Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in legislative session and as if in morning business, that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6398, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to thank the Chair and my colleague from Georgia who understood and presented so effectively the impact on our community banks that are working hard to get funds out to our Main Street businesses so we can create jobs and put our economy back on track.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I appreciate so much the partnership of my colleague from Georgia. He has laid out clearly the impact of a failure to fix this legislation on our community banks where lawyers, exercising their fiduciary responsibilities, would have to move their trust accounts out of these special accounts where the interest goes to legal services and legal education and into no-interest-bearing accounts so that no one gains from that movement. In the course of it, they would be moving funds often from community banks to other institutions, imperiling these community banks. I wish to address the other side of this issue, which is the important work these funds do in all 50 States. I will speak specifically to the State of Oregon, but there are parallels because all 50 States participate with these accounts. In Oregon, we have, first, the association of Oregon Legal Services Program, its primary source of civil legal assistance available to low- income Oregonians. To give a sense, if a woman is having a big challenge with domestic violence, she can get legal aid through this type of assistance. If a family is trying to struggle with a mistake on a foreclosure process so they can save their home, they can get assistance through this program. They have 20 offices throughout the State of Oregon to serve Oregonians living in poverty. Second is the Juvenile Rights Project. This provides legal services to children and families through individual representation in juvenile court and school proceedings to help children who are in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. A third is Disability Rights Oregon, the Oregon Advocacy Center, which assists those who are disabled, who are victims of abuse or neglect, or have difficulty acquiring health care or need to exercise their rights in regard to special education. They can turn to the Oregon Advocacy Center-Disability Rights of Oregon for help. In addition, these funds pay for legal-oriented education for our K- 12 students. Let me give an example of three programs in Oregon. These programs assist 15,000 students in our State. One is the High School Mock Trial Competition. This type of mock trial competition is an enormous learning exercise for our students in how our courts function and how the facts of a case are presented and how the principles of law are applied. Then we have the summer institute training for teachers so that social studies teachers can learn more about the role of law and be more effective in conveying that vision to our students. Then I also want to mention the We The People Program on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Here in this Chamber, we discuss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights virtually on a daily basis. Virtually every day on this floor, we discuss how these founding documents affect how our laws are applied and how freedoms are protected in the United States of America. This program helps our children learn those fundamental principles. Sort of the heart and spirit of the American democratic world are conveyed through this We The People Program. I also wish to commend a whole host of banks in Oregon that have agreed not only to pay interest on these lawyer trust accounts--and IOLTA stands for interest on lawyer trust accounts--but to pay 1 percent, which is above the going rate on most types of transaction accounts. They do that because they benefit from the deposits, and they know their communities benefit from these services and these programs. This legislation will resolve a problem in which lawyers, applying their fiduciary responsibilities, would have had to withdraw their funds from these accounts and put them in other non-interest-bearing accounts, to no benefit to anyone and to a great deal of harm to so many.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise this evening to talk about a program that is of great importance to our citizens across America who are struggling to access legal services. There is a program that is called the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts or IOLTA. This is a very interesting arrangement that I was not familiar with until I came to the Senate. Essentially, IOLTA is interest on lawyer trust accounts, and it works like this. When lawyers need to put money into a trust account, they are putting it in that account on behalf of a client or on behalf of an estate. It is not allowed under the law for the client to earn interest. However, there is an arrangement that has been made over the years in which banks agree to pay interest on those accounts, since they are accessing those deposits--those funds--but the interest gets donated to legal services for poor Americans across the United States of America. So it is a win-win. The client isn't allowed to get the interest, but the banks pay the interest to benefit low-income Americans across our Nation. That is the structure of the IOLTA accounts. All 50 States have these programs. Forty-two States require lawyers to deposit client funds that do not earn net interest for the client into these IOLTA accounts so they will earn interest to pay for civil legal services for the poor. During the financial crisis, the FDIC created a program to guarantee that the business and trust checking accounts that do not pay interest are insured--they are guaranteed--and IOLTA was included in this because they do not pay interest to the client. The Dodd-Frank reform bill we had, which extended these arrangements for 2 years for accounts that do not pay interest to the clients, forgot to include the IOLTA accounts that do not pay interest to the clients but do pay interest that goes to fund civil legal services for poor Americans in all 50 States. So we are seeking to fix this glitch. I wish to note that hundreds of thousands of Americans who don't otherwise have access to legal services are in a position to benefit when they need such services across our Nation. In Oregon, we have the Oregon Law Foundation, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that administers legal aid for the poor. They benefited to the tune of over $1 million in revenue in 2009. When interest was a little better, they had more revenue in 2008--$2.2 million. That was a decrease from 2007 of $3.6 million. So as interest rates have declined, the amount of funds that have gone to fund legal services for the poor have declined, but still, a few million dollars is better than none in terms of providing assistance. In a case such as this--the Oregon Law Foundation--IOLTA funding makes up 95 percent of their total revenue. So if the guarantee is not extended for 2 more years, we have a real problem, and it goes like this. A lawyer has a fiduciary responsibility to a client to put the funds into an account that protects the client. They would not be able to put the funds into an IOLTA account if it is not guaranteed, if they have the option of putting it into a noninterest-bearing fund that is guaranteed and, thus, the bank's willingness to pay interest. So the funding that goes for legal services across our Nation will disappear. I rise to talk about this because the deadline for this is December 31. We have a bill to fix this before the Senate. But for those who are familiar, in the Senate, any Senator has the ability to put a hold on legislation, and we have a situation where a Senator has put a hold on this. I think, in general, this hasn't gotten much attention, the fact that this assistance that goes to low-income Americans across this country will be deeply damaged, even if 99 Senators support this, because we don't have 100 Senators. So I am rising to basically make an appeal to my colleagues to take a look at the legal programs in your States that are funded by this. There are legal education programs that are funded. I hope my colleagues will recognize that what we have is a lose-lose situation if we don't change this law, and that lose-lose is legal education and legal services. The banks will actually make more money because they will not have to pay interest. So you have a lose-lose and a win--a loss for the poor, a loss for the students wanting legal education, and a win for banks receiving greater profits. In this situation, the banks have been absolutely stellar citizens of our communities. In Oregon, we have a host of banks that not only pay interest on these lawyer trust funds, but they have agreed to maintain a floor of 1 percent interest. I would like to mention these banks recognized by the Oregon Law Foundation as leadership banks. I believe this list is as of the end of the year 2009. By mentioning these banks, I am basically saying thank you to these banks for being involved in this program. They include: the Albina Community Bank, the Bank of Eastern Oregon, the Bank of the Cascades, the Bank of the West, Capital Pacific Bank, Century Bank, Columbia River Bank, Key Bank, Northwest Bank, Peoples Bank of Commerce, the Pioneer Trust Bank, Premier West Bank, Siuslaw Bank, South Valley Bank and Trust, the Bank of Oswego, the Commerce Bank of Oregon, Umpqua Bank--a bank that originated in southern Oregon, in timber country, Douglas County, where I come from-- U.S. Bank, Washington Trust Bank, and Wells Fargo. So all these banks have been willing to pay interest on these lawyer trust accounts, knowing they are doing good work in the community by assisting legal programs. I mentioned one of those programs in Oregon. Let me mention a couple more. The Juvenile Rights Project provides legal services to children and families who do not otherwise have the means to retain counsel through individual representation in juvenile court and school proceedings and through classwide advocacy in the courts, the legislature, and public agencies. It has the only help line offering legal advice for children and