tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 13, 2011 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
proverb which says, words have no wings, but they can fly a thousand miles. president lee, first lady kim, i hope my words today will be felt in the hearts of all south koreans when i say to our allies, our partners, our deep, dear friends, please accept our warmest welcome. [cheers and applause] >> translator: [speaking in native tongue] >> today we welcome a leader
whose remarkable life embodies the rise of his nation, from an impoverished child, drank water to fill his hungry stomach, to the students who clean the streets to pay his tuition, to the activist, sent to jail for protesting dictatorship, to the leader guiding his country to new heights, my good friend and partner, president lee. >> today we celebrate an alliance rooted in the shared values of our people, our servicemembers who have fought and bled and died together for
our freedom, our students and workers and entrepreneurs who work together to create opportunities and prosperity. and our families, bound by the generations, including many who are here today, proud and patriotic korean-americans. >> president lee, our two nations have stood together for more than 60 years. over the past two years we have deepened our cooperation. today, i'm proud to say that the
alliance between the united states and the republic of korea is stronger than it has ever been. [speaking in native tongue] >> our reliance national alliance reflects a broader choose. the united states is a pacific nation, america's leading once more leaving in the asia-pacific. with our landmark trade agreement, we will bring our nation's even closer, creating new jobs are both our people and preserving our age as two of the most dynamic economies in the world. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]
[speaking in native tongue] >> mr. president, your visit marks a new chapter in our lives because in south korea, the united states as a global partner that is embracing the responsibilities of leadership in the 21st century. as we go forward, let us draw strength from the same sense of solidarity that i have seen during my visits to korea. our very brave armed forces. we go together. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]
>> we will go together investing in our societies and the education and skills of our people. we will go together reaffirming that aligns between the united states and the republic of korea is unbreakable. and we will go together as we parted to meet our global responsibilities so that our citizens, and people around the world, may live in security and prosperity. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> president lee, first lady kim, members of the korean delegation, on behalf of michelle and myself, on behalf of the american people, welcome
[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the president who might consider one of my closest friends, madam first lady, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for your warm welcome extended to me, my wife and my delegation. it is always a great pleasure visiting this great country. i would also like to convey the warm greetings from your friends back in korea, mr. president and madam first lady. the journey of our alliance began 60 years ago, a journey that brought together two peoples from different sides of the pacific. what brought us together more than anything was the value that all of us here hold so dear, freedom.
[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: yesterday, i pictured at the korean war memorial just a short distance away from here. there i was able to pay my respects to the 37,000 american soldiers who fought and died defending this value. it is written on a wall at that memorial that these american soldiers quote, serve the call
to defend the country they never knew, and a people they never met, unquote. a simple yet poignant words describe how brave and good they were. mr. president, madam first lady, ladies and gentlemen, the korean people have never forgotten what these fallen soldiers and their families gave up. we will always remain grateful to all of them. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: our alliance is the bedrock of stability, peace and progress. and our relationship is
evolving. our two countries are working together to fight disease and poverty, climate change and natural disasters. we are addressing the issues of energy security and eradicating terrorism, and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we are working together to promote universal values such as democracy and human rights. we face these challenges both as a nation and as a partner. we will prevail and do we overcome these challenges. we will come out stronger. our two countries will assure peace and stability of the peninsula and beyond. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]
[speaking in native tongue] >> translator[speaking in nativ] >> translator: last night the united states congress ratified the korea-u.s. free trade agreement. this historic achievement will open up a new chapter in our relationship, and i was like to take this opportunity to thank president obama for his steadfast leadership. this agreement will create more jobs. it will expand mutual investments in both of our countries. it will become a new engine of growth that will propel our economies forward. ladies and gentlemen, it will be a win for both of our countries. [speaking in native tongue]
[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: our two peoples walked alongside each other armed with common values, pursuing the same ideals and achieving common goals. and this is making me our security and economic alliance stronger. it is bringing our people closer together. we are true partners and close friends, and we will remain as such in the 21st century. our alliance that was born out
of the trenches of war will continue to blossom. it will become stronger. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, madam first lady, ladies and jim paris and the united states our global partners do. we are a force for good. i look forward to a constructive as well as an enjoyable time here in washington, d.c. with president obama in the first lady. my team is to further strengthen our common values and our
>> wrapping up our coverage of the arrival of south korean president lee and his wife, live from the south lawn of the white house this morning. he is here for five day visit. here's how the day will unfold. he and president obama will meet and hold a joint news conference later today. we're planning live coverage of that at 12:20 p.m. it will be online at c-span.org. at 4 p.m., a joint meeting of congress. later this evening he will join president obama for a state dinner at the white house. we will have that began at 6:30 p.m. on c-span3. president obama and presently acknowledge close cultural and
economic ties as reflection of that yesterday congress gave final approval to a bill easing trade restrictions between the u.s. and south korea. it is the biggest trade deal since 1994. congress also agreed to trade legislation with panama and colombia. here's a look at both tallies for both the house and the senate as we show you yesterday's floor debates on those bills in the senate. too, rise in strong support of the pending trade agreements with america's allies, colombia, south korea and panama. these agreements hold great promise for service providers, manufacturers and american consumers and i would echo what my colleague from oregon, who does chair the subcommittee on trade in the finance committee has already said that these trade agreements position american businesses to capture more of that supply chain, to enable us to create jobs here at home, and to grow the economy, to generate economic activity out there that otherwise we
wouldn't see happening. so at a time when we need to focus our measures on measures that will promote job creation, these agreements are exactly the type of legislation we ought to be considering. there is broad consensus these agreements will benefit our economy. the boom white house estimates that enactment of these three trade agreements will boost exports by at least $12 billion supporting over 70,000 american jobs. the business roundtable estimates passage of these trade agreements will support as many as 250,000 american jobs. and these are not only jobs that large businesses but increasingly, at smaller companies that are accessing international markets. just as an example of that, more than 35,000 small business -- i should say small and mid-sized american businesses export to colombia, panama and south korea. and these firms now account for more than one-third of u.s. exports to these countries. passing these three trade
agreements will provide export opportunities to american businesses of all sizes, creating good-paying jobs here at home. the benefits to u.s. agriculture of passing these agreements are especially compelling. these three agreements are estimated to represent $3 billion in new agricultural exports that will support 22,500 u.s. agricultural-related jobs. my state of south dakota is a good example. you look at the export potential for u.s. agriculture represented by these agreements according to the american farm bureau federation these agreements will add $52 million each year to south dakota's farm economy. south dakota's projected to gain $22 million from increased beef exports, $25 million from increased exports of wheat, soybeans, and corn and $5 million from increased pork shipments each year. america's market has already largely open to imports from our trading partners. almost 99% of agricultural
productproductsproducts from cod panama enter the united states duty-free. without trade agreements to ensure similar treatment for our export he is, american businesses will continue to face high tariff and nontariff barriers abroad. consider just one example and that's the market for agricultural products in korea, which is the world's 13th largest economy. korea's tariffs on imports agricultural goods average 54%, compared to an average of 9% tariff on their imports into the united states. so passage of the korea free trade agreement will level this playing field. think about that, madam president. 54% for our exporters to get into the korean market, 9% tariff for their exports coming here. that is a huge discrepancy that will be rectified by passage of this agreement. korea's market for pork products in particular underscores how removing barriers can benefit u.s. farmers and ranchers.
