate tax provisions provide a windfall for the richest fraction of 1 percent of Americans. In these tough economic times and with these current deficits, we should be spending money only on those policies that will create the most jobs. But, as I mentioned, despite the concerns I have about this bill, it undeniably provides essential help to Minnesota's families. This package reauthorizes emergency unemployment benefits through the end of next year. They are a vital lifeline for families in need and a vital lifeline for our economy. I meet people back in Minnesota who tell me they hate taking unemployment benefits but they would have lost their homes without them. Unemployment benefits yield $2 in demand for every dollar spent, according to a new report from the Department of Labor. This is a very effective way to stimulate our economy and create jobs. The same holds for the payroll tax holiday that is included in this package. It is going to put real dollars in the hands of millions of Americans--dollars they are going to spend. I strongly support extending the expanded earned-income tax credit, which helps about 6.5 million working parents. I am glad this legislation includes the American opportunity tax credit, making college tuition more affordable for 8 million students. This bill also extends the renewable energy grant program, the R&D tax credit, and the ethanol and biodiesel tax credits--all provisions I strongly support. Voting no on this legislation would be voting no on all of these vital programs. The economists are in general agreement that this legislation will help the economy. Mark Zandi, on whose economic analysis I have frequently relied in the past, has encouraging projections. He sees this package adding a full percentage point to economic growth next year. He is especially optimistic about the new business investment deduction's potential for spending. In fact, he predicts unemployment will reach below 9 percent by the end of next year and will close in on 7.5 percent by the end of 2012. These figures are all significantly better than what we would expect without this legislation. This isn't the bill I would have wanted. If there were a better way, I would do it in a heartbeat. But today we are forced to decide between taking a stand against irresponsible tax cuts for millionaires versus helping struggling families. Given that choice, I simply can't turn my back on all Minnesotans who desperately need the help this bill will provide. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about extending tax cuts to all Americans on income up to $250,000. I was presiding this Monday when one of my friends on the other side of the aisle was speaking on the floor, and he said with great conviction: ``We need to do everything to see that the deficit does not increase.'' Now, less than a week later, he will vote to increase the deficit by $700 billion. That is an impressive reversal, don't you think? Many of my colleagues on the other side ran for reelection this fall saying that the deficit is a cancer, that we owe it to our children and grandchildren to cut the deficit. Well, to them I say: Congratulations because for one of the first votes after returning to Washington, you are going to vote to put over $9,300 more debt on the head of every child in America. Way to go. And what is that for? To give an average tax cut of $100,000 to Americans making over $1 million a year. My friends, on this subject, have been saying to us: Haven't you learned the lesson of the election? I do not recall permanent tax cuts for millionaires being on any ballot. In fact, let's take a look at the exit polls conducted by Edison Research, the exclusive provider of the national election exit polls for all of the major TV networks and the Associated Press. In their poll, they found that roughly 60 percent of Americans wanted to end tax cuts for income over $250,000. More recently, a Quinnipiac poll said that only 35 percent of Americans wanted the Bush tax cuts extended for those with incomes over $250,000. Of course the American people feel this way. They know what has been happening over the last 20 years in this country. According to the Economic Policy Institute, during the past 20 years, 56 percent of all income growth went to the top 1 percent of households. Even more unbelievably, a third of all income growth went to just the top one- tenth of 1 percent. The wealthy have done extremely well for themselves over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, this is why the middle class has done decidedly worse. When we adjust for inflation, the median household income actually declined over the last decade. During those years, while the rich were getting richer, the rest of working America was struggling to keep up. We have been growing apart. The American people know this. Now, working Americans are forced to listen to Republicans as they demand that everyone needs to share in the pain; we are all in this together. The IRS published a study analyzing the tax returns of the wealthiest 400 Americans. Want to take a guess at what their average effective tax rate was? Just over 16.5 percent. Is that sharing the pain? Are they sharing the pain just like everybody else? Frankly, I am a little tired of being lectured to by my friends on the other side of the aisle on the deficit. We all know Bill Clinton inherited the largest deficit in history from George H.W. Bush and then handed George W. Bush the largest surplus in history. Then George W. Bush nearly doubled the national debt and also handed Barack Obama the largest deficit in history. Of course, my friends controlled the Congress for most of those Bush years. Today, we are talking about how to get our economy going and keep deficits down at the same time, while what we are discussing right now is whether to restore the Clinton marginal tax rate on the very wealthiest of Americans. I remember that when he raised the tax rate on the top 2 percent, Republicans said that would kill the economy. Newt Gingrich--remember him--on August 5, 1993, said: I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable. Senator Phil Gramm--remember him--said: The Clinton plan is a one-way ticket to recession. This plan does not reduce the deficit . . . but it raises it and puts people out of work. Governor-elect John Kasich said: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I would have to become a Democrat. Congratulations, Ohio, on electing a Democratic Governor. Mr. President, 22.7 million jobs and a giant surplus later, George W. Bush waltzes into office and says: Hey, we are running a surplus. The people deserve a tax cut. Let's recall what he said about his tax cut. He said over and over again: By far, the vast majority of the help goes to those at the bottom end of the economic ladder. Wow. That sounds like the bottom got the vast majority of the tax cuts, doesn't it? They didn't. Actually, the bottom 60 percent of Americans got just 14.7 percent of the Bush tax cuts. The top 1 percent got 29.5 percent of the tax cuts, which is exactly double. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent got double of what the bottom 60 percent got. The results of this new policy? Massive deficits. Only 1 million new jobs over the 8 years of the Bush Presidency, compared to 22.7 million during Clinton's 8 years. My friends in the minority want to go back to that discredited economic policy. The figleaf here is small business. They attack us and say that not cutting taxes on the richest Americans will hurt small business. Well, it seems that, to my friends, some small businesses are more important than others. Why did they block us for months on passing the Small Business Jobs Act, which gave tax cuts to small businesses and created a $30 billion line of credit for small businesses on Main Street? Why did they oppose the HIRE Act, which gave large tax cuts to small businesses to encourage them to hire unemployed workers? Well, it seems these aren't the small businesses my friends are so concerned about. When you and I think about small businesses, we picture the mom-and-pop grocer down the street somewhere in Oregon or Minnesota or maybe a hardware store or a small precision manufacturing operation--we have a lot of those in Minnesota. We probably think of them as small businesses because they are small. They probably have a few employees, one location, and make a modest but comfortable living doing it. Republicans are trying to scare us into believing that the grocer and the hardware store owners will shutter their doors and fire people if we return the top two tax brackets to previous levels. But that is simply not the case. In reality, only 3 percent of small businesses will be affected by this change. Yet you will hear Republicans tout that these top 3 percent of businesses make up 50 percent of the total small business income. That tells you one important thing--that those 3 percent of small businesses aren't truly small businesses. Only under the broadest, most arbitrary of definitions are these businesses small. When many of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about small businesses, they are including anybody who uses a flowthrough business entity--so an S corp or a partnership. They are not defining a small business by size, profits or the number of people they employ. They are defining it on a technicality. Under their definition, Bechtel, the fifth largest company in the United States, is a small business. The Koch brothers, who run a petroleum company with nearly $100 billion in annual revenue, are considered a small business. They are worth about $16 billion each. Law firm partners and Wall Street bond traders are considered small businesses. So Republicans are using the mom-and-pop grocery store to defend the continuation of these tax cuts. In reality, the only people they are helping are the Bechtels and the Kochs of the world and maybe Derek Jeter, Inc.--he deserves every dollar he gets--and Mel Gibson, Inc.-- maybe he has had a bad year--and other likely ``small business'' beneficiaries. At the same time that Republicans are demanding unpaid-for tax cuts for the Koch brothers, they are insisting we pay for a continuation of the emergency unemployment insurance program. They want to pay for it, even though unemployment benefits have been shown to be an extremely effective stimulus--in fact, one of the most effective stimulus measures. Why? Because when unemployed workers get their checks for a couple hundred dollars, they go to their local mom-and-pop grocery store and buy food. They spend that money right away in their communities in real small businesses. It is the holidays. Can they afford to buy a small Christmas present for their kids? I am worried that there are those among us who would say: No, no presents. The Republicans say these unemployment benefits are too expensive. They demand that these benefits must be paid for. But tax cuts for the richest people in America--no need to pay for those. Adding $700 billion to the deficit--or actually $830 billion when factoring in extra interest payments--that is no problem. I hear my friends on the other side say we are going to have to make some hard choices. I agree. The deficit is a problem. Getting it under control will take shared sacrifice. There are a lot of Minnesotans who have to make hard choices now. Maybe it means giving up a second car or no summer camp for the kids. Some communities in Minnesota have had to go to a 4-day school week because there just isn't the money there. Some Minnesotans have been even harder hit. Their unemployment insurance was cut off earlier this week because of us. They have a lot of hard choices right now. Where are they going to live if they can't pay their mortgage or their rent? Choices: food or medicine or heat. How do I give my kids anything resembling a Christmas? These are people who lost their jobs and desperately want to find work, but we can't pass unemployment insurance for them unless it is paid for. But for the owners of Bechtel or PricewaterhouseCoopers--yes, PricewaterhouseCoopers is a small business too--the sky is the limit. I am Jewish. I don't know the New Testament all that well, but I do know Matthew, which says: Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of my brethren, you did for me. I went to a union hall not long ago for the building trades. A carpenter came up to me--a big, strong guy with rough hands, big calloused hands--with tears in his eyes. He had just a little bit of work here and there over the last 18 months. He said to me: I never took unemployment insurance before. I hate it. But if it weren't for my unemployment insurance, I wouldn't be in my house. Making tough choices means doing one thing and not another. Right now, we are faced with that choice. If we can't agree to help people such as that carpenter and his family by continuing emergency unemployment benefits, how can we live with ourselves? How can we think we are doing our jobs? The choice before us is clear this holiday season: Lend a hand to those who simply can't get by without the help or give $100,000 in average tax cuts to people making over $1 million. Where are our values? What are we doing here? It is almost Christmas. We will be leaving to spend time with our families. We have jobs; we have great jobs. I think this is the greatest job--trying to make people's lives better back in Minnesota. That is my job. I ask my colleagues this: What are we doing here? I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess for the weekly caucus meetings, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again about the New START treaty. Today I will talk about the New START treaty and the maintenance of a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. That means maintaining and sustaining the nuclear weapons stockpile and delivery platforms; modernizing the buildings and equipment in the nuclear weapons complex; and supporting the experts and scientists who are involved in it. I would like to preface my remarks by underlining the urgency for the Senate to ratify the treaty. How can it be that we do not have a treaty with Russia in place, along with its verification regime 360 days after the expiration of the original START treaty? That is more than 6 months after the administration submitted the treaty to the Senate. The verification regime will provide crucial insight into Russian forces, insight that is degrading over time without the treaty in place. We need to ratify this treaty now. For decades, our relations with the Soviet Union, and now with Russia, have been stabilized and made more predictable and cooperative through arms control agreements. How can it be that now, when Russia is no longer our enemy and yet not our ally, my friends across the aisle are refusing to move forward on ratifying a modest treaty that is critical for our national security? If consideration of the treaty is delayed or blocked, it will make cooperation with Russia on national security interests much more difficult, if not impossible. Do you seriously believe that, if you block or reject the treaty, we will see Russia's continued cooperation with international sanctions on Iran? Are you not concerned that Russia will reconsider its prohibition on the sale of the S-300 anti-air defense missile systems to Iran, as it did in September? And why put the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program at risk? Senator Lugar himself has warned that failure to ratify the treaty could imperil that enormously successful program in securing loose nukes. If this modest treaty is blocked by the minority, I do not believe my friends on the other side will be pleased with the consequences. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to see negotiations with Russia on reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. I agree. That is going to be a difficult task under any circumstances. But as our lead negotiator Rose Gottemoeller said recently, there is zero chance of getting to the negotiating table with the Russians on tactical nuclear weapons unless we get this treaty ratified and entered into force. It is also important to note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been delaying consideration of the treaty for some time. Back in August, Senator McConnell said, ``The only way this treaty gets in trouble is if it's rushed.'' And Senator Kyl told reporters that since it could be hard to get everything done before the November election, the Senate might need a lameduck session to vote on New START. The administration and Chairman Kerry deferred to those Republicans, but now those same colleagues are saying we can not do it during the lameduck session. To them, I say, if not now, when? If we defer and delay further, we risk a collapse in relations with Russia, including the loss of their continued cooperation on the all-important Iran issue. Now, the remaining major objection to ratification that Republicans have raised is not a feature of the treaty itself, but maintenance and modernization of our nuclear arsenal and complex. There is bipartisan agreement that as our nuclear arsenal gets smaller through arms control agreements, ensuring that it remains safe, secure, and effective takes on added importance. From my perspective that is the fundamental justification for nuclear modernization. And I agree with Senator Kyl, who emphasized in a floor statement, and I quote, the ``direct link between nuclear force reductions and modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.'' Likewise, Senator McCain has noted that, ``as we move to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile, this modernization effort becomes all the more important.'' The Obama administration has made a serious commitment to nuclear modernization, and they have paired it with arms control. We have an extensive set of programs in place to retain confidence in the stockpile without testing. We are extending the life of our current nuclear delivery vehicles and studying, planning, and beginning the next generation. And we are continuing to develop plans for major improvements in the complex of facilities that support the nuclear enterprise. I support the administration's approach to modernization tethered to arms control. Now I have to admit, in these tough economic times, I do have concerns with spending $85 billion on an enormous nuclear complex, that is a staggering amount of money. Without a commitment to arms control and nonproliferation, it is impossible to justify spending that much money. This is the 21st century, not the cold war, and our needs are different. That is why I will not support this massive investment in modernization without an equal commitment to arms control and nonproliferation. That is why earlier this year I joined several colleagues in writing to the Budget Committee in support of the administration's massive Fiscal Year 2011 request for the National Nuclear Safety Administration, or NNSA. I will continue to fight for nuclear modernization paired with arms control. But they must be paired. Our national security requires it. And political reality requires it. That is what the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, better known as the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, made clear. The Commission's report has been the main touchstone on all sides of the debate over New START. The December 15, 2009 letter to the President from 41 of my colleagues, including all the members of the minority, relies heavily on the Commission's recommendations in spelling out its requirements for the treaty and modernization. Senator McCain's September 14 letter to the Foreign Relations Committee relies on the Commission's perspective on the modernization of the nuclear complex. Senator Kyl's May 24, 2010, floor speech on New START also makes prominent reference to and endorses the Commission's report. Here is the first page of the report's Executive Summary: ``While deterrence plays an essential role in reducing nuclear dangers, it is not the only means for doing so, and accordingly the United States must seek additional cooperative measures of a political kind, including for example arms control and nonproliferation. This is a time when these approaches can be renewed and reenergized.'' Not only deterrence, but also arms control and nonproliferation. We must be committed to both together. That is why the Commission goes on to say, ``These components of strategy must be integrated into a comprehensive approach.'' It is just such a comprehensive approach that the administration has taken. In its very first recommendation, the Commission warns of the importance of maintaining both components of strategy: The United States should continue to pursue an approach to reducing nuclear dangers that balances deterrence, arms control, and nonproliferation. Singular emphasis on one or another element would reduce the nuclear security of the United States and its allies.'' I submit that the administration and those of us who have pushed nuclear modernization in good faith, to support deterrence and nonproliferation and arms control, are following this recommendation. Those who have held the New START treaty hostage to ungrounded complaints about modernization and ever-changing demands are not. I believe many of my colleagues on the other side will vote for this treaty. They understand that it is modest but also important, and they will put national security ahead of partisan political pressures. But if a small number of Republicans continue to delay and block this treaty, they will be responsible for the disintegration of the consensus on nuclear modernization, and the complex and arsenal will once again become subject to controversy, dispute, and drift. That is just the reality. It is true that Republicans have broadly questioned the administration's commitment on nuclear modernization. But their criticisms do not stand up to scrutiny. Thus, Senator Kyl's criticisms of the Obama administration's pledge to spend $100 billion