teenagers in Oregon. So that is the Juvenile Rights Project. Disability Rights Oregon. The Oregon Advocacy Center provides statewide legal services to Oregonians with disabilities who are victims of abuse or neglect or have problems obtaining health care, special education, housing, employment, public benefits, and access to public and private services. Oregonians with disabilities look to OAC-- that is the Oregon Advocacy Center or Disability Rights Oregon--to protect and advocate for their rights in courts, with public agencies and with the State legislature. The Classroom Law Project promotes understanding of the law and legal process for 15,000 elementary and secondary school students in the State of Oregon by incorporating the lessons and principles of democracy into school curriculum. Their programs include the High School Mock Trial Competition. That is an extraordinary competition. It is wonderful to see how a high school student can blossom when preparing to argue before his or her peers the facts of a case and the legal principles of a case. It is an enormous education. The Classroom Law Project also includes the Summer Institute training for teachers. This program enables those teachers to better address the issues of law and legal process in their classrooms. Also included is the We the People program on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A lot of us often carry the Constitution. We understand it is the foundation for our government of, by, and for the people, and we want our children to get an education in the Constitution. This is funded in this fashion. We also have help for citizens who are trying to get into a home mortgage modification, such as HAMP--the Housing Affordable Modification Program--and also families who are working through issues of domestic violence. So here is the situation. Families addressing domestic violence issues, families addressing wrongful home foreclosures, children-- juveniles--seeking legal assistance, the disabled seeking resolution of issues regarding access to health care, special education, housing or employment are being helped. The Classroom Law Project is helping educate our children about the Constitution, about the Bill of Rights, funding mock trial competitions, and funding the Summer Institute training for teachers. These are the types of tremendous programs that are funded through the interest on lawyer trust accounts. That line of funding, due to a technical overrsight, ends on December 31. So I am rising to ask my colleagues, if you are the Senator who is holding this up, I encourage you to get the facts from your State because all 50 States participate, and then let this funding, provided through a wonderful arrangement between the banks and our lawyers and these trust accounts, go forward. Who knows how many thousands, the multiple of thousands who will be assisted in challenging situations if we fix this before we adjourn. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would like to add a few comments to those of the Senator from Michigan. First, I would like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. We are looking at ICBMs reduced from 450 to 420 and in some cases those ICBMs being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they are carrying--modest reductions. When we look at some relaunch ballistic missiles, we are looking at a fleet of 14 Trident submarines, and we are looking at keeping all 14 of those, reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20--again, a modest reduction. Indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one point in time, and they do not count against the numbers in this treaty. In bombers, we are looking at 18 Stealth missiles currently--Stealth bombers, and keeping all 18--or B-2s, as they are known. We look at modest reductions in our aging, ancient, antique fleet of B-52s, modest reductions there. In its entirety, what this represents is modest changes to the existing structure negotiated by a Republican administration and maintenance of verification regimes incredibly important to our national security. In that context, we have to look at various amendments being raised that, if they were sincere about their purpose, would be added to the resolution we are passing. But if their real purpose is to kill the treaty, then of course it comes in the form of an amendment to the treaty, which would effectively, in fact, do that. So let's look at the structure of the issues that were put forward here. First, the goal of this START treaty is to address strategic, not short-range tactical nuclear weapons which have never been covered by a treaty, including those negotiated by a Republican administration. Second, tactical weapons are categorically different from strategic arms because they do not pose an immediate catastrophic threat to the U.S. homeland that strategic weapons do. With shorter range and smaller yield, they are intended for battlefield use. I would note the quotation of General Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who said: The most proximate threat to the U.S. are the ICBM and SLBM weapons because they can and are able to target the U.S. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. So we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. Tactical weapons do not have the proximate threat that ICBMs and SLBMs do. I also note that if you look at this from the Russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in Europe. Numerous European nations have tactical weapons which can reach the Soviet--reach the Russian Federation, formerly the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the Russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the United States. I then note that we have already addressed this issue in the Senate ratification resolution, which states that ``the President should pursue, following consultation with allies, an agreement with the Russian Federation that would address the disparity between the tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation and the United States and would secure and reduce the tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.'' So it is already in the resolution of ratification. Then I would note that Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton said in a letter: We agree with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's call in the resolution of Advice and Consent to ratification of the New START treaty to pursue an agreement with the Russians to address them. Tactical weapons represents a thorny issue because it involves the European powers and it involves disparities of geography. That it is why it has been so hard to link them in the past to a strategic nuclear treaty and why they have not done so in this case. But it is the commitment by the Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary of State, by the President, and by this Senate through this resolution of ratification to pursue this issue that is important, and that is what is before us now. In terms of addressing this issue, there are changes that need to be made to the language, to the ratification resolution. That would be appropriate. But this treaty, which greatly enhances the security of the United States of America while providing the appropriate verification protocols, is absolutely essential.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to provide a brief explanation of my absence during the vote on the motion to proceed to the Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 on December 13. I was not in the Senate Chamber for the vote because I was traveling back from Oregon, where I had a previous commitment earlier in the day to participate in a major summit of the leading businesses and political leadership of Oregon looking at ways to revive the Oregon economy. As I stated publicly prior to the vote, had I been present I would have voted against moving forward on the tax cut proposal under the circumstances. The package that was brought to the floor will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt and includes major components-- particularly bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires--that the Congressional Budget Office has found to be one of the least effective means of creating jobs. I could not support moving to this flawed package without an opportunity to offer amendments to fix it. I continue to strongly support tax cuts for working families and the reauthorization of unemployment benefits, and other provisions in this bill that would be useful to create jobs and help families and small businesses. But I cannot support a bill that forces those same working families and small businesses to shoulder responsibility for billions more in debt while continuing too many of the policies that drove our Nation into record deficits and caused financial distress for millions of working families.