u.s. exports to south korea have increased 130% from january to july of this year because korea temporarily lifted its 25% duty on pork imports due to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in korea. during this perked the korean market surpassed canada to become the third-largest export destination for u.s. pork producers after japan and mexico. korea's tariff on pork imports is expected to return but would be permanently eliminated by 2016 under the terms of the u.s. and south korea free trade agreement. so that we know that when we eliminate barriers to u.s. exports, american producers will compete and win in the global marketplace. however, if we fail to act and continue to delay implementation of these agreements, the cost to our economy will also be substantial. the united states chamber of commerce study warns that failure to enact the three pending trade agreements could
threaten as many as 380,000 american jobs and the loss of $40 billion in sales. the cost of inaction on trade is high because today we flif a global economy where american producers rely on access to foreign markets. consider that in 1960 exports accounted for only 3.6% of our entire g.d.p. today exports account for 12.5% of our entire g.d.p. exports of u.s. goods and services support over 10 million american jobs. when america stands still on trade, the rest of the world does not. madam president, today there are more than 100 new free trade agreements that are currently under negotiation around the world. yet in the united states, we're only party to one of those negotiations, and that's the transpacific partnership. if we do not aggressively pursue new market opening agreements on behalf 6 american workers, we will see new export
opportunities go to foreign businesses and foreign workers. unfortunately, that is exactly what we have experienced under the current administration. the three trade agreements that we're considering today were signed over four years ago, and this administration had more than two and a half years to submit them to congress for consideration but failed to do so. instead, the president chose to sit on these agreements and not send them to congress for nearly now 1,000 days. we cannot quantify precisely the cost of this unfortunate delay, but we know that it's put american exporters at a competitive disadvantage in the colombian, korean, and pan manian markets. on july 1, the european union-china trade agreement went into effect. in just the first months after this took effect, e.u. exports jumped nearly 37% while u.s. exports to korea rose by only 3 pmplet let's be clear about what this means, madam president. korean consumers are choosing to
buy german, french, and british cars, electronics, and agricultural products rather than american-made products because those european products now have a price advantage. this was entirely preventable, if we'd acted on the u.s.-korea trade agreement sooner. likewise, the canada-colombia agreement went into effect on august 15 of 24 year. this is resulting in an advantage for canadian goods such as construction equipment, aircraft and range of other industrial and agricultural products. colombia is now reporting that since the canada-colombia trade agreement took effect, there's been an 18.3% increase in colombian imports of canadian wheat. much as with korea, u.s. business are finding themselves disadvantaged because the president waited so long before sending these agreements to congress. unfortunately, the nextgenive impact of the -- the negative impact of the colombian-canada
agreement -- just a few years ago, american wheat producers dominated the market in colombia with a 75% market share as of 2008. today we are facing a situation where u.s. wheat producers are likely to be completely shut out of the colombian market if we don't afnlgt hopefully by passing these agreements today and by swiftly implementing the u.s.-colombian trade promotion agreement, our wheat producers will be able to recover much of their lost market shaimplet but they should never have been placed in this position to begin w in 2010 for the first time in the history of u.s.-colombian trairksd the u.s. lost to argentina its position as colombia's number-one agricultural supplier. consider the story of three of the major crops that we grow in south dakota -- coy bean, corn, wheat.
there's been a staggering decline of 50 percentage points in our market share. er u.s. corn sales to colombia fell from 3 million metric tons in 2007 to 700,000 metric tons in 2010. this is the high cost, madam president, of delay while our trading partners pursue new regional and bilateral trade agreements. there's also been the cost of duties that have been paid owns exports while these agreements waited. there's a u.s. company -- u.s. companies have paid more than $5 billion in tariffs to colombia and panama since the trade agreements with these nations were signed more than four years ago. let's consider the cost of delay to just one american company, and that's caterpillar. a leading producer of large construction and mining equipment and a major u.s. exporter. caterpillar exports 92% of its american-made large mining trucks. cat pill lars large trucks --
large truck exports to colombia face a 15% duty, which adds about $300,000 to the cost of each of these trucks exported to colombia. i mean, how does that work, madam president? think about that. every truck that caterpillar send into the colombian market that's an additional $300,000 on top of the cost of that piece of equipment for the tariff that has to be paid. just imagine the advantage that caterpillar could have had for the last several years over its japanese and chinese competitors if the house of representatives that at the time was controlled by the democrats back in 2508 had not refused to consider the colombia agreement when president bush submitted it or if the current administration had acted sooner. and that is just one example of countless others out there with american businesses. so i'm glad we're here today and i expect all three trade agreements to pass with what i hope is broad, bipartisan support. i hope we also have learned an important lesson. we cannot afford to delay when
it comes to international competition and trade. i hope the white house has learned an important lesson as well. rather than submitting to congress divisive matters where there is fundamental disagreements such as new tax increases, this administration should identify measures such as these trade bills that will spur our economy and where there is broad bipartisan agreement. the president sent his american jobs act to congress exactly a month ago today. yet we only just last night voted on whether we should consider this bill. a vote that did not get a single republican and it didn't get every democrat vote either. contrast that approach with these free trade agreements which were submitted to consequently by the president just nine days ago. within about a week and a half, these trade agreements will have passed the relevant committees in the house and the senate with large bipartisan votes and will be on the president's desk awaiting his signature. clearly reaching across the aisle on measures where both parties can find agreement is a
much more effective approach. and so i would urge my colleagues to support these job-creating trade bills based upon their merits. i would also urge my colleagues to support these bills to send a message that when this administration is willing to send us commonsense, pro-growth legislation, we are ready and willing to pass it. we can only hope that our votes today on these trade agreements will set that precedent. so, madam president, i look forward to voting for these long overdue agreements on behalf of american businesses and consumers, and i look forward hopefully to being able to act on what are truly pro-growth job measures in the coming weeks and months. we have an economy that continues to struggle with over 9% unemployment. we continue to see month after month, a lot of americans who are without jobs, and this is one example of something that we can do to address that concern, but there are lots of other things out there that we could be doing as well, madam president, if we're willing to
identify those things on which there is agreement and those types of policies that actually do create jobs, that are about getting americans back to work getting americans back to work >> those remarks yesterday from senate floor. the trade deals were later approved in house and senate. we return live to the senate floor now for general speeches until noon when they will begin debate on three judicial nominations. votes are expected at 2 p.m. at 4 p.m. they will join their house colleagues for a joint meeting today remarks on south korean president lee myung-bak. live coverage of the senate now here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.
eternal god hallowed be your name. today, empower our lawmakers to run with patience the race that is set before them, looking to you the author and finisher of our faith. keep them from discouragement and help them to be persistent in their efforts to meet today's challenges with faith and trust in you. sustain them ever in your grace and bestow upon them your abundant spirit. lord, give uncommon wisdom to the
joint select committee on deficit reduction. as its members strive to forge a deficit-reduction plan, grant them wisdom and courage for the living of these days. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c.,
october 13, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rus of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: the senate will be in morning business until noon. at noon the senate will be in executive session to consider the nathan, had i can i and forrest nominations to be united states district judges. we expect roll call votes around 2:00 p.m. in relation to these skwroplgss. there is a -- nominations. there is a joint meeting in congress today at 4:00 p.m. senators will meet on the floor at 3:30 to proceed to the house. we'll do that together. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that nathan engle, a fellow in my office, be granted
mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: later today the senate will have an opportunity to hear from south korean president lee, and i know we look forward to it. south korea is a stalwart ally that enjoys a flourishing economy. it's a shining example of how embracing democracy and free-market principles can transform a society for good. just imagine, in 50 years they went from a civil war to a military dictatorship to an evolving democracy. and on the economic side, to a thriving capitalist country that has the 13th-largest economy in the world. from a country that was a recipient of foreign aid and peace corps volunteers to a country with its own volunteer program and its own peace corps. all of that in 50 years, and right on the same peninsula with one of the last stalinist
regimes in the world. a great success story that the united states had an awful lot to do with promoting. south korean free trade agreement we passed last night overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis will only make our two economies stronger. our already strong alliance will be even stronger. these agreements should serve as an example of the kind of bipartisan legislation congress should be focused on right now. many of us have been amazeed to witness, as i indicated earlier, the rapid growth and evolution in south korea, truly remarkable accomplishment. so we welcome this great friend of the united states to our shores. we hope he and his wife have a memorable trip as we face together the threat of north korea and the rapid changes occurring and the strategic balance in northeast asia. we look forward to an even stronger alliance with south korea in the years to come.
mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: thank you very much. mr. president, i would say as my friend leaves -- i know he has an appointment -- the work that has been done in the last few weeks in the senate has been very, very important. we've been able to work on the fema bill, which we worked through the problems with that. china currency, we worked there that. and even though, as my friend the distinguished republican leader, knows, i didn't agree with the trade bills, what they do, i think it's a good sign of our working together in spite of strong feelings on both sides, people put that aside. there were no dilatory efforts made to hold this up, and we moved forward. i think that's commendable. that should be the pattern for the rest of this congress. and i also want the record to be spread with the fact that as far as congressional action, this
legislation would not have happened but for the republican leader. he has been laser focused on this for a long time, and there were some things we had to work through to get here. but one of the reasons that i did what i did to help move this along is because of his feelings about the importance of this legislation. mr. president, we also need to focus on jobs. it's one of the most important things that we can do, i believe the most important thing we can do. i'm sorry that this week my republican colleagues proved once again that the only jobs they care about are their own. they voted against a plan to create two million american jobs because they believed it was good republican politics. meanwhile, 14 million unemployed americans are worried about how they're going to make their rent, put food on the table and fill their gas tank or how
they're going to get another job interview. these 14 million americans could care less who proposed the plan or who gets credit to get them back to work. the only thing they care about is that congress gets to work putting them back to work. ask whether they support a plan to ask millionaires to pay their fair share, pay for tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses, construction for roads, schools, unextension unemployment benefits, americans overwhelmingly said yes, they support it. and the reason they do that, mr. president, is because of newspaper articles we see around the country, the news stories, a quarter of u.s. millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than some in the middle class. it's all over this. about 17% average. that's really untoward. mr. president, two-thirds of americans support both the plan the republicans brought this week and the way it's paid for.
yet still republicans unanimously voted against these tax cuts, infrastructure developments and jobs for teachers, police officers and veterans. they voted, as i repeat, against two million jobs for american workers. our republican colleagues pay lip service to the unemployment crisis in the country, but in the end actions speak louder than words. as congresswoman barbara jordan, the first african-american woman to be elected once said -- quote -- "the citizens of america expect more. they want more and deserve more than a recital of problems." close quotes. the american people demand action. they deserve it. mr. president, i would hope that my republican colleagues have a plan to create jobs other than the constant talk about let's get rid of regulations, let's lower taxes, let's do some things together to create jobs. if my friends don't like what the president put forward, come
forward with something that's constructive in nature. as barbara jordan said, the citizens of america expect more. they deserve and they want more than a recital of problems. we can all come out here and recite the problems. there are lots of them. but let's work together to create some jobs. i was happy to hear some, from some of my republican colleagues that they want to work together to create jobs. i told one of the senators, wonderful. grab any one of the democrats. they'll work with you to help create these jobs. we need to do something. we don't need to continue to recite the problems. and please get off of this, i say to my republican friends, about lowering taxes as a way to create jobs. if that in fact were the case, the bush tax cuts would have put this country on an economic machine that could never have been driven so fast. but it didn't help. eight million jobs were lost during the bush years with these tax cuts. during the clinton years, 23
million jobs were created. let's stop the constant cry we need to lower taxes. none of us are in favor of raising taxes, but certainly we need a fair tax distribution. that's why the american people are agreeing with us. we're willing to work on regulations. there are too many of them, we all agree with that. but let's look specifically. you know, mr. president, one of the big issues that we thought about last week was farm dust. okay? farm dust. the e.p.a. doesn't regulate farm dust. they don't want to regulate farm dust. these are all just, as in the grocery business, lost liters. it's the only way to confuse the american people. i repeat: e.p.a. doesn't regulate farm dust. they don't want to regulate farm dust. let's start talking about things that create jobs, that do things to put people back to work. we're going to continue to do everything we cannot to let the american people down.
we'll not stop working to pass proposals contained in the american jobs act. just because republicans have used every obstructionist trick in the book to stop it from moving forward -plt we'll continue to ask the richest americans to share the burden of getting our economy back on track and never give up the fight to help 14 million americans who are out of work. the american jobs act reduces taxes for everybody that makes more than $1 million a year. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second
30 minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. i want to, first of all, kind of tag on to the remarks of the leader for just a second. you know, one of the things i wish we would do in this body is get out of the business of demonizing certain segments of our pop -- segments of our population, and both sides are guilty of it from time to time. but i want to particularly talk about the major employer of the united states: small business, and the leader's reference to the 5.6% surtax. documents show that 392,000 american small businesses would be impacted by a 5.6% surtax in order to pay for the president's jobs bill. records show that 72% of the american people are employed by small business. you have to ask yourself this question -- if you're really interested in creating jobs, why would you target the job creator that creates 3/4 of the jobs in america and put a surtax on
them? it just doesn't make any sense. if there were sincerity in that offer, those people would first and foremost be carved out of any punitive surtax and would probably have more employment. i will join any time, anyplace with the leader to work on creating jobs because that is job one for the united states of america. i was a small businessman for 33 years, ran a small business for 22 years. i understand the heart and soul of small business, and today i come to the floor to talk about two small businesses, two small businesses in georgia and the effect of regulation on those small businesses and the decisions they have made this year that impact employment and the economy. one is a lovely lady named susan kolowich. susan is a dear friend of my wife. my wife forked for her for 14 years. hasn't worked for her in the last five or six years. she opened a shop in east cobb county in marietta, georgia, called cest moi.
she would go to france and buy things that she would sell in her gift shop. she was so successful that her husband jim who had been a subway sandwich owner decided to open a restaurant and join it with her shop. so people could come and shop and eat and get a flavor of france. for ten years he ran the restaurant. for 23 years, she ran the store successfully. difficult in the last three or four years because of the economy, but they stayed in business. but finally, she threw in the towel and sold the company. she sold her shop, jim, her husband, sold his restaurant. they sold them because they were up to here with the oppressive regulation of our government and the continued threats of things just exactly like the surtax on their small business at a time in which sales are very difficult. and that's not an abstract story. that's the truth. i'm sure it's happening in mississippi and i'm sure it's happening in wyoming. let me talk about a little bit larger small business. hen he see -- henesey jaguar.