to maintain and modernize nuclear delivery systems, that is right, $100 billion, is that ``the plan makes a commitment only to a next-generation submarine, not to a next- generation bomber, ballistic missile, or air-launched cruise missile.'' This makes it sound like the administration lacks commitment to a credible deterrent, but that is just not true. Where decisions need to be made now, the administration has made them, with respect to the SSBN(X), the next-generation submarine. Where decisions would benefit from further consideration, and do not need to be made now, that is what is happening. The administration is undertaking a comprehensive set of assessments of 21st century threats and needs, and it will then make decisions on what follows the Minuteman III, the Air-Launched Cruise Missile, and the B-52 and B-2. The Minuteman III missile is, by congressional mandate, having its life extended through 2030. Studies to inform the decision about the follow-on are needed now, and they are happening. Similarly, the Department of Defense is studying the right mix of long-range strike capabilities, and part of that will be the appropriate role for successors to the Air-Launched Cruise Missile and the bomber. The decision with respect to our bombers can be made in the future because the bombers, though old, don't get that much stress and still have a lot of life left in them. The same is true for the Air- Launched Cruise Missile, though a decision on what will follow next needs to be made sooner. The decision on our long-range strike capabilities should be deferred in part because, as the Under Secretary of Defense recently explained, the DoD will seek the same productivity growth and cost savings here as it is pursuing with the SSBN(X) submarine. On the nuclear stockpile, the administration, with congressional support, is moving forward with the ongoing Life Extension Program for the W76 and with studies for the B61 Life Extension Program. It will also conduct a similar study for the W78, including exploring the potential for a common system with the W88 warhead. Some of my Republican friends have complained that the administration's policy for the refurbishment, reuse, and replacement of nuclear components in the warheads unduly constrains the work of scientists in the nuclear complex. This is not so, as the lab directors have testified. These lab directors are on the frontlines of maintaining and modernizing the stockpile, and they will have the flexibility they need. Then there is the nuclear complex. In the 10-year plan the administration submitted under section 1251 of last year's defense authorization, the administration made an historic investment in the nuclear complex. It set a dramatically higher baseline for fiscal year 2011. It included several years of funding increases consistent with what the NNSA can absorb and execute. And over 10 years, it initially committed to an $80 billion investment in the nuclear complex, a $10 billion increase. Now, the Democratic Congress took the extraordinary step this past September of including funding at the full fiscal year 2011 level for weapons activities in the continuing resolution we passed. Almost everything else in the continuing resolution stuck to 2010 levels. The nuclear complex is one of the most controversial parts of the debate over nuclear modernization, particularly the prospect of replacing two major facilities. The first is the chemistry and metallurgy research facility replacement at Los Alamos, which is central to our plutonium capabilities. The second is the uranium processing facility at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee. Republicans have complained that there is uncertainty and not enough funding for these two replacement projects. But the administration's budget has shown a significant commitment. Where there is uncertainty, it is not due to a lack of commitment on the administration's part, but simply because the design and planning processes for these facilities are in an early phase. We simply do not know what construction of the facilities is going to cost, and that is something the fiscal year 2011 budget submission from NNSA makes abundantly clear. To budget as though we did know those costs would be irresponsible--especially for an agency that has historically been plagued by cost overruns. It is simply too soon to have a solid baseline planning number. To be sure, the administration has been updating and revising its plans and estimates. Two weeks ago, it released an update to its section 1251 report with a revised, substantially higher cost estimate for both replacement facilities. It also included yet more funding for the NNSA's overall budget. The administration has proposed an additional $600 million in funding for fiscal year 2012 and an additional $4.1 billion over the next 5 years. That brings the total for the next decade to $85 billion. This both serves as a reminder that it is too early to have a fixed budget for the new facilities, and also strongly reinforces the administration's good-faith effort and commitment. This brings me back to my fundamental point. I believe that support for the two new facilities can be sustained if we follow the path laid out by the Perry-Schlesinger Commission and pursued by the administration. This means balancing deterrence, arms control, and non- proliferation. The reality is that there will be significant questions and doubts about proceeding with such a costly modernization effort if it is not accompanied by equal support for arms control and non- proliferation. There is no doubt that the existing facilities are aging and run down. There are even safety problems. Something must be done. But if we are going to move forward effectively, modernization must be paired with arms control. And that starts with a modest first step-- ratification of the New START. Without that step, consensus will break down, the replacement facilities will once again lose a coherent mission, and we will be stuck with drift and controversy. The Perry-Schlesinger Commission recognizes that if it is not possible to sustain the budget requisite for both facilities concurrently, choices will have to be made. They give powerful reasons for moving forward with the chemistry and metallurgy research facility before the uranium processing facility. That is the kind of tough choice we will have to make if New START is not ratified. Similarly, real uncertainty will creep into the consideration of just what sort of project the chemistry and metallurgy research facility should be. Let me conclude by noting that the administration and the Democratic Congress have met every demand that many of my friends across the aisle have made on modernization. To my friends on the other side, I say, look at the demands in the December 2009 letter that you all signed. The administration has met each of those demands. Look at what Senator Kyl said in an op-ed in July: ``A key test is whether the Democratic-controlled Congress will approve the president's nuclear modernization requests for the coming fiscal year.'' We passed that test, and as I mentioned earlier under an otherwise flat-lined continuing resolution. In that same piece, and in his March letter with Senator McConnell to the President, Senator Kyl indicated he wanted assurances that the fiscal year 2012 budget would include adequate funding as well. Although next year's budget is not due out until February, as I mentioned before, the administration has already announced what it will be requesting, and it will be another enormous increase in the weapons activities budget. Can there really be any doubt that the administration will move aggressively forward with modernization--if Republicans take the first modest step of ratifying New START now? We have passed our key test. The administration has met the demands Senator Kyl had laid out. Now the key test for Senator Kyl and others is whether they will join us in ratifying the New START. If they don't do that now, the consensus that we have built will fall apart. Our national security will be put at risk. And we will return to the dark days when the nuclear enterprise was the subject of neglect and controversy. The New START is a modest but very important step. It is one we should all take together, without controversy. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally between both sides.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we have big problems in the debt collection industry that are long overdue in being addressed. Before I even begin, I wish to preface my remarks by saying when someone takes out a loan, they ought to pay it back. I have no intention of making it easier for people to skip out on legitimate debts. But we also cannot sit idly by as debt collectors prey on good people who have always tried to do the right thing. In 1977, by my calculations 33 years ago, Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect consumers from abusive practices by debt collectors. But times have changed and that law needs updating. Congress did not foresee the abuses that would arise as the growing debt collection industry found ways around the intent of the law to make a profit on the backs of hard-working Americans. All around our country, there are numerous stories of people being taken advantage of by unscrupulous debt collectors. The debt collectors do not let the law or common decency stop them from doing whatever it takes for them to make a buck. Those abuses include nasty and harassing calls, including the use of racial slurs and going after innocent people for debts they do not owe. In my State alone, and you can find similar stories from all over the country, consumers have been subjected to endless collection attempts over debts they do not recognize or debts they do not believe ever existed, debts that have already been paid, debts owed by different people, and debts that have been dramatically inflated. Just this week, I met a man from Minnesota who was repeatedly harassed by debt collectors for a debt he did not owe. And in spite of the evidence he provided, it did not stop until he got a lawyer. Debt collectors have time and money on their side, and now some are even exploiting scarce law enforcement resources to go after unsuspecting Minnesotans. Debt collection firms are preying on people with good intentions. But without the time and money to figure out their rights and to fight back, this is basically a David and Goliath situation, but here, usually Goliath is the one that wins. For some people, this bad situation spirals into an even worse nightmare. The problems in the debt collection industry first came to my attention in June, when my hometown newspaper, the Star Tribune, began a series on the subject about the story about the Minnesotans who have landed in jail because debt collectors were pursuing them for a debt. One woman who told her story, a Minneapolis resident, spent a full day in jail over a $250 credit card debt. During that day she was treated like a criminal, groped by an inmate, and offered drugs by another, and slept in a room with a dozen other women, sharing a toilet with no privacy. Here is what she told the newspaper. We hear every day about how there is no money for public services. But it seems like the collectors have found a way to get the police to do their work. She is right. These rogue debt collectors are gaming the system and using law enforcement resources for the sole purpose of corporate profit. Then there is the story of a woman from Richfield, MN, a suburb south of Minneapolis, who was arrested one day recently because she had defaulted on a credit card in 2006. A debt-buying company had bought up her old credit card debt and started sending collection notices. But she ignored them because she had never heard of that company. The next thing you know, she was stopped on the road and arrested. This harassment and abuse needs to be stopped. That is why Senator LeMieux and I are introducing the End Debt Collector Abuse Act, which would forbid debt collectors from seeking the arrest of a consumer in pursuit of payment. The court can initiate it, just not the debt collector. It would also require the debt collectors to provide consumers with, get this, basic information upfront such as an itemization of principle, fees, and interest that make up the debt, so that consumers can recognize a debt, determine whether the collectors' claim is accurate, and exercise their rights. This bill will also require the debt collectors provide the name of the original creditor upfront so we can avoid cases such as that women from Richfield, who received collection notices from a company she had never heard of and, quite reasonably, ignored them. It is just common sense to make sure that debt collectors provide this sort of basic information upfront so these misunderstandings do not happen. In the case a consumer does identify an inaccuracy with a debt claim, some debt collectors currently do little or nothing in terms of investigating whether the consumer's dispute is correct. For that reason, this bill would require the collectors conduct a thorough investigation when a consumer contacts them about a mistake. The collector would then have to provide the consumer with specific evidence about the dispute. Finally, the End Debt Collector Abuse Act would increase the penalties for violating consumer rights in order to crack down on the rogue debt collectors who have been blatantly and willfully ignoring current Federal prohibitions against harassing calls and other abusive practices. In this tough economy, Minnesotans are suffering enough right now and they deserve to have the basic protections against abusive debt collective practices. I urge my colleagues to join Senator LeMieux and me in supporting this bill so we can stop the abuse and harassment of hard-working Americans by rogue debt collection firms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of supports be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we have big problems in the debt collection industry that are long overdue in being addressed. Before I even begin, I wish to preface my remarks by saying when someone takes out a loan, they ought to pay it back. I have no intention of making it easier for people to skip out on legitimate debts. But we also cannot sit idly by as debt collectors prey on good people who have always tried to do the right thing. In 1977, by my calculations 33 years ago, Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect consumers from abusive practices by debt collectors. But times have changed and that law needs updating. Congress did not foresee the abuses that would arise as the growing debt