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to share some of my concerns about the package that has been negotiated between the President and the Republicans and has now been presented here on the floor of the Senate. First, I wish to emphasize the size of the decision that is going to be made in the next couple of days. This deficit spending stimulus package is a $1 trillion package. Let's turn the clock back to the debate over the stimulus package we had in 2009. That stimulus was about $800 billion--only 80 percent of the size of this package. That stimulus had in it direct construction jobs across America. Every community, every county benefited from an increase in production. It also had the making work pay tax deduction. It had a host of small business tax deductions, and it had direct assistance to our States to enable them to meet some of the crises they were experiencing in health care and in education, so we could keep our schools across America open during this great Bush recession. I have listened over the last year and a half to tremendous attacks on that stimulus package. Yet this is a much larger decision. This is a $1 trillion decision, and it is a package that much less thought has gone into. We have this package here on the floor, but we haven't actually gotten the paper in our hands as to what is in it. We have to rely on newspaper accounts as to what is going to be in it. Tonight, in offices across this Nation, folks are trying to get it off the Internet, and they are going to be trying to analyze it and understand it. We know the basic outlines, and the basic outlines raise a significant number of concerns. I encourage our citizens to look at this package over the weekend and to share their concerns with their Congressmen and Congresswomen and certainly with their Senators. This is a $1 trillion deficit. There has been a lot of talk on the floor not only about the stimulus last year but about the size of our national debt. This is a $1 trillion increase in our national debt. I would think that is something we would be tearing apart and looking at every part of it and asking if each dollar is being spent to the maximum effect. We should have amendments that say: Hey, we can create a lot more jobs if we spend these few million dollars over here rather than here, so that every dollar makes a maximum impact in putting America back to work. But not a single amendment is going to be allowed on this bill, as far as we are aware tonight. I believe that in a decision of this magnitude, there should be amendments that compare the effect of spending money here versus there and about what is going to have the greatest impact in a favorable way for America. My good colleague from Vermont pointed out that this reduces the flow of resources into Social Security. I think we should have an extensive debate about coming to rely on the general fund, which is what the administration wants to do. They are going to substitute payroll revenue for general fund revenue. I think we should have a substantial debate about depending upon general revenue to supply funds to the Social Security fund. Let me explain this. The approximately $120 billion that will flow into Social Security from the general fund under this program comes from borrowed funds. Those borrowed funds come primarily from China. So Social Security--a program for Americans in which we save our own money and invest that money so there can be a very modest steady income in the retirement years--now is going to rely upon borrowed funds from China. That is the American retirement plan? We should be debating that on the floor of the Senate, and it should be an extensive debate, not a debate in which cloture is going to be rushed on Monday and then have 30 hours split among 100 Members, because we are spending $1 trillion of deficit money under this plan. My first main concern is that we are taking a step to greatly increase the national debt with this plan. My second concern is this plan 100 percent endorses the Bush tax structure that has so deeply damaged our Nation. Many of you will recall that when the economy grew under President Bush II, the living wages of working Americans actually failed to increase. The economy grew but the wages didn't grow for working Americans. In addition, we doubled our national debt. That is what happens when we say we are going to create a plan that gives away our national treasure to the most affluent. We are going to do so in a manner that doesn't create living wage jobs, doesn't reward the productivity of American workers. I am going to tell you that we made a major decision in about 1974, about the year I graduated from high school, and that was to adopt strategies, which failed, to link the productivity of American workers to their compensation. Up until that point in the postwar era, as our productivity as a nation grew, the financial success of our working families grew along with that increase in productivity. But since 1974, the tremendous, spectacular increase in the productivity and national wealth of our Nation has not been shared with the workers of our Nation. Is that the type of America we want, where many work to make this Nation a success and do not share in the reward? The Bush tax cut structure is the ultimate embodiment of that philosophy of carving off the national treasure for the very few. I do not think our success as a nation should be measured by the success of our wealthiest families. I applaud them for their entrepreneurship. I applaud them when the strategies to create companies succeed. But it is up to us to create a structure that says, as the work product increases we are going to enable all families to thrive--not for a few to thrive spectacularly while everyone else stays on a level plain. Back in my home community, the community in which I grew up, a working class community of three-bedroom ranch houses, so many children now consider it a success if they can simply afford to purchase their parents' home because it is only their parents' home, with the assistance from their parents, that they can afford on a working American family's salary because while the worker's share of the national income has not increased with productivity, housing prices have gone up enormously, making it harder and harder for a working family to afford a home. Embodied in these Bush breaks that have so deeply damaged our Nation we have a very interesting feature, and that is that under this plan President Obama has proposed with the Republicans--it says we are going to extend breaks not just so the wealthiest can enjoy the same breaks on their first $1 million that others receive for the money they are earning up to $1 million, but bonus breaks on top of that. Let me give you a sense of that. The amount of the tax break that is given to everyone who earns their first $1 million is about $43,000. Let's round it off: $40,000. Under this plan, those families earning over $1 million receive an average of an additional bonus of $100,000 per taxpayer, a $100,000 bonus to the most successful families in the country. That is pretty generous. That is enormously generous. Are we going to be generous with our working families? Unfortunately, no. Under this plan a family earning in the vicinity of $40,000 to $50,000 gets about $1,700. A family that earns $40,000 or less gets somewhere in the nature of $1,000. So $1,000 for a working family versus $43,000 plus a $100,000 bonus for our wealthiest families in America. Let's see, $1,000; $143,000. There is very little to those who are building the success and wealth of our Nation through the productivity of our workmanship, and a whole lot to those who are spectacularly wealthy already. The structure of the capital gains tax under this proposal and the structure of the estate tax add to the impact of the income tax brackets I was just describing. If you add it all up, and if you have been spectacularly successful through this recession, then you can count on a whole lot of help, generous gifts from Uncle Sam. If you have been struggling and you are earning near minimum wage, or maybe you are working 60 hours a week, three jobs, each 20 hours earning a minimum wage, you get about $1,000 under this plan. That sort of reinforcement of the fundamental disparity between working families and those who are best off is not healthy for America. That does not build the financial foundation so families can afford to give their children substantial opportunities. The America in which I grew up, the vision of my father and mother's generation was that we would have an America with opportunity for every family. We are leaving that vision behind with this bill. Let me turn to my next main concern. The $1 trillion package is designed to be a stimulus. But has it been designed well, to spend every tax dollar in a smart way? There are many folks in this Chamber who say they are fiscal conservatives. I am a fiscal conservative because I believe every dollar needs to be spent in a smart way. Let's test this. Parts of this package get an A, and parts of this package get an F. The part that gets an A is unemployment insurance. This is important and fundamental to our families. We have always had the philosophy that when there are no jobs to be had, when people cannot get a job through no fault of their own, we are going to extend unemployment benefits to help families through that rough time. We have always done it, Democrats and Republicans, until this year when our Republicans have turned their backs on working families and said: Not now. We will not support extending support unless we take it away from some other important part of the budget. But, they said, we will support $100,000 bonuses without taking anything away from anyone else. That unity of support for our working families during hard times disappeared this year. That is too bad. That is a tragedy. The fundamental premise has been, by my colleagues across the aisle: We are going to hold those families hostage to get a $100,000 bonus on top of a very generous basic tax break for the wealthiest, hold working families hostage for a lot of help for the very few at the very top. Those bonus tax breaks are rated dead last by the Congressional Budget Office in creating jobs in this Nation. Unemployment assistance is rated at the top, the most effective way of creating jobs in this Nation--and it should be in any package. It should be extended and has been extended in a bipartisan manner in the past until this year when, unfortunately, it seems that my colleagues across the aisle became all about the few and not about helping families when there are no jobs. There is great irony in this because we don't have jobs in this Nation because of the great Bush recession created by my friends across the aisle. First of all, they deregulated the retail mortgages, and they allowed predatory loans. Those predatory loans meant, according to the Wall Street Journal, 60 percent of the families in America who qualified for a basic, amortizing, inexpensive, prime mortgage were steered into subprime mortgages. Then my good friends said: Let's let Wall Street do whatever it wants in packaging these mortgages. Let's end the oversight and let's end the caps on leverage. So they created securities; that is, packages of mortgages. And they sold the rights to those packages. Those securities were doomed to blow up when the predatory features of the mortgages kicked in after 2 years and interest rates jumped from 4.5 percent to 9 percent. We have been dealing, since I came into office in the Senate, with the tremendous economic bomb produced by the Bush policies, the great Bush recession that created the unemployment so that people cannot get jobs. Now the same