on january 3 of this year, i went to a cafe in atlanta to meet a couple for a meeting about some legislation. walked in, it's kind of the watering hole for breakfast in atlanta. everybody who is anybody kind of goes there. it's a great place to eat. when i walked in the door and walked past the cash register where you could see out into the cafe to see if my guests i were going to meet with were there, steve spotted me. he jumped up and said johnny, i need to talk to you now. he ran across the restaurant. i thought he was going to give me a bear hug, he looked so excited. he got up close, he put his index finger on my chin and said i just fired a salesman and hired two compliance officers to comply with the requirements of dodd-frank. it did create two jobs, two compliance officers. but it cost a salesman. if you're doing that, the economy is going to go straight down because you're punishing productivity, you're punishing job creation for the sake of regulatory compliance. now, we have some regulation, it's good. i believe our job as legislators
is to see to it that we mitigate risk for the american people. but this administration appears to think its job is to eliminate risk. if you eliminate risk, you stay in bed when you get up in the morning, you stay there until night, you don't do anything because you don't take a risk. capitalism is about risk. risk and reward is about our system of our economy. so when people talk about regulatory oppression, that's two stories. in atlanta, georgia, where regulation has actually caused two businesses to be sold and jobs to be lost and another business to hire two people to comply with government regulation and fire somebody who was in sales. it is backwards at best and it is wrong. so i hope the leader who did make an acknowledgment that he wanted to mitigate regulation, let's sit down and let's find out what we need to do. let's call a time-out. let's do what senator collins of maine said. let's take a time out for a year. let's try and digest and absorb the regulations we have passed without continuing to put more threatening regulations on top of business at a time when we
have 9.1% unemployment in america, and in my state we have 10.2%. it's time for us to be proactive on taking the shackles off american small business, not threaten them with surtaxes and not oppress them with regulation, but instead let's work to empower small business to help us come out of this recession. now, my dear friend, the physician from the great state of wyoming, i think wants to address precisely the same subject i am, senator barrasso. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you very much, mr. president. i'm delighted to be joining my colleague, senator isakson from georgia. senator wicker is here also from mississippi. we think this is very important. the leader started talking about today, said we need to focus on jobs. that's what we have wanted to focus on for all of the time in the obama administration. but no, the president ignored jobs, ignored jobs his first year in office, ignored jobs his second year in office. here we are halfway through -- more than halfway through his third year in office, and finally the president has noticed what's been on the minds of the american people. this is a president and a
majority leader who forced through this body a health care law that's bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients, bad for taxpayers, ignoring what the american people said they wanted to focus on, which was jobs. the economy, the debt, the spending. we see a majority leader who led this body through adding more to the debt. now $14 trillion in debt. more debt, more spending, more money that's owed to china. and we need to put americans to work. we need to get americans back to work. the majority leader talked about 14 million americans looking for jobs. there are over four million who haven't worked for over a year. in that kind of a situation, it's going to be a lot harder for those folks to ever get a job again, ever get a job again. and the regulations just keep on coming. a month ago, the president came to the hill, visited and had a joint session of congress. he said i want to get rid of some of these regulations. he said i can identify
regulations. they came out with a list of about $4 billion worth of regulations to lower the cost of business over the next five years, but in the month of september alone, this administration came out with 230 proposed rules and 338 final rules. and if you go to what this administration says that those rules are going to cost the people of this country, cost the job creators of this country, even the administration using their own numbers, that cost is going to be $10 billion. i heard our colleague from georgia talk about the paperwork, the new compliance officers. just yesterday, this administration came out under dodd-frank with new rules and regulations, proposed rules. they took only 11 pages of this massive bill, but only 11 pages, and when you look at the 298 pages of proposed rules that
come out, what do the government regulators, the obama administration regulators say it is going to cost the businesses of this country, in terms of man-hours having to be spent to comply with the paperwork? these aren't my numbers. these aren't senator isakson's numbers. these aren't senator wicker's numbers. 6,283,000. 6,283,000 hours of paperwork. that's what the government experts say is going to have to be spent on paperwork to comply with one component of the dodd-frank law. how is that going to help? how is that kind of a drag on a society going to help create jobs? the president says if the republicans have ideas, we want to hear them. the majority leader today stood
here and said if the republicans have ideas, we want to hear them. well, a month ago, a month ago to this day the president came to the hill. earlier that morning, a number of colleagues, house and senate members, came to talk about a western caucus jobs frontier bill. a number of bills that republicans have proposed. breaking down washington's barriers to america's red, white, and blue jobs. the majority leader said we ought to spend more money. the president says we ought to spend more money. the president talked about his so-called stimulus plan. he said it was going to save or create 3.5 million jobs. we have lost millions of jobs since this president has come into office. the president talked about green jobs. he said that his policies, his clean energy policies would create five million new jobs. we have just seen the solyndra situation. 1,100 people fired because of
bad bets by this administration. this is an administration that shouldn't be betting with the taxpayers' money. it's not the administration's money. it's not the president's money. that's why the american people are so up in arms. they see what all of this spending is doing, and it is not helping jobs. i see my colleague from mississippi here. we can go back and forth and talk about this. i know you have examples and situations in mississippi, i see them in wyoming all of the time, people having to deal with the red tape coming out of washington. the president talks a pretty good game, but when you look at what's happening out there, the american people are very disappointed, the american people deserve better than what they are getting from this administration. so i would ask my colleague from mississippi, are there things that you see happening to your friends and your neighbors at home that we need to share with the rest of the country? mr. wicker: well, there is no question about it, and i appreciate my two friends coming down and helping with this colloquy today, and there are
two companies that i want to talk about in just a moment, but let me say at the outset we all want to create jobs for americans. there's no question about it. the president came into office wanting to create jobs. the problem is he hasn't let history be a guide, and if we -- if we go ahead with this second stimulus bill, we will be following the same failed programs that not only have not created jobs for americans but as a matter of fact the policies have made things worse for americans and for job creation. the president's proposal and the proposal that the majority leader just embraced is a spend now, pay later approach and it's one that has been proven not to work. three years after we tried this at the beginning of the president's term, we have not
put more americans back to work, and this should be a glaring reminder of the failures of the first stimulus package and the probability and likelihood that this second stimulus package would be met with the same result. what we have seen since the first stimulus, the federal debt has skyrocketed, there are nearly two million fewer jobs and economic growth is limping along at a meager 1%. so many other countries have a higher g.d.p. growth than that, and it is tragic that our country has not kept up. the unemployment rate has hovered at 9% for 30 months in a row. if you add in those that have given up looking for work or settled for part-time work, that number skyrockets from around 9% unemployment, which is an unspeakable number, to some 16%.
in fact, some six million people have been without a job for more than six months. so we know that the president's policies are not working. we have seen very, very slow movement, and frankly in many instances, that movement has been backwards. the big government approach of spend now and pay later has simply been a wet blanket for america's job creators. now, the fact is there are some things that we can agree on. we must approach in this time of divided government, we must approach the idea of job creation in a bipartisan manner. the house of representatives is controlled by republicans. this body is controlled by democrats.