collection industry found ways around the intent of the law to make a profit on the backs of hard-working Americans. All around our country, there are numerous stories of people being taken advantage of by unscrupulous debt collectors. The debt collectors do not let the law or common decency stop them from doing whatever it takes for them to make a buck. Those abuses include nasty and harassing calls, including the use of racial slurs and going after innocent people for debts they do not owe. In my State alone, and you can find similar stories from all over the country, consumers have been subjected to endless collection attempts over debts they do not recognize or debts they do not believe ever existed, debts that have already been paid, debts owed by different people, and debts that have been dramatically inflated. Just this week, I met a man from Minnesota who was repeatedly harassed by debt collectors for a debt he did not owe. And in spite of the evidence he provided, it did not stop until he got a lawyer. Debt collectors have time and money on their side, and now some are even exploiting scarce law enforcement resources to go after unsuspecting Minnesotans. Debt collection firms are preying on people with good intentions. But without the time and money to figure out their rights and to fight back, this is basically a David and Goliath situation, but here, usually Goliath is the one that wins. For some people, this bad situation spirals into an even worse nightmare. The problems in the debt collection industry first came to my attention in June, when my hometown newspaper, the Star Tribune, began a series on the subject about the story about the Minnesotans who have landed in jail because debt collectors were pursuing them for a debt. One woman who told her story, a Minneapolis resident, spent a full day in jail over a $250 credit card debt. During that day she was treated like a criminal, groped by an inmate, and offered drugs by another, and slept in a room with a dozen other women, sharing a toilet with no privacy. Here is what she told the newspaper. We hear every day about how there is no money for public services. But it seems like the collectors have found a way to get the police to do their work. She is right. These rogue debt collectors are gaming the system and using law enforcement resources for the sole purpose of corporate profit. Then there is the story of a woman from Richfield, MN, a suburb south of Minneapolis, who was arrested one day recently because she had defaulted on a credit card in 2006. A debt-buying company had bought up her old credit card debt and started sending collection notices. But she ignored them because she had never heard of that company. The next thing you know, she was stopped on the road and arrested. This harassment and abuse needs to be stopped. That is why Senator LeMieux and I are introducing the End Debt Collector Abuse Act, which would forbid debt collectors from seeking the arrest of a consumer in pursuit of payment. The court can initiate it, just not the debt collector. It would also require the debt collectors to provide consumers with, get this, basic information upfront such as an itemization of principle, fees, and interest that make up the debt, so that consumers can recognize a debt, determine whether the collectors' claim is accurate, and exercise their rights. This bill will also require the debt collectors provide the name of the original creditor upfront so we can avoid cases such as that women from Richfield, who received collection notices from a company she had never heard of and, quite reasonably, ignored them. It is just common sense to make sure that debt collectors provide this sort of basic information upfront so these misunderstandings do not happen. In the case a consumer does identify an inaccuracy with a debt claim, some debt collectors currently do little or nothing in terms of investigating whether the consumer's dispute is correct. For that reason, this bill would require the collectors conduct a thorough investigation when a consumer contacts them about a mistake. The collector would then have to provide the consumer with specific evidence about the dispute. Finally, the End Debt Collector Abuse Act would increase the penalties for violating consumer rights in order to crack down on the rogue debt collectors who have been blatantly and willfully ignoring current Federal prohibitions against harassing calls and other abusive practices. In this tough economy, Minnesotans are suffering enough right now and they deserve to have the basic protections against abusive debt collective practices. I urge my colleagues to join Senator LeMieux and me in supporting this bill so we can stop the abuse and harassment of hard-working Americans by rogue debt collection firms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of supports be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss something I regret. I regret that Democrats have allowed the word ``stimulus'' to become a dirty word, one that we avoid using. The President spoke a few weeks ago about his new plan to invest $50 billion in new infrastructure--projects that will improve safety and transportation. But he never once mentioned the words ``stimulus'' or ``recovery.'' That was probably a smart move on his part because, frankly, the stimulus has gotten a bad rap. But this is a reputation it absolutely does not deserve. There are Members of this body who opposed the Recovery Act because they thought it would not work or did not jibe with their theory of economics or of how the government should address recessions, and that is fine. They were entitled to vote the way they thought best. But now a year and a half later, we have been able to see the economic effects of the Recovery Act. To deny it has been a success is simply to ignore the facts. A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that either the stimulus bill did nothing to help the economy or even made it worse. The economic data, however, indicates otherwise. How do we explain this disparity between what people believe and what the data supports? Members of the American public do not form opinions out of thin air. They engage themselves. They watch the news. They listen to speeches by elected officials. One would expect that watching the news and listening to your elected officials would be a decent way to form an opinion about something. Unfortunately, the talking heads on many of the news shows, along with many elected officials, have been feeding the American public half-truths, at best, about the Recovery Act, and that, frankly, is cheating the American people out of the facts. Today, I wish to go through some of these claims made by these talking heads and elected officials and then follow it up with some data, and that way the American people can use the facts to decide for themselves. Let's take claim No. 1 about the Recovery Act, made by one of my colleagues in February: ``It didn't create one new job.'' The Congressional Budget Office--the arbiter and referee of economic questions that we in the Senate all have agreed to abide by--reports that the Recovery Act has increased employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million people. A separate report issued by two respected economists corroborates CBO's estimates, putting the figure at about 2.7 million