folks who created that disaster are saying: We are not going to help those who are being hurt by the disaster we created. It is like setting your house on fire and then cutting off the water to the fire hose. If my Republican friends are so determined to adopt the very worst job-creating strategy, we should take it out of this bill, or at least have a debate on this floor of the Senate about whether we put it in the worst strategy or move those funds over here to the best strategy or to some other good job-creating strategy. Maybe all the features don't need to be As or A-pluses. But we have the Republican F plan because it is the worst as rated by the CBO. We have the Democratic A plan, support for the uninsured--it should be in here. What about some of the other things? One of the very best ways to get our country going is low-cost loans to create energy-saving renovations in homes and buildings. It creates a tremendous number of jobs for dollars spent because it is a low-cost jobs program, not a grant program. It is ranked very high in the number of jobs it creates. We have a construction industry in this country that would love to go to work, and we have three bills sitting here before the Senate. We have the HOME Star bill for families to do energy saving renovations to their home. We have the Building Star bill to allow commercial buildings, office suites, industrial site buildings to be improved in energy renovation. The loans are paid back through the energy savings. So it creates a long-term positive in terms of the energy strategy of this Nation. It works very well for the families, very well for the businesses, and puts the construction industry back to work. That is the type of program we should be weighing against the F plan--that is from A to F, F for last, F for failure, F in CBO's analysis for the worst job-creating plan, which is what the Republicans have forced into this package. Without amendments to this package, we cannot have that debate. There is a tradition of saying the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. Don't we have to have amendments to do that? Don't we have to have a debate on where to put different pieces of this puzzle to do that? I have been advocating for a guaranteed way to make sure the minority and the majority get to have amendments on this floor. I happen to be a member of the majority right now, but I will be a member of the minority down the road--if I am here long enough, and I guess that is a big if--because the pendulum swings back and forth. But to be accountable before the people of this Nation, amendments have to be offered and debate has to be held and votes have to be taken and that is not being done on this bill as far as we know. I know there is a possibility. I praise leaders of both sides in advance if they work out a deal that everyone can offer their amendments, or even a modest number of amendments on both sides. Because that is the way it should be on the floor. That is what I have been advocating, that we have regular order that allows amendments. But I am afraid that Monday will come, that a deal will not get worked out, and we will not have the ability to have that debate, will not have the ability to be transparent before the American people in where we stand. My good colleague from Vermont has shared a concern I also share; that is, the payroll tax being cut off, snuffed out as a supply of Social Security, that our retirement plan that we pay for ourselves is being changed to a retirement plan financed by China. So the national debt, $1 trillion--that is a concern. The structure of the Bush tax breaks that so deeply damaged our Nation over the last decade being extended into the next decade is a major concern, as is the poor design of the stimulus where every dollar has not been tested against its ability to create jobs at a time we desperately need jobs, and the change in our funding of Social Security, and it is dependent upon Chinese funds. Those items need to be debated. They are profound concerns. Maybe there are answers that make sense. I look forward to hearing such answers, if they exist. I would like to see those answers tested through amendments offered on this floor. I have an amendment I would like to see offered on the floor. I have an amendment that says: Take the $100,000 bonus breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent and instead dedicate that to Social Security. Let's make sure our seniors who need basic support in their retirement are well-secured before handing out $100,000 bonus breaks to the very few. Well, I do not know if that would pass on this floor. I do not know where people would stand. But I know people should have to declare where they stand so the voters can decide if they like it or not, so the voters can call and say: We would encourage you to vote this way or that way. The other thing I like about that particular approach is it says: If we are going to reduce the payroll tax in the short term to create jobs, we are going to do something else to make sure our Social Security does not depend on funds from China. I would like to see that debate. I would like to see the energy tax credits debated. They are not in this package as of now, as far as we know. Energy tax credits pay us back in a number of ways. The first is that currently we import a tremendous amount of oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela, from Nigeria, from places that do not necessarily share our national outlook. A lot of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. Military security analysts now say this is the first set of wars we are in right now--the first wars in which we are funding both sides. And how are we doing that? Through our energy policies which send funds to countries that then pass on funds to terrorists. That is not smart. It makes more sense to free our energy here at home. I will tell you something else. In addition to increasing our national security and spending those dollars here at home on energy we create ourselves, red, white, and blue American energy, that keeps those dollars here in our communities, and when those dollars stay in our communities, they create jobs in our communities. It means families get jobs, and they spend the money from those jobs in these communities. So it cycles through into the retail stores, into the grocery markets, keeping those dollars here creating jobs rather than shipping them overseas for oil. It does another thing as well; that is, it reduces our energy consumption from abroad, which largely means shifting from oil to clean sources. And those clean sources will put less carbon dioxide in the air. That means we do a much better job being good stewards of our planet. So energy tax credits encourage clean energy, keep jobs here, improving our national security and being good stewards of the planet. Why don't we have that debate on the floor of this Senate before we send this bill back to the House? Another colleague has amendments that say: OK, we are going to vote on a trillion-dollar stimulus package that creates a trillion-dollar debt. Shouldn't we tie it to some kind of trigger for fiscal responsibility that will kick in maybe 24 months out so we do not head recklessly down a path into extraordinary debt that deeply damages our Nation even further? So fiscal responsibility--tie some fiscal responsibility measures to this package. That is a good idea. I applaud my colleague from Oregon who has raised that idea, Senator Wyden, who has done a lot of work on how we can create fiscal responsibility tied to a package going through now. It will say something to the international financiers that this short-term deficit spending is going to be marked by substantial fiscal discipline, and that in itself may serve other things, such as keeping the interest rate low that we pay, so fewer of our dollars go out in interest. These ideas, these amendments deserve a debate on this major decision facing this body over the next few days. I will close by saying that I am deeply concerned--deeply concerned-- about the deficit and the debt. I am deeply concerned about the Bush tax breaks that have done so much damage and are being extended into the next decade. I am deeply concerned about the poor design of the stimulus, deeply concerned about Social Security being made dependent upon borrowing from China, deeply concerned that this package is being put together and may not have the opportunity to have the debate over elements that should be debated because if they do not stand up on the floor of the Senate in debate, they do not belong in this package. So with that, I say to our friends across the Nation, you have a few days only to weigh in. Please do weigh in. Let us hear your voice. Let us consider your views. And let us fully deliberate on this package before we pass it.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this evening the majority leader filed cloture on the new tax cut language. That vote will occur at 3 p.m. on Monday, December 13. There will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, December 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senator Sanders recognized to speak at 10:15 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my friend from Montana. It is summarized like this. We have American families who are hurting. They have lost their jobs, their retirement savings, the value of their houses. Let's have the plan that is best for creating jobs, not the plan that is worst for creating jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the chairman to yield me 30 seconds.