the executive branch including the regulatory regime in this country is strictly controlled by the democratic party. so we need to work together in a step-by-step approach. i think a comprehensive package of pass this bill, pass this bill immediately without amendments, i think that's been rejected by both democrats and republicans is in this think, ad we now need to embark on a step-by-step approach, and we need to be quick about it. one example was yesterday. when we finally got around to it, the house of representatives passed the trade bills, once the president sent them to us. that was done yesterday afternoon by 7:00 or 8:00 last evening. the united states senate had passed all of these trade agreements on a huge bipartisan
basis. so this is a step in the right direction. there are other things that we could do, but i want to commend the president for finally sending the trade bills to the united states congress and for getting that done and opening up the new markets. that's a step. the gentleman from georgia mentioned some companies and some potential job creators in his state. my friend from wyoming asked me to talk about examples in mississippi. actually my wife, gail, and i had an opportunity to participate in a chrisening of some -- chistening of boats
yesterday. i know the initial reaction is why should we be concerned with yachts. i tell you why we should be concerned with yachts. we employ thousands and thousands of americans building those yachts. i never owned a yacht. i don't aspire to even travel on a yacht. but i'm glad somebody, there are a bunch of people around the world that want to buy them because we employ 1,000 people at trinity yachts and we'd like to increase that. what we christened was not a yacht at all. it was a tugboat. they help bring natural gas into the port of pascagoula. this shipyard built the tug, signet maritime bought the tugs. they will be creating jobs in
gulfport, creating jobs in the port of pascagoula. and they would like to create a lot more jobs. i was told by the management and ownership of trinity yachts that business is a little soft in the shipyard. but if the president would simply go back to what we used to have in terms of of oil and gas permitting, that we would lift this de facto ban on oil wells in the gulf of mexico and just back to the business that we had the year before last, then business could be great guns at trinity yachts. we're not talking about yachts being constructed by trinity. we're talking about oil and gas drilling platforms. the quicker permits and drilling projects in the gulf of mexico could bring about more than
200,000 new jobs in the next year. that's a job-creator proposal that is simple. all we need to do is enforce the law that is currently on the books and get back to permitting so we can get back to producing our own energy. the oil and natural gas sector is responsible for nine million jobs, according to the congressional research service. and we have in america the largest recoverable stores of natural gas, oil and coal on the earth. so if you want to know another republican proposal, which really is a bipartisan proposal when you get down to it, because our gulf coast delegation consists of republicans and democrats. then here is a concrete proposal. let's get back to producing our own energy resources in the gulf
of mexico and elsewhere in the united states of america. nine million jobs, and it could be more. mr. isakson: the gentleman from mississippi just jogged my memory and i want to jog his because he was in the united states house of representatives in 1993 if i'm not mistaken. i got there in 1997. i remember the first year of the clinton administration when they put a luxury tax on yachts. the yacht construction business went out of the business and thousands of jobs left. i don't know if trinity is a sub-s, an l.l.c., a sole proprietorship. it's probably one of those three types of corporations and i'm sure it's as small business. they're going to have a 5.6% surtax on their small business because of the proposal the president has to allegedly pay for a jobs bill. this is deja vu all over again. the president is proposing more taxes to pay for government jobs, take the money out of the pockets of small business to create the jobs in america. trinity yachts, and we'll do
research to find out if that's true because i don't know the company, but i bet you they are the one of the ones that pay the taxes as if they were an individual and would be affected by the tax the president is proposal just like the clinton tax until the republicans cook over in 1994 -- until the republicans took over in 1994. mr. wicker: the point is they're hardworking mississippians, hardworking americans who are glad to come to work each day. and we ought to take over this proposal. i know the larger point is many of the tax creators do pay taxes at the individual level. we know from research that four out of five of the taxpayers who would pay the higher taxes being proposed by the president are business owners, the very people
that we're hoping will create jobs and create them soon for americans. mr. isakson: i want to thank the gentleman from mississippi for his stories which are true and to the point. my story is about two small businesses. i want to thank the physician from the great state of wyoming for his contribution. mr. barrasso: i know you see this in georgia. you see this in mississippi. we know what doesn't work. we know what doesn't work is more borrowing and more spending and overregulation and the threat of raising taxes on people and the job creators of this country. so there is much to be done, and that's why we have come out with this jobs frontier, the western caucus did, because we want to increase affordable american energy. and the president, when he was running for office, said under his proposals that electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. if you want a productive, vibrant economy, you need low-cost energy. and if you want a secure nation, you need american energy to do that.
so when my colleague from the gulf state of mississippi talks about energy in the gulf, there's a lot there. i can talk from wyoming from the standpoint of energy available on federal land which is being blocked by regulations. we ought to be exploring for that energy as well as in alaska. so there is much we can do to make our country stronger, safer, more secure, better, more vibrant. but the proposal put forth by the president which, to me, i agree with my colleague from mississippi, was another spending bill, just spending, as our first stimulus was. a bill that is not going to do what we need to do to get this economy going in a vibrant sense. number one is we ought to stop doing what we know doesn't work. mr. isakson: i want to conclude, -- does the senator from mississippi have anything to add? mr. wicker: just to say this, i'll take a minute to say this and i'll thank my friend from georgia for taking the lead on
this colloquy. we also need to show job creators that we're actually serious about fixing our fiscal house. we've had the gang of six. we've had the simpson-bowles commission. we've had dr. coburn and senator lieberman with a proposal. we've had alice rivlin's proposal, an expert on budgetary matters. we know the solutions that are out there. they're hard to do politically. they would subject us all to intense phreut -- political criticism and a firestorm. but if we do it on a bipartisan basis for the good of this country now, for the good of not only job creators today and people out there who are dying to come back to work, but also
for future generations, then we can do the right thing. and i would simply say this, i call on the president of the united states to give us some leadership on working together on a bipartisan basis to make these tough decisions. if we do it together, like ronald reagan and tip o'neill did in the 1980's, we can make the case to the american people that sometimes you have to do hard things, but we do things on a bipartisan basis to create jobs and to make a better future for future generations. it will not be done unless the chief executive of the united states of america comes forward and signals a willingness to hold hands with us and do the right thing for the future. and i desperately hope in these final months of 2011 we can get that signal sent to the
committee of 12 and that we can work together to make major, significant structural change that will save our fiscal future. i thank my colleague. mr. isakson: i want to thank the gentleman from mississippi. i'll close by simply saying you've heard three republicans this morning talk about differences we might have on regulation and on tax policy. but you've also heard the distinguished gentleman from mississippi and the doctor from wyoming and myself saying we're ready and willing and hopeful we can sit down together as a congress, as a bipartisan congress and find solutions to the regulatory problems and find incentives for business to invest and find ways we can create jobs in the private sector. because in the end, that's where job creation takes place. so i will end with where senator reid started in his remarks. yesterday was a landmark day. republicans and democrats came together and passed three free trade agreements which will create jobs in the united states of america. our problem is we waited almost 1,000 days to do it.
let's start accelerating those decisions that must be made to bring us together. let's find ways to cut our spending, find ways to empower our business, find ways to regulate in a positive way but not in a suppressive way on american small business. senator wicker and senator isakson stand ready to do that any time, anyplace and anywhere. and i yield back the floor. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i would like permission to -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and may i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for 15 minutes in morning business? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. mr. president, i'm here to speak about what is currently an unpopular topic in this town. it has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change. this is a peculiar condition of
washington. if you go out into our, say, military and intelligence communities, they understand and are planning for the effects of our carbon pollution on climate change. they see it as a national security risk. if you go out into our at least nonpolluting business and financial community, they see this as a real and important problem. and of course it goes without saying that our scientific community is all over this concern. but, like i said, washington is a peculiar place, and here it is getting very little traction. here where the dark hand of the polluters can tap so many
shoulders and where there is power and money behind that dark hand, and, therefore, a lot of attention paid to that little tap on the shoulder. what we overlook is that nature, god's earth, is also tapping us all on the shoulder with messages that we ignore at our peril. we ignore the messages of nature, of god's earth, and we ignore the laws of nature, of god's earth, at our very grave peril. there is a wave of very justifiable economic frustration that has swept through our capital. the problem is that some of the special interests, the polluters, have insinuated
themselves into that wave. sort of like parasites that creep into the body of a host animal. and from there, they are working terrible mischief. they are propagating two big lies. one is that environmental regulations are a burden to the economy, and we need to lift those burdens to spur our economic recovery. the second is the jury is still out on climate changes caused by carbon pollution, so we don't need to worry about it or even take precautions. both are frankly outright false. environmental regulation is well established to be good for the economy. it may add costs to you if you are a polluter, but polluters usually exaggerate about that.