jobs. That report was issued by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. That is Mark Zandi, who, incidentally, was a key economic adviser to the John McCain Presidential campaign in 2008. I understand that economic analysis has a lot of errors; that estimating jobs figures is very complex and it is difficult to determine whether a job was created or saved. But when CBO and respected economists agree that employment has increased by millions of jobs, is it at all plausible that the Recovery Act didn't create a single new job? Well, of course it is not. But that doesn't seem to stop some misinformed souls from claiming that. Let's tackle the second claim. My friends on the other side of the aisle often imply that tax cuts would have been more effective than the Recovery Act. But perhaps they have forgotten that over one-third of the stimulus package in the Recovery Act was comprised of tax cuts-- $288 billion of it. Unfortunately, the tax cuts were designed in a way so that many Americans didn't notice they were getting them. An extra 20 bucks on your paycheck adds up for you and the economy over time but people don't notice it as they do when they get a big lump sum rebate or refund. But here is the thing about lump sum refunds. People like to save them or pay off debts with them. When you get an extra 20 bucks in the paycheck, you are more likely to spend it, giving the economy a boost. This explains one unfortunate paradox of the Recovery Act. Because the tax cut was well designed, it helped boost consumer spending, but nobody noticed it. But that is not a failure of Recovery Act policy, that is a failure of getting the message to the American taxpayers. The tax cuts in the Recovery Act did their part. According to CBO, tax cuts for those in lower income brackets increased GDP by $1.70 for every dollar in tax cut. For those who would argue the Recovery Act should have been only tax cuts, consider this: While tax cuts for lower brackets yielded a $1.70 GDP boost, tax cuts for higher income earners and companies only raised GDP by 50 cents per dollar spent, and neither of these figures compares to the return on the Recovery Act's public works investment--an impressive $2.50 increase in GDP for every dollar spent. After tax cuts, another substantial portion of the stimulus was fiscal aid to States. The Recovery Act provided about $224 billion to States so they wouldn't have to slash essential State programs. State budgets across the country are in dire straits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 46 States will have budget shortfalls this year. Over the past 2 years, the Recovery Act has helped fill in a large percentage of State fiscal gaps. Imagine where State budgets would be had they not received assistance from the Recovery Act. Imagine the layoffs of teachers and firefighters and law enforcement, and of people who deliver key social services, for which there is far more demand during an economic downturn. Let's look at another misleading claim--that the Recovery Act failed because it didn't keep the employment rate under 8 percent, as President Obama promised. Well, it is true that President Obama's advisers did not accurately forecast the gravity of the unemployment crisis. But, frankly, nobody did. And because of the lag in unemployment data, we now know that unemployment had already surpassed 8 percent by the time the Recovery Act was signed into law. Let me walk you through this, because it is interesting, I promise. The claim about Obama's promise of keeping unemployment down actually came from a report issued by Obama's advisers on January 9, 2009-- before he took office. In early January, we only had access to job numbers through November. Back in November 2008, unemployment was about 6.9 percent. By December, it had risen to 7.4 percent. But the Recovery Act wasn't signed until February 17, and by February the unemployment rate had risen to 8.2 percent. So the unemployment rate was already over 8 percent when the Recovery Act was signed, let alone had any chance to go into effect. By that time, Obama's advisers, along with most other economists, had realized the tide of unemployment was going to be much more severe. So it is fair to say that President Obama's advisers underestimated the coming employment crisis, but it is not fair to say that unemployment exceeding 8 percent was a failure of the Recovery Act. It is preposterous to say that because the report issued by Obama's advisers contained an economic forecast that later proved to be inaccurate, therefore, Obama lied or that he broke his promise or that he is an expert in snake oil, as I heard a talking head on a Sunday show say. A forecasting error is not a lie. Let's look at another claim. As an elected official has stated: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the stimulus was passed we have lost 3 million real jobs, 2.4 million net jobs in this economy and all the calculations and reports from the White House are not going to change the fact that their economic stimulus bill has failed. Okay, this is a fun one because, technically, the first part of the claim is correct--since the Recovery Act, we have had a net job loss. Here is a chart illustrating the job losses mentioned. These are job losses, here. See. You may notice a trend. I am going to show another chart that might put this more in context. You may notice a trend here. This is President Bush. If we had a slide whistle, it would whistle up on the scale. And if you had a slide whistle for here--here is the Recovery Act--it would whistle up on the scale. There is a trend. You can tell by my slide whistle that the Recovery Act was clearly a turning point. We went from a downward slide to a relatively upward climb. It is not as fast as we would like, and things have been slightly stalled of late, but clearly--clearly--we are doing much better. This is Bush's last day in office. In fact, one could make the argument that the stimulus was key in reversing our slide into a depression. In fact, that is pretty much exactly what Blinder and Zandi have said about the Recovery Act. Remember, this is Mark Zandi, who was John McCain's economic adviser. The Blinder-Zandi report sums it up this way: The government response to the crisis ``probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.'' Again, from the adviser to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate. I think avoiding a depression is, on balance, a good thing, and I think most Americans would agree. And if they knew the facts, they would thank President Obama and the Members of Congress who kept us from sliding into another Great Depression. Let's look at a fifth claim. A prominent elected official said recently that he thinks the Recovery Act created only bureaucratic government jobs--only bureaucratic government jobs. In response to that, I wish to show a few recovery projects in progress in my State of Minnesota. You can judge for yourself whether they are bureaucratic government jobs. I am not sure how the cameras work here in the Senate for those watching on TV, but maybe they can push in here on Jamie, a Local 361 carpenter from Cloquet, MN. Here he is performing scaffolding work on the north tower of the Duluth aerial lift bridge. He is doing this in January 2010. The Duluth aerial lift bridge, I think, is the largest in North