Mr. MERKLEY. One minute.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to contrast the Democratic plan, plan A, and the Republican plan, plan B, and what they mean for the working citizens of the United States of America. Let me start by talking about the Democratic plan, plan A. It is plan A because it is America's plan. Why is it America's plan? First, it benefits every single taxpayer in America. That is the first reason. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have liked to talk about how the Democratic plan only helps those who earn under $250,000, but that is because they are not paying attention or they are deliberately distorting the facts, because the Democratic plan provides a tax break on the first $250,000 regardless of what amount of money you make. So it helps every single American. The second is that the recent focus on citizens earning less than $250,000 is because it is the working citizens of the United States of America who have been getting the short end of the stick. The amount of money--the average income for workers in America plateaued in 1974. Now, that happens to be the year I graduated from high school. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of taking my son to his first day of high school, same high school I went to, exactly 40 years later. So for almost 40 years, the working wages for working Americans have been flat. But during that time period, the wealth of this country has increased enormously. The productivity of the American worker has increased enormously. Up until the mid-1970s, when the productivity increased, the wage of working Americans increased. They shared in the productivity of our economy because they were the driving factor in our economy. Unfortunately, for the last 3\1/2\ to 4 decades that has not been the case. Then along come the great Bush recession. This recession, caused by the deregulation of retail mortgage,--allowing predatory mortgages, allowing kickbacks from mortgage originators to create predatory mortgages, when folks qualified for prime mortgages, and then the deregulation of Wall Street so those could be packaged into securities was a 2-year ticking time bomb because they had these teaser rates on the mortgages. When the interest rates went from 4\1/2\ to 9 or 10 percent, not only did the mortgages blow up but the securities based on them blew up. And we blew up the whole economy. So, thank you very much, friends across the aisle, for attacking the most important financial instrument for American families, the American mortgage, destroying it, allowing predatory mortgages, allowing predatory securities, blowing up this economy, and attacking the American family. I cannot tell you how many millions of American families are suffering because of the policies that you all implemented over the last decade. What is the result? The American family home has lost value, a tremendous amount of value. Families are underwater. What is the result? Huge unemployment caused by the meltdown in the great Bush recession. Retirement savings are depleted. Folks who thought they could have retired maybe now, maybe in 2 years, 5 years, are realizing they may have to work as long as they are able to work, as long as they are able to keep a job. Their dreams are blown up thanks to these Bush policies. Well, there is a third reason the Democratic plan is the American plan. That is because four out of five Americans support it. Some 79 percent, or roughly 80 percent, four out of five Americans support tax breaks for families earning less than $250,000, for extending those tax breaks. So that is plan A, America's plan, because it helps all Americans, because it is focused on the American worker who has been hit so hard by the great Bush recession, and, because four out of five Americans support it and understand we need it. But now let's turn to the Republican plan, plan B. Plan B consists of bonus breaks for billionaires--millionaires and billionaires. Why ``bonus''? Because every person helped under the Republican plan who earns $1 million or $1 billion has already been helped under the Democratic plan. But my colleagues across the aisle want ``extra'' for the wealthiest, most successful Americans. I respect tremendously the entrepreneurs who have been so successful. But there is a time when we have to ask, Are bonuses to those best off the best strategy for America to go forward? This is quite a tongue twister: bonus breaks for billionaires. It gets even worse. These are the extensions of the Bush breaks, and because my colleagues across the aisle are trying to sell it as a job creation issue--and we will get to that in a minute--they are bogus. So we have the bogus bonus Bush breaks for billionaires. That is the Republican plan B, saying they will obstruct any issue on the floor of the Senate so they can get these bonus breaks for their best friends earning millions and billions. Well, I will tell you, these are expensive. Let's ask ourselves how much is the average value of the Republican bonus break? Well, $100,000 per taxpayer. That is how much. If we take the $700 billion the Republican plan creates in more deficit and more debt, if we take that $700 billion and divide it by the number of citizens--men, women and children--in America, 300 million, that is $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America. So my colleagues across the aisle are proposing taking $2,300 out of every child's and adult's pocket in America to give breaks, $100,000 tax breaks, to millionaires and billionaires. So let's look at the total cost. Total cost, $700 billion, before we add on interest. Let's add on interest. It is almost $1 trillion. That is a huge increase in our deficit. So it is deficit busting, debt adding, financed by China, and placed onto our children. Is that what the excited Republican team, coming fresh out of an election, wants to say is their top priority in America, taking $2,300 from every man, woman, and child in America so they can give a $100,000 tax break to millionaires and billionaires? Well, they have a way of trying to camouflage this. That camouflage is to talk about jobs. So let's talk about jobs. Let's look at the Republican plan in terms of job creation. Well, CBO ranked the Republican plan against many other plans, and where does it come in? Dead last. I have the detailed chart from the Congressional Budget Office, and up here at the very top is the Democratic plan. That is to provide assistance to the unemployed. Here at the very bottom is the Republican plan, which is bonus breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Let me tell you just how different these are. Increasing aid to the unemployed is estimated to create 8 to 19 jobs for every $1 million in expenditure, 8 to 19 jobs. How many jobs are created by the Republican plan? One to three, one to three jobs. So the Democrats are saying, let's take the dead-last plan in job creation, the Republican plan, and let's replace it with the best plan, the Democratic plan. Republican plan, one to three jobs per $1 million, one to three for $1 million; Democratic plan, 8 to 19. Well, my good friend from South Dakota was here saying it is all just common sense. Yes, it is common sense. We take the plan that is the worst for job creation, and we replace it with the plan that is the best for job creation. Well, friends across America, this is about jobs, and the word ``jobs'' will come out of the rhetoric on the opposite side of the aisle with every speech. But it is bogus. Their plan is dead last; Democratic plan is top of the list. Check the CBO study. It hurts to hear folks who are out of touch with the foreclosure crisis in America----

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it is my privilege to rise to join with my colleagues from New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and Colorado in support of the New START treaty, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. I bring a bit of a personal perspective, a bit of affection for this issue, for this reason: When I was in graduate school, I was studying to take on issues of world economic development, issues of international poverty. I had worked in Latin America. I had worked in India. I traveled through Central America. I spent some time in west Africa. I thought global poverty was a very important issue that could be worth investing my career in. But as I came out of graduate school, I had an opportunity to switch tracks and work on nuclear issues as a Presidential fellow for Caspar Weinberger in the Reagan administration. This was a complete change of direction and one I didn't anticipate. But I went through that door and worked on strategic issues because the greatest threat to our planet was the successful management of nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, an enormous threat that needed to be smartly managed. I felt that engaging in that discussion, being part of that effort, was a very valuable matter in which to put my energy. So I spent 2 years at the Pentagon working on strategic nuclear issues and then worked for Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, as a strategic nuclear policy analyst during the 1980s. It gave me a bit of a closeup view and a view particularly of the Reagan administration, working with Mikhail Gorbachev--Reagan and Gorbachev-- working on these issues. One related issue--though not a strategic issue, it certainly had strategic implications--was the theater nuclear arms negotiations that resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Back then it was called the zero option. It created intrusive inspection regimes to ensure that both nations were complying with the treaty. That, of course, was the hallmark of Reagan's philosophy that we ``trust but verify.'' More than the specifics of that treaty, I wish to note that it passed 93 to 5. That treaty, similar to most strategic arms treaties, passed with wide bipartisan support. When it comes to the safety of our Nation, when it comes to minimizing the threat of nuclear devastation, we have set aside red and blue, we have set aside Republican and Democrat, and we have done what is right for our Nation. Certainly, the threat involving nuclear weapons is as serious today as it was in 1987 when President Reagan signed the INF treaty or when it was ratified in 1998. Now the Senate must decide whether to ratify the New START treaty. New START limits both the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, a significant reduction from the 2002 Moscow Treaty. It limits both parties to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles. These reductions continue to reduce both nations' oversized nuclear arsenals, a dangerous legacy of the Cold War, while allowing the U.S. military to preserve a flexible strategic deterrent. The new treaty improves our strategic relationship with Russia. The new treaty reinforces the U.S. global leadership in nonproliferation. Verification is a key element in New START, consistent with President Reagan's philosophy