Floor Statements

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

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

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. 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?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

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

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

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.