America. The south tower will be completed this winter as part of the two-phase $5 million project funded by the Recovery Act. Jamie, his wife and two children--aged 19 and 14--went without health insurance for 13 months when he was on unemployment. He was hired for this job last winter and worked enough hours on this job to get back on health insurance. The Recovery Act has enabled Jamie and his family to get back on their feet. I ask you: Does Jamie look like a government bureaucrat? How about Cecil? Here is a picture of Cecil. I want to ask you: Does Cecil look like a bean counter for OMB? Cecil is pictured here working on the Highway 610 extension project in Brooklyn Park, MN. He is building 6 miles of sound walls. I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for this project. So did a Republican Congressman from this district, who voted against the stimulus package. Cecil had been unemployed since 2008 before being hired onto this Recovery Act-funded project. He has told us he is very thankful for the opportunity to earn a living wage to support his family. Next, we have Spencer, a Local 49'er crane operator for a contractor named LUNDA, working on the 694/35W widening of bridge and on and off ramps--a $2.5 million project. There are 11 onsite contractors--private contractors--working on the project. Spencer, who is 23, is from Isle, MN, and was unemployed until this job came along. Spencer told me: I wasn't working until this job came along . . . investing in our country's infrastructure is an investment in my financial fate and family's future. As I said, his Local 49'ers run heavy machinery. I don't know about you, but I don't know many Washington bureaucrats who can safely operate heavy machinery. Who is next? Matthew and Randy, both Laborers Local 563. They had been employed by contractor CS McCrossan for 7 and 13 years, respectively, before they were both laid off last fall. But this spring, they were hired back to work on several different Recovery Act- funded projects. They are pictured here working on a pedestrian replacement bridge on 49th Avenue Northeast over Central Avenue in Columbia Heights, MN. You can see them. They are, you know, a couple of CBO paper pushers, I guess. Next we have Sheila. Here she is working on the night shift on the I- 94 rehabilitation project. I-94 is a huge interstate highway in Minnesota--a very important artery. Sheila is new to the construction industry but her work ethic has led her colleagues to comment that she has a bright future in the industry. These are just a few of the 70,000 Recovery Act projects happening across our country. Here is another project in Two Harbors. These guys are building a water tower. In addition to five crews of workers on the project, the tower tank is made of 723,000 pounds of American steel. Let's get a picture of it; looks like a little more in progress--723,000 pounds of American steel, and the rebar is another 33,000 pounds of American steel. So additional American workers made this steel. More American workers mined the iron, Minnesotans on the Iron Range--Minnesotans. More jobs. I visited Two Harbors on September 6, just a few weeks ago, and personally saw this project in progress. As you can see, these folks are not in suits and ties shuffling papers; they are building bridges, they are building roads, they are building water treatment plants and water towers. These projects are going to improve transportation and the health and safety of people in Minnesota. Because of these jobs, made possible by the Recovery Act, they will keep a roof over the heads of their families, put food on the kitchen table, send their kids to college, and, yes, buy stuff. Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million unemployed people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2010. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country--over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids, kids in our communities. It is simple. Economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again. Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator as opposed to being a candidate for the Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. The Presiding Officer has been a statewide candidate many times. When you are a candidate, you are speaking mainly to your own people. If you are Republican, you are speaking to Republicans to get the nomination and then to get out the vote. If you are a Democrat, you are doing the same. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. As Senator, I have been privileged to go all around the State of Minnesota and talk to folks at economic development meetings. I have talked to county commissioners and mayors and city councilmen and small businesses and community bankers. You know what. I don't know what party they are in, and I don't care. We are trying to get people going. We are trying to get the economy moving. Everywhere in Minnesota, do you know what these folks say to me? Thank you for the Recovery Act. Thank you. Thank you for the teachers we are able to keep on here in Brainerd, the firefighters, and for the Workforce Investment Act funds so we are able to train people for jobs that were available but didn't have trained people for. Thanks for the highway underpass so school buses do not have to cross the train tracks or an ambulance doesn't have to cross the train tracks. Thanks for funds for the wastewater plant or for rural broadband or for the weatherization of public buildings--speaking of which, Michael Grunwald, writing for Time Magazine, wrote this: The Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the Sun, wind and Earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electrical meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the Federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet. A few weeks ago, I heard a prominent conservative talking head on one of the Sunday news shows describe the Recovery Act this way. He said: If I pay my neighbor $1,000 to dig a hole in my backyard and fill it up again, and he pays me $1,000 to dig a hole in his backyard and fill it up again, according to the national income statistics, that is a $2,000 increment to GDP and two jobs have been created. The American people understand, however, there is no real wealth created in this kind of transfer payment. How offensive. How out of touch. Yet this is why so many Americans believe the Recovery Act has not created any jobs or just created jobs for bureaucrats. I worry that my speech today is too little, too late. I worry that most Americans have already formed their opinion about the Recovery Act based on the inaccuracies they hear from beltway pundits or from elected officials. But I challenge these talking heads and these elected officials to find the Spencers and Sheilas and Cecils and Randys in their State, go out and watch them work or talk to a teacher in a classroom or a cop on the beat. They are not digging and filling holes in their neighbor's backyard. They are doing skilled work, necessary work, hard work rebuilding our roads, teaching our children, and getting paid for it. With their paychecks, they buy food for their families and make their car payments and maybe buy a new one, which generates more demand. That is an economic recovery in the making. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.