of ``trust but verify.'' With the expiration of START a year ago, U.S. officials have been without their ability to conduct onsite inspections in Russia for the first time in a decade and a half, and that increases the nuclear threat. The new treaty allows both parties to verify compliance through data exchanges, through onsite inspections, and through reconnaissance satellites. Both countries must maintain a database listing the types of locations of all accountable warheads and delivery vehicles. Each delivery vehicle is assigned a unique identifier, which is used to track it from the moment of production through its various deployments and to its dismantlement. U.S. inspectors can verify using short notice, onsite inspections. This treaty is critical in safeguarding nuclear material and preventing proliferation of weapons and it is critical for our relationship with Russia and our authority on nuclear issues. Let me quote one expert: The principal result of nonratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos. That quote comes from GEN Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's National Security Adviser, or let's listen to this expert: A rejection of [this treaty] would indicate that a new period of American policy had started that might rely largely on the unilateral reliance of its nuclear weapons, and would therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of adversaries and allies. And therefore, I think it would have an unsettling impact on the international environment. That is Dr. Henry Kissinger. Today there is an article in the Washington Post: ``Why New START Deserves GOP Support.'' This is written by Dr. Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, III, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin Powell. These are Secretaries of State for the last five Republican Presidents joining together in a detailed analysis of the New START and why the Senate should ratify this treaty. There are some who may say it is not an issue of the substance but, rather, we just need more time to consider the provisions. Consider this: The treaty was signed on April 8 of this year. The treaty went through extensive and thorough hearings and briefings on the Foreign Relations Committee. The committee favorably reported it out with bipartisan support on September 16. In the 34 weeks since the treaty was signed and the 10 weeks since it was reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, every Member of our body has had an opportunity to read the testimony, to explore the content, to consult with the experts, to consult with the administration, and to reach a conclusion. In fact, we have had more opportunity to review this treaty than the 100th Congress did for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under Ronald Reagan. Finally, I think it is useful to hear President Reagan's thoughts on nuclear weapons. In 1985, he said this: There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. Well, this treaty does not eliminate nuclear weapons, but it does reduce them and it does, in the eyes of expert after expert after expert--Democratic experts and Republican experts--make our Nation more secure. So there can be no better reason to ratify it as soon as possible. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I also rise to talk about the importance of creating jobs and how the Republican plan is the exact opposite. We have on our desks this letter that was put forward that says there should be tax cuts for all Americans. Well, you know what, that is the Democratic plan. That is the plan we have been putting forward that would create tax cuts on the first $250,000 that every single American makes. But if you scanned the letter the Republicans signed, you find in the fine print, down there in the third paragraph that, no, it is not tax cuts for all Americans that they want; they want a version that creates bonuses, paid by the taxpayer, for billionaires. Bonuses for billionaires. That is the only version they want to see debated, the only version they say they will vote for, and it is the sole goal they put as an obstacle to every other important piece of legislation to get America back to work. We have been trying so hard this year to get job-creation bills on the floor of the Senate, and we have endured a recordbreaking number of filibusters. When I came here as an intern back in 1976, bills were passed by majority vote. Upon rare occasion, someone would say an issue is so important as to obstruct the Senate. But not our Republican majority. Not this year in 2010. Not last year in 2009. No. My colleagues have said: It is our goal to paralyze the Senate. It is our goal not only to prevent legislation from occurring but to damage the executive branch by obstructing nominations in unprecedented numbers and to damage the judicial branch by obstructing nominations. This attack on the American system of government has gone way too far, and now my friends across the aisle say: Unless we get bonuses for billionaires, paid for by the taxpayers of the United States of America, we will block every effort to create jobs in this country. At some point, it needs to be said on the floor of the Senate--and so I am saying it now--that is simply wrong. It is misguided to put the top priorities to be billionaire bonuses. I think the American public weighed in on this in the discussion over Wall Street. It is wrong to fund those bonuses out of the pockets of working Americans who are paying their taxes, and it is certainly wrong to bring this body to a standstill once again in order to get those bonuses for billionaires. I would like to ask my friends across the aisle to reconsider the substance of their vision for America, a vision in which ordinary workers fund extravagant bonuses for the richet Americans--how big a bonus? An average of $100,000. Now, I can tell you, in my working-class neighborhood, there are very few people who earn $100,000 a year. There are folks who might not earn $100,000 in the course of multiple years because they are working for minimum wage. They may be earning, if they can get a full-time minimum wage job, $16,000. If they are working two jobs and their spouse is working, maybe they can bring home $30,000 or $40,000. So I would suggest that stopping the business of the Senate to create a $100,000-per-taxpayer bonus--and I say ``bonus'' because it is on top of the tax cut they would get under the Democratic plan--is simply completely out of touch with the challenges faced by ordinary working Americans who are trying to make ends meet, who would like to see us spend the funds in our Treasury to create jobs because they know the best program for any single person is the opportunity to have a living- wage job. It not only creates the finances that shore up the foundations of the family, it creates a sense of pride, it creates a sense of work ethic, it provides a strong example to our children, it builds a family. But a $100,000 bonus for the richest Americans does not build those financial foundations for working Americans, and funding it out of the pockets of the working Americans is absolutely one of the most diabolical plots I could have ever imagined--in fact, I couldn't probably have imagined. If it would have been in a novel that my colleagues are bringing the work of the Senate to a stop in order to do $100,000 bonuses for the richest Americans, funded by the rest of the taxpayers, I would have said: No way. That plot is beyond anything that could possibly happen on the Senate floor. But today we have it right here in writing that it has to be the billionaire bonus plan or none at all. But at any point, the Senate can, by unanimous consent, come back to its senses and pursue that which builds our economy, builds opportunity for working Americans. There have been a host of bipartisan bills that have said: There is a strategy that is estimated to create more jobs than any other per dollar invested, and that is low-cost loans for energy-saving renovations. This core idea recognizes that very few of us can go out and put double-paned vinyl windows in our house or full insulation in our house because we do not have the money in our bank account for the upfront costs. But if we can get a low-cost loan, then we can, in fact, pay for those vinyl windows out of the savings on our electric bill. This basic concept is a concept now embodied in the HOME Star bill, a bipartisan bill. It is the basic concept embodied in the Building Star bill, which aims more at commercial buildings. It is the same basic concept embodied in the Rural Energy Savings Program, which is not only a bipartisan bill but is fiercely advocated for by our rural electrical co-ops that understand this would be a tremendous value to Americans in rural America. Knowing we can bring the Senate back to do good work through unanimous consent, I am going to ask for such unanimous consent. I will start with a bill, which is the rural energy savings plan bill, supported by rural co-ops across America so rural Americans such as those in rural Oregon, such as those in rural Illinois, such as those in rural Tennessee, such as those throughout rural America everywhere can pursue these low-cost, easy-to-arrange loans through their local electric co-op. One of the reasons people get excited about this concept is, it is not just about the fact that your house now functions a lot better with these energy-saving renovations. It is not just about the fact that now the monthly cost of your electric bill or your gas bill goes down, often more than your loan payments would be, but it is the fact that through this kind of conservation, we actually create jobs--installation jobs and jobs producing the products for those energy-saving installations. Because virtually every aspect, from caulk to pink fiberglass to double-paned windows, is made here in America, manufactured in America. So people know they are not only creating jobs locally, but they are creating jobs in manufacturing America. If we don't build things in America, we will not have a middle class in America. People understand this at their core. There is something else they like about this. Every time we address our energy needs domestically, we are decreasing our demand for foreign oil. Why does that make Americans smile? Because