for instance, before the 1990 acid rain rules went into effect, peabody coal estimated the compliance would cost $3.9 billion. the edison electric institute chimed in and estimated compliance would cost $4 billion to $5 billion. well, in fact, the energy information administration calculated. the program actually cost $836 million, about 1/6 of the edison electric institute estimate. when polluters were required to phase out the chemicals that they were emitting that were literally burning a hole through our earth's atmosphere, they warned that it would create, and i quote -- severe economic and social disruption due to, and i quote again shutdowns of refrigeration equipment, supermarkets, office buildings,
hotels and hospitals. well, in fact, the phaseout happened four to six years faster than predicted, it cost 30% less than predicted, and the american refrigeration industry innovated and created new export markets for its environmentally friendly products. and anyway, the real point here is that we're not just in this chamber to represent the polluters. we're supposed to be here to represent all americans, and americans benefit from environmental regulation big time. over the lifetime of the clean air act, for instance, for every $1 that it cost to add on pollution controls, americans have received about $30 in health and other benefits.
and by the way, installing those pollution controls created jobs because they went to manufacturers to build the controls and to americans to install them, but setting that aside, a 30-1 benefit ratio to keep our air clean, that sounds like a mighty wise investment to me. and that that 30-1 ratio doesn't even count the intangible benefits, intangible but very real benefits of clean air and clean water, the benefits of the heart and the soul, the benefits to a grandfather of taking his granddaughter to the fishing hole and still finding fish there. or of the city kid being able to go to a beach and have it clean enough to swim there. or the benefit to a mom who was
spared the burden of worry of sitting next to her baby on the inhaler, waiting for his infant lungs to clear. well, unfortunately, polluters rule in certain circles in washington, and they emit propaganda as well as pollution, and they have been emitting too much of both lately. their other big lie is that the jury is still out on whether human-made carbon pollution causes dangerous climate changes and oceanic changes. virtually all of our most prestigious scientific and academic institutions have stated that claimant change is happening and that human activities are the driving cause of this change. many of us here in congress received a letter from those
institutions in 2009. let me quote from that letter. observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. these conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of pier reviewed science. let me repeat that last quote. contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of pier-reviewed science.
this letter was signed by the heads of the following organizations -- the american association for the advancement of science, the american chemical society, the american geophysical union, the american institute of biological sciences, the american meteorological society, the american society of agronomy, the american society of plant by ol gists, the american statistical association, the association of ecosystem research centers, the botanical society of america, the crop science society of america, the ecological society of america, the natural science collections alliance, the organization of biological field stations, the society for industrial and applied mathematics, the society of systemic biologists, the soil science society of america, and the university corporation for atmospheric research. these are highly esteemed scientific organizations. they are the real deal. they don't think the jury is
still out. they recognize that in fact the verdict is in, and it's time to act. more than 97% of the climate scientists most actively publishing except that the verdict is actually in on carbon pollution causing climate and oceanic changes. 97%, think of that. imagine if your child were sick and the doctor said she needed treatment, and out of prudence, you went and got a second opinion, and then you went around and you actually got 99 second opinions. and when you were done, you found that 97 out of 100 expert doctors agreed your child was sick and she needed treatment. imagine further that of the three who disagreed, some took
money from the insurance company that would have to pay for your child's treatment. and imagine further that none of those three could say they were sure your child was okay, just that they weren't sure what her illness was or that she needed treatment, that there was some doubt. on those facts, on those facts, name one decent father or mother who wouldn't start treatment for their child. no decent parent would turn away from the considered judgment of 97% of 100 doctors just because they weren't all absolutely certain. how solid is the science behind this? rock solid. the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the sun was discovered at the time of the civil war. this is not new stuff.
in 1863, the irish scientist john tindell determined that carbon dioxide and water vapor trapped more heat in the atmosphere as their concentrations increased. a 1955 textbook, "our astonish ing atmosphere," notes that nearly a century ago, the scientist john tindell suggested that a fall in the atmospheric dioxide could allow the earth to cool where a rise in carbon dioxide would make it warmer. in the early 1900's, a century ago, it became clear that changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might account for significant increases and decreases in the earth's average annual temperatures and that carbon dioxide released from man made sources, anthropogenic sources, primarily by the burning of coal, could contribute to those
atmospheric changes. this is not new stuff. these are well-established scientific principles. let me look for a moment at the book that i talked about." our astonishing atmosphere, "published in 1955, the year i was born, more than half a century ago. for the science for everyman series. let me read." although the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains at a concentration of 0.3% all over the world, the amount of air has not always been the same. there have been periods in the world's history where the air became charged with more carbon dioxide than it now carries. there have also been periods when the concentration has fallen unusually low. the effects of these changes have been profound. they are believed to have influenced the climate of the earth by controlling the amount of energy that is lost by the earth into space. nearly a century ago, the
british scientist john tindell suggested that a fall in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide could allow the earth to cool whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would make it warmer. with the help of its carbon dioxide, the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse that traps the heat of the sun. radiations reaching the atmosphere as sunshine can penetrate to the surface of the earth. here they are absorbed, providing the world with warmth. but the earth itself is radiating energy out wards in the form of long wave heat rays. if these could penetrate the air as the sunshine does, they would carry off much of the heat provided by the sun. carbon dioxide in the air helps to stop the escape of heat radiations. it acts like a blanket to keep the world warm. and the more carbon dioxide the air contains, the more efficiently does it smother the escape of the earth's heat. fluctuation in the carbon
dioxide of the air has helped to bring about major climate changes experienced by the world in the past. this is 1955. this is our astonishing atmosphere out of the science for everyman series. this is not something that was just invented. let's look at the facts that we actually observe in our changing planet. over the last 800,000 years, 8,000 centuries, until very recently, the atmosphere has stayed within a bandwidth of 170 parts per million and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. that's not theory. that's measurement. scientists measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by, for example, locating trapped bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. so we know over time and over long periods of time what the
range has been. what else do we know? we know that since the industrial revolution, we, humankind, have been burning carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing amounts. we know that we release up to seven to eight gigatons of carbon dioxide each year. a gig aton by the way is a billion, with a b, billion metric tons. if you're going to release stefan billion to eight billion metric tons per year, predictably that increases carbon concentration in our atmosphere. that is not a complex scientific theory. it is not a difficult proposition. and seven billion to eight billion metric tons a year into the atmosphere is a very big thing in the historical sweep. so we now measure carbon concentrations climbing in the earth's atmosphere. again, this is a measurement, not a theory.