we would rather have red, white, and blue American energy and American energy savings than import oil from overseas. When we buy that oil from overseas, the money goes out of the economy. It doesn't go into the local grocery store. It doesn't go into the local retailer on Main Street. It doesn't build the financial foundations of American families. It goes to places such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Nigeria and Venezuela. What is happening with the money that goes overseas to places such as that? Some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists who oppose our policies around the world. It has been said by national security experts that our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first American wars where we are funding both sides. What they are referring to is our purchase of foreign oil. So when we engage in energy savings here, we are doing what is right for our economy and for our families and for our national security. By the way, these types of jobs cannot be shipped overseas, installation cannot be shipped overseas. Not only are the materials made in America, the installation can't be shipped overseas. It is the perfect strategy to help address the challenges in our current economy. That is why I have some hope my colleagues across the aisle will join in this unanimous consent to get this bill done so we can help folks in rural America get back to work, improve their homes, shore up their financial foundations and, in the process, improve our national security. I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3102; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate that my good friend from Tennessee rose to defend his caucus's letter. I certainly enjoy working with him. Here I am talking about energy efficiency. We have had the pleasure of working together on a bill that is about deployment of electric cars that can save enormous amounts of fuel and have many beneficial effects that I have been speaking to in regard to the importation of foreign oil, cutting off that flow of oil from abroad, and the American money that goes out to buy it. I certainly treasure that relationship, that working relationship. But we couldn't have a more different perspective. We couldn't have a broader disagreement on this issue. I have noted that the Democrats have laid out a plan that provides tax cuts for all Americans. But my good friend from Tennessee just noted he wants the version that has no increase on anyone. What he didn't explain--but I will--is that the difference between the two is additional bonus tax cuts for the richest Americans. Those are the tax cuts that are $100,000 per person. Those are the tax cuts that will create a $700 billion addition to the national debt over the next 10 years. When I have families who are struggling to get by on the best jobs they can find--and those jobs are paying near minimum wage, and they are lucky to make $16,000 to $20,000 a year, if they can find a minimum wage job--is it justifiable to give bonuses paid by other taxpayers or by additional debt on our children to the richest Americans to the tune of $100,000 each? I would say, no, that is a bad decision. In that regard, we are coming from different places. I can tell my colleagues, if there is something in the air in this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas, it is that it further increases or should increase our connection to the fact that American families are suffering. They need jobs, and it is our duty to create them, not our role to charge working Americans so $100,000 bonuses can be handed out to the richest Americans. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I applaud the work my senior Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, has been doing in seeking affordable, effective health care for all Americans and, in particular, his work to utilize our State laboratories in developing smart health care strategies that then, if successful, can become a model for the Nation. This process of utilizing waivers isn't about a State wanting an exception so that it can be different; it is about recognizing that States have powerful opportunities to form policies that work well under particular circumstances but also may provide insights into our whole national strategy for affordable, quality health care. So for the work Senator Wyden and Senator Scott Brown are doing, I applaud them and support them, and I thank Senator Wyden for his decades of advocacy for affordable health care.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about the historic Food Safety Modernization Act. I thank Chairman Harkin, who worked with me to include provisions to help small farms and processors and organic farms so that they have before them in this bill provisions that support them and will help make them successful. The last thing we want to see is an effort to make our food safety system work better be used as a tool to diminish the ability of small farms and organic farms to thrive. That has been effectively addressed in the bill but also by provisions I will speak to in a while that Senator Tester is bringing forward. I also compliment Senator Durbin, who has been advocating for this bill, working on the elements of the bill for a very long time, and his determined, tenacious advocacy is the reason this bill is on the floor before us at this moment. I also appreciate the bipartisan problem-solving approach of the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi, and all of the members of the committee for coming together to say: This is not a Republican or a Democratic problem, this is a national health care issue, a national nutrition issue, and let's tackle it together. The safety of the Nation's food supply is a serious concern for every family in Oregon and across this Nation. I wish to highlight one Oregon family in particular, Jake Hurley and his dad Peter. I am sure they are very happy to see that we have this bill on the floor, and they will be particularly thrilled when we have it on the President's desk because the issue of tracing contaminated food is an issue that has affected their family very directly. This picture is one of Jake taken when his father Peter came with him to Washington, DC, to testify before this Congress and share their story. Jake's favorite food was peanut butter crackers. When he was 3 years old, he became very, very ill. Those crackers he loved so much were the source of his illness, but because we didn't have an effective tracking system, there was no recall and there was no understanding that the crackers were contaminated. So in his illness, his family continued to share with him his favorite comfort food--those same peanut butter crackers that were making him extremely ill. It turns out they were contaminated with salmonella, and the result was that a child's snack ended up putting Jake's life in danger. The Food and Drug Administration had already determined that peanut butter was a cause of sickening people across the country, but they hadn't been able to trace the peanut butter and know it had made its way into processed products--in particular, the product Jake was consuming. The Peanut Corporation of America, a peanut processing facility in Georgia, had contaminated peanut butter that went into thousands of products, sickening 714 people in 46 States, including Oregon, and killing 9. The Hurleys and countless other families have been waiting for Congress to pass this bill so that other families don't have to be worried that their children will become terribly sick because we can't track contaminated food. This bill requires the FDA to create rules for tracing processed foods, such as the peanut butter crackers that made Jake sick last year. It took the FDA over a year to trace all the products that the peanut butter went into during that outbreak in 2009. It is still not clear that they ever found all of the products. This is unacceptable. Provisions in this bill will help prevent not only future outbreaks but also future problems tracking down the contaminated food products. In my work in the HELP Committee, I secured a provision to ensure that in addition to tracing produce, which was already in the bill, we set up a pilot project to calculate the best practices for tracing processed food, which is a more difficult undertaking. But after the bill came out of committee, Senator Sherrod Brown worked hard to build on that, and he has strengthened the tracing provisions further in the bill. I certainly thank him for doing that. The bill now requires the FDA to create regulations ensuring quick and accurate tracing of all types of contaminated food. Better tracing of contaminated food and better coordination between local, State, and Federal food safety officials can help prevent children like Jet Valenzuela from getting food poisoning. I turn now to a picture of Jet. I met Jet earlier this summer in Oregon. This is a picture of him in the hospital 2 years ago, when he became violently ill from contaminated food. He had a deadly form of E. coli. He was hospitalized in Bend, OR. He became so ill that he was flown to Portland for more intensive care. Jet underwent multiple surgeries, blood transfusions, and was eventually put into a medically induced coma. He came within a hair's breath of dying twice. The scariest part of Jet's story is that we were never able to find what made him sick, despite their best efforts, because we didn't have the type of produce and processed food procedures that could assist in tracking down the source. So for Jet and Jake, it is urgent to pass this bill. Not only does this help respond, but it helps prevent food outbreaks. No family should have to go through what these families went through. Most parents, including myself, have spent a lot of time worrying about how to keep their kids safe, but we should not have to worry about how to protect our children from the food on our plates. Implementing food safety provisions has to be done in a way that supports our small farms, our family farms. We cannot have a process that hinders them in operating successfully or puts unnecessary restrictions in their path. I thank Chairman Harkin for including language in the bill that I suggested, so that no new regulations would conflict with or duplicate the requirements of the National Organic Program. This ensures that there will not be any food safety regulations that would put their organic certification in jeopardy. I wish to draw attention to the work Senator Tester has done. He authored provisions that provide reasonable exemptions for very small farms and processors--farms that sell their products directly to local consumers, farms that sell their products directly to local restaurants or to local grocery stores. This comprises only about 1 percent of our national food production, but it is a very important part of our local economies, a very important foundation for our family farms. So I am proud to support the work Senator Tester has done in making sure our small local farms are fully accounted for and supported in this legislation. Also in this bill are exemptions for farms that produce low-risk food, no matter what their size. This is a type of logical flexibility to make regulations apply when they are needed and not provide unnecessary restrictions or hurdles when they are not. In conclusion, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. It will improve the tracing of contaminated food, whether that be produce or processed. It will increase inspections. It will create safety guidelines for farms and processors. It will protect organic farms, protect small farms. This bill works to prevent contamination as well so that we can avoid unnecessary illness and death. Improvements to tracing contaminated food will not only prevent illness but will prevent costly recalls for farms and food processors who are not at fault for a particular contamination. Most important, this bill will help other families avoid what Jake and Jet and their parents went through. Parents should be able to pack their children's lunch boxes without fear. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are only a few weeks away now from the November elections. Therefore, this is a time for reflection. For me, it is a time to recognize I am nearly through my first 2 years as a Senator. I must say it is an incredible privilege to come and be part of this debate among these 100 colleagues, representing our 50 States. It is also time to ponder whether that debate works as well as it might. The Senate is famed as the greatest deliberative body in the world, but I have seen too little deliberation and too much dysfunction. At this time, as we prepare to return back home to our citizens, to talk to our folks back home about the upcoming elections and the ideas they have, it is also time to think about when we come back, after these elections, after a new Congress comes in next January, how can we make this Senate work better as a deliberative body. My perspective is affected not just by the time I spent here since January 2009 but by the perspective of first coming here in 1976 as an intern for Senator Hatfield. So I thought I would compare the use of what is commonly termed the ``filibuster'' between the 1975-76 session and our last complete session, the 2007-2008 session. We had in that 2007-2008 session the use of the filibuster on amendments 30 times. But if I turn the clock back to 1975-1976, 35 years ago, the number was zero. There were zero filibusters. Then, on motions to proceed, there were 3 in 1975-1976; there were 49 in 2007-2008. You get the picture. Not only is there a huge increase in the use of the filibuster to block final votes but also a huge increase to stop votes on amendments and a phenomenal increase to stop getting to a bill at all. Again, it was only used 3 times 35 years ago but 49 times in the 110th Congress. We cannot have a democracy that works if we can't debate and vote on bills. I have been pondering this. I have been pondering how first we need to understand how these rules work. I used the term ``filibuster,'' and indeed with that term everyone pictures ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He stops a vote by continuing to speak, hour after hour. But that is not actually how the rules work in the Senate. The responsibility to block a vote, if you will, is not by those who object to the regular order, who object to a vote of 51, but it is on the majority to summon a supermajority. So take that notion of a filibuster and continuous speaking and set that aside because that is not the way it works in this body. The way it works is if a single Senator objects to the regular order of 51, then the majority must obtain a supermajority of 60 to proceed. That is why you do not see folks holding the floor day and night to block a vote--because they do not have to. It is because the burden is on the majority to get 60 votes to proceed. This does a lot of damage. It does a lot of damage in terms of delay because when that single Senator says I object to the regular order of 51 and demands 60, not only under the rules do they trigger a 60-vote requirement but they also trigger a 1-week delay. So you can imagine on a single bill, such an objection on a motion to proceed, an objection on one or two amendments, objection on final passage, and you now have a month wasted in this body without a final vote, with no terrific intervening debate because those who are objecting do not need to stay on the floor and make their case. Not only does this do a tremendous amount of damage to our responsibility as a Congress, as a legislative body, but it does a lot of damage to the other branches of government because it means we cannot process the nominations for the judicial branch. So, many judgeships are sitting empty as a result. It means we cannot proceed to the nominations of folks for the executive branch. So a President probably gets the Secretaries in place, but often the second and third tier positions that develop the policy and execute the work, implement the plans, those positions are often vacant. There is nothing in our Constitution that says the right to advise and consent and indeed the responsibility to advise and consent gives this body the right to do damage to the other two branches of government. Indeed, it is an abuse of our responsibility to do so. There are a number of things we should think about. I would like to applaud my colleagues who are putting forward so many ideas: Chuck Schumer, the chair of the Rules Committee, is holding hearings; Tom Udall, who is carrying our red rule book and studying it and thinking about the ways we can change this body; Amy Klobuchar, who has recognized for a long time that dysfunction is different than deliberation; Michael Bennet from Colorado, and many others--my colleague, Al Franken, who is presiding. So many in the freshman and sophomore classes recognize this body needs to change so we can do the work we are expected to do by the American people. So what are some of those ideas? One is to greatly reduce the use of the supermajority, which I will call it, because it is a much more accurate description than the filibuster. Reduce the use of the filibuster on nominations. Perhaps it should not be used on any nominations except perhaps to the Supreme Court. But find a line and a method to expedite nominations. Second, reduce the use of the filibusters on motions other than final consideration of a bill. There should not be a question about whether we get to the point of debating a bill or whether we get to vote on amendments because at each of those points, everyone would obtain or retain the final power to oppose or trigger a supermajority on the final vote. Then, in regard to the ability to proceed to trigger a supermajority on the final vote, put the responsibility squarely on the minority. It should not be the majority's responsibility to get a supermajority. At least those who are objecting should have to maintain a large number of Senators continuously on this floor day and night. If they believe so much that it is so wrong to proceed to a final vote, they should have the courage and dedication to be here in a substantial number day and night to make their point to the American people. Let the American people respond to that demonstration of saying: Yes, we are with you or, no, we are not, and let that final vote happen. We have an issue about participation of the minority, and this is an extremely important point. I have heard many of my colleagues across the aisle say: We are not guaranteed the opportunity to have amendments. Well, that is a fair point. What if we were to have in this body a fallback rule so that if the majority leader and the minority leader could not reach agreement on the number of amendments and the content of those amendments to be considered, that there would be a fallback position that both parties would get 5 amendments, or both parties would get 10 amendments, so that we could proceed back and forth--a Republican amendment, a Democratic amendment, a Republican amendment, a Democratic amendment, a debate for an hour and a vote, debate for another hour and another vote, therefore, having to respond and take positions on the issues of the day rather than seeing this Chamber, without action, paralyzed. These are the types of ideas that we need to wrestle with. We who are privileged to be here as delegates from our States have a responsibility to our citizens not just in our State but all the citizens of this Nation to make this Chamber the deliberative body that was envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution. That is why next January, when we come in to start the next session, the 112th Congress, we need to have a major debate over our rules. We need to recognize that under the Constitution it only takes 51 Members of this body to adopt new rules. But in that context we have to do honor to the ability of the minority party, whichever party that is, to fully participate in the process. This situation in which the House passes 300 bills that never see the light of day, never see consideration in the Senate because we cannot get anything done on the floor of the Senate, must end. We have a responsibility to restore this body to being the greatest deliberative body on the planet. I yield the floor, and I subject the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Jake Sullivan, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I also ask unanimous consent that Caitlin Kilborn, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for today.