the present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million. may i ask permission to extend my remarks for five minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i thank you, and i thank the senator from arkansas for his courtesy. so we're now over 800,000 years in a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million, and now we're over 390. this increase has a trajectory. plotting trajectories is nothing new either. it's something scientists, business people and our military services do every day. the trajectory for our carbon pollution predicts that 688 parts per million will be in the atmosphere in the year 2095, and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. these are carbon concentrations not outside of the bounds of 800,000 years but outside of the bounds of millions of years. and as tindell determined at the
time of the civil war, increasing carbon concentration also absorb more of the sun's heat and raise global temperatures. let me end by reviewing the scale of the peril that we are face federal government we fail to act. over the last 800,000 years, as i said, it's been 170 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. since the start of the industrial revolution, that concentration is up to 390 parts per million. if we continue on the trajectory that we find ourselves, our grandchildren will see carbon concentrations in the atmosphere top 700 parts per million by the end of the century, twice the band exiting top -- band with top we've lived with for centuries. mankind has been engaged in agriculture for about 10,000 years. 800,000 years ago it's not clear
we had yet mastered fire. the entire development of human civilization has taken place in that 800,000 years, and within that 170 to 300 parts per million bandwith. if you go back millions of years you're back into geologic towns. in april of this year scientific experts came together at the university of oxford to discuss the current state of our oceans. the workshop report stated that -- and i quote -- "human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of the oceans and are causing increasing hypoxia. acidification is obvious. hypoxia means low oxygen levels. studies of the earth's past indicates that these are the three symptoms associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on earth. mr. president, we experience twaod mass ocean -- experienced
two mass ocean ex-teufrpbgss. the rates of carbon leading to these extinctions -- as a group of scientists noted both are dwarfed in kpar to today posts -- compared to today's emissions, 7 to 8 gigatons a year. the workshop participants concluded with this quote: unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing through the combined effects of climate change over exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean. mr. president, the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry and the laws of
science, these are laws of nature. these are laws of god's earth. we can repeal some laws around here, but we can't repeal those. senators are used to our opinions mattering a lot around here. but these laws are not affected by our opinions. these laws don't care who peddles influence, how many lobbyists you have or how big your corporate bankroll is. those considerations, so important in this town, don't matter at all to the laws of nature. and as regards to these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal nor influence them, we bear a duty, a duty of stewardship to see and respond to the facts that are before our faces, according to nature's laws. we bear a duty to shun the siren's song of well-paying polluters. we bear a duty to make the right decisions for our children and grand kherpb and for our -- grandchildren and for our
god-given earth. right now i must come before this chamber and remind this body that we are failing, failing in that duty. the men and women in this chamber are indeed catastrophically failing in that duty. we are earning the scorn and condemnation of history. not this week perhaps and not next week. the spin doctors can see to that. but ultimately and assuredly the harsh judgment that it is history's power to inflict on wrong will fall upon us. the supreme being who gave us this earth and its abundance created a world not just of abundance but of consequence. that supreme being gave us reason to allow us to plan for and foresee the various consequences that those laws of nature impose. it is magical thinking to imagine that somehow we will be spared the plain and forseeable consequences of our failure of duty. there is no wizard's hat and
wand, mr. president, with which to wish this away. these laws of nature are known. the earth's message to us is clear. our failure is blame worthy. its consequences are profound. and the costs will be very, very high. mr. president, i thank you and thank the senator from arkansas for his indulgence with the extra time. and i yield the floor.
the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time to comment on a vote that took place earlier this week that the people of this nation are having a hard time understanding why the republicans are filibustering legislation that will allow us to consider job growth in america. it's a filibuster, and it happens so frequently in this body that it seems to be standard operating procedures for the republicans. but in this case, i think the american public realize they have gone too far. we've got to create more jobs. we've got to create more jobs so that our economy can grow. there are millions of americans that are out there seeking work and can't find jobs, and they need work in order to support
their families. we need more jobs for our economy to grow. we got into a debate in august about what we were going to do about raising the debt ceiling, and we're all concerned about the deficits this country has. and, yes, we are concerned that our current deficits are not sustainable, but we will not have a budget that is sustainable unless we have more jobs. and you can look at all of the programs to reduce government spending or to try to bring in more revenues. if we don't create more jobs, we're not going to be able to get our budget into a semblance of order. the reason for that's quite simple, mr. president. the more people that are out of work, the more reliant they are upon government services, the less taxes that are paid in to pay our bills. so for the sake of those who are seeking employment, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our budget, we've got to create more jobs. so we had a vote this week on moving forward on s. 1660, the
president's jobs initiative. it was a motion to proceed. it was a motion to bring the bill to the floor so that we could get into a debate about the best way to create jobs. many of us thought that we would have amendments that would enhance and improve the president's package. the president's package was a starting point for our debate. but the republicans said, no, we're going to filibuster even the opportunity for us to consider jobs legislation. they wouldn't even allow us to move forward. mr. president, we had a majority of the senate. we had enough votes to pass it, or at least to proceed, if it was a simple majority, which is what most democracies believe -- what democracy believes is the right standard. but, no, we had a filibuster that didn't allow us even to consider the jobs bill on the
floor of the united states senate. what i find most surprising, when you take a look at the president's proposal, the individual provisions have bipartisan support. this isn't a democratic proposal. every one of the provisions that the president included in his package had bipartisan support. the congressional budget office said that the president's proposal would actually reduce the deficit and would create jobs. and it's been validated by the outside experts. mark zandi, the chief economist at moody's, said, and he was also, by the way, the economic advisor to senator mccain during the 2008 presidential campaign. he said -- and i quote -- "the plan would add 2 percentage points to our gross domestic product next year, add.19 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by 20%."
there are many others. macroeconomic advisors said the president's package would boost the level of g.d.p. by 1.3% by the end of 2012, another .2% by the end of 2013. in other words, we're moving in the right way. and then going on to say raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and .8 million by the end of 2013. the economic policy institute estimates that the president's job bill would create 2.6 million jobs over two years and protect an existing 1.6 million jobs. and the republicans say we can't even talk about this on the floor. the majority shouldn't be able to at least bring this issue so that we can have a full debate on the floor of the united states senate. the president's pro*epls proposal included aero-- the president's proposal included areas that have strong bipartisan support, to help small businesses. small businesses are the growth
engine of america. that's where jobs are created. that's where most innovation will take place. the proposal would help small businesses with new hires and their payroll and expensing investment, so they have the incentive to go out and invest in job growth. that's what was in the president's proposal, to help small businesses. in the president's proposal, we had a provision to help our veterans. we all talk about our warriors, our soldiers who are out there every day protecting our values. they have represented america so brilliantly in international combat, and now they are coming home to america. they are coming home, and they can't find work, can't find a job. the president is saying let's help them. we all talk about doing what we can to help our warriors. well, this bill did something tan i believe about it. and what did the republicans do?
they filibuster an opportunity to even talk about a bill that could help create more jobs. the proposal also provides for infrastructure. infrastructure is building. it's rebuilding america. democrats and republicans agree on that. we have got to rebuild our bridges and our roads. the bridges are falling down. roads are in desperate need of repair. roads help provide economic growth for our country. it would help us rebuild america, create jobs through those that construct these new roads and bridges and electric grids, et cetera, but then also make america more competitive. it would help those who are unemployed in several ways. first, it would provide not just unemployment benefits, which are important because that helps families be able to keep their
homes and keep their families together and help our economy because that money is spent, but also reforms the unemployment system so we train those who are out of work for jobs that are available, in many cases as the presiding officer from ohio knows, people have lost their jobs are going to have to find employment in a different area. well, the unemployment system should be reformed so that they could be trained for those types of jobs. that was in the proposal that the republicans wouldn't even allow us to bring up. they filibustered rather than allowing the majority to bring forward a bill to help create jobs. and, mr. president, the bill was paid for. it didn't increase the deficit. as i have indicated before, the congressional budget office said it would actually reduce the deficit. i want to make the point i made earlier and underscore this. the motion to proceed was the
starting point for the debate, the starting point. i had three amendments that i wanted to bring forward. i'm going to talk very briefly about those amendments that i think would have improved the president's bill. one would allow the small business administration, the surety bond program, this is a program to allow small production companies the ability to move forward with construction work, increase the surety bond program from $2 million to $5 million. it's an amendment that i offered to the american recovery and reinvestment act. now, let me tell you about the success of that program. as a result of increasing the surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, we saw a jump of 36% , 36% in one year, 2010. in construction work for small businesses. that's quite a success story. mr. president, guess how much money that costs the taxpayers of this country in direct costs. zero. no cost to the taxpayer.
well, my amendment would make that extension permanent, and it's bipartisan, democrats and republicans support it. i have another amendment that would expand the infrastructure work to include water projects. water projects are in desperate need. we have a huge need to deal with the way we treed waste water and our safe drinking water. my amendment would add $30 billion for infrastructure in our water projects. $20 billion to the clean water state revolving fund and $10 billion to the safe drinking water act. and lastly, mr. president, i want to talk about one more amendment, which is the bill i filed with senator crapo that would change the depreciation schedule for those businesses that put on modern roofs that are energy efficient, create 40,000 jobs and help our energy policy, another amendment that i cannot bring forward because the
republicans filibustered the motion to proceed so we can't bring up the jobs bill. well, the americans want us to consider jobs legislation. i hope we find a way to do it. i can tell you that i am going to continue to fight to create more jobs for america because that's america's future. our economy depends upon it, and we need to continue to focus on how we can create more jobs for the american economy. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to remember a fallen hero. u.s. army national guard master sergeant christian rege. he and two fellow officers were killed when a gunman opened fire on a carson city international house of pancakes on september 6, 2011. this was a tragic event. it ultimately took the lives of
four people and left hollow hearts from nevada to nebraska where his father and mother and several relatives live. master sergeant rege listed in the united states navy in 1992. as a career noncommissioned officer, chris spent much of his time in uniform training young soldiers. he entered the nebraska national guard after his service in the navy. like many national guard n.c.o.'s, he held more than one military occupational specialty. with experience as an infantry soldier in knowledge of mechanics and supply logistics, chris set the high standard and trained soldiers to that standard. he excelled in physical fitness, and he was a natural teacher. he served a 22-month deployment
in fort irwin, california, with the task of training units deploying for overseas contingency missions. chris most recently served with the first of the two 21st calvary in afghanistan, earning his combat spurs during this tour. the decorations and badges earned over his distinguished career would include the combat action badge, the meritorious unit commendation, the legion of merit, the meritorious service medal, the army commendation medal, the army achievement medal, the armed forces expeditionary medal, the southwest asia service medal and the afghanistan campaign medal. chris is remembered now as a soft-spoken warrior with a love
for fixing things. a fellow soldier and friend, master sergeant paul kinsey made reference to his misdemeanor. quote -- "i can't just label him with one word or one phrase. still waters run deep." unquote. the rege family laid their soldier to rest in paige, nebraska, on september 17, 2011. today i join the family and friends of master sergeant rege in mourning the death of their son, father, fiance, friend and fellow soldier. nebraska is honored to call him one of our own, and i know that both nebraskans and nevadans will surround his family during this very difficult time. as we honor this hero, may his children sarah, erica, sydney,
michael always know the bravery with which their father served in the love he had for them. may god bless the rege family and all of our service men and women both here and abroad. mr. president, i yield the floor, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, last week, i introduced legislation in the senate that would prohibit the use of racial profiling by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies. the end racial profiling act, s. 1670, had been introduced in previous congresses by our former colleague, senator russ feingold of wisconsin, and i am proud to follow his leadership. i want to thank my colleagues, senator blumenthal, senator durbin, senator gind, senator
kerry, senator lautenberg, senator levin, senator mikulski and senator stabenow for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. racial profiling is ineffective. the more resources that are spent investigating individuals solely because of their race or religion, the fewer resources are being directed at suspects actually demonstrating illegal behavior. former department of homeland security secretary michael chertoff stated in response to a question about the december, 2001, bomb attempt by richard reid is that the problem is the profile that many people think they have of what a terrorist is doesn't fit the reality, and in fact one of the things the enemy does is to deliberately recruit people who are western in background or in appearance so that it can slip by people who might be stereotyping. racial profiling diverts scarce
resources from real law enforcement. in my own state of maryland in the 1990's, the aclu brought a class-action suit against the maryland state police for illegally targeting african-american motorists for stops and searches along maryland's highways. the parties ultimately entered into a federal court consent decree in 2003 in which they made a joint statement that emphasized in part the need to treat motorists of all races with respect, dignity and fairness under the law is fundamental to good police work in a just society. the parties agreed that racial profiling is unlawful and undermines public safety by alienating communities. racial profiling dim unionizes entire communities and perpetuates negative stereotypes based on an individual's race, ethnicity or religion. i agree with attorney general
holder's remark to the american arab antidiscrimination committee where he stated that in this nation, security and liberty are at their best partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all. in this nation, the document that set forth the supreme law of the land, the constitution, is met to empower, not exclude. racial profiling is wrong. it can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals. and it's simply bad policing, whatever city, whatever state. using racial profiling makes it less likely that certain affected communities will voluntary cooperate with law enforcement and community policing efforts. minorities living and working in these communities may also feel discouraged from traveling freely and it kor rhodes public trust in -- corrodes public trust in government. i want to thank the committee on
civil rights for endorsing this legislation. i would ask the letter of -- be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: the bill i introduced last week, the end racial profiling act, would build on the department of justice current guidelines regarding the use of race by federal law enforcement agencies issued in 2003. this official department of justice guidance certainly was a step forward but it does not have adequate provisions for data collection and enforcement for state and local agencies. the department of justice guidance also does not have the force of law. the legislation i introduce would prohibit the use of racial profiling by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies. this bill clearly defines racial profiling to include race, ethnicity, national origin or religion as a protected classes.
it requires training of law enforcement officers to ensure that they understand the law and its prohibitions. it creates procedures for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints about racial profiling. it would apply equally to federal, state, and local law enforcement which creates consistent standards at all levels of government. mr. president, the vast majority of our law enforcement officers have put their lives on the line every day, handle their jobs with professionalism, diligence and fidelity to the rule of law. however, congress and the justice department can still take steps to prohibit racial profiling and root out its use. i look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this very important legislation. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from nevada is recognized. mr. heller: thank you very
much, mr. president. i rise today to address the economy as it affects my hometown, my home state of nevada. this recession has hit my home state of nevada harder than it's hit any other state in the country. my state has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in unemployment, foreclosure, and bankruptcy. as we discuss yet another stimulus this week, i hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle their claim that their priorities are jobs, jobs, jobs. and i have one question about their economic policies. is this working? mr. president, in january of 2009, president obama was inaugurated as president of the united states. democrats controlled both houses , both the house and the senate. and nevada's unemployment rate at that time was 9.4%. the next month stimulus was passed. supporters claimed, they claimed that the national unemployment
level would not rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus bill. and nevada's unemployment at that time then grew from 9.4% to 10.1%. in june of 2009, congress passed the cash for clunkers. the nevada unemployment then raised at that point from 10.1% to 12%. with the success of cash for clunkers 1, we passed cash for clunkers 2. following that, in august, nevada's unemployment rose from 12% to 13.2%. then in march of 2010, congress passed the president's health care law. nevada's unemployment rose again from 13.2% to 13.4%.
in july of that year congress then passes the dodd-frank reform of the financial services industry that effectively limited access to capital both for individuals and small businesses, and nevada's unemployment rate went from 13.4% to 14.3%. in fact, if you go back to may of 2010, nevada overtakes michigan as the state with the highest unemployment rate at 14%. with the passage of dodd-frank, it then rises again to 14.3%. then we have the state bailout in august of 2010. stimulus number two. and nevada's unemployment rate rose again to 14.4%. so after 14.4%, due to the lack of economic activity in nevada,
some people in nevada have stopped looking for work, or worse, some nevada kwrafs have actual -- some nevadans very left the state looking for work elsewhere. i guess i raise the question a second time: have these economic policies worked? there was a local paper that had a reared's poll -- that had a reader's poll. the question of this reader's poll: is nevada's economy recovering? those who responded, 82% said no. regardless of what washington, d.c. is trying to tell them, 82% of nevadans understand that the economic recovery has not occurred yet in the state of nevada. one of my constituents recently wrote, "i'm writing you today because i'm outraged over the stimulus proposal that president obama is trying to intimidate
you into passing. despite the evidence that the first two stimulus plans have failed, despite the promises that there were shovel-ready jobs, despite the other false promises that the first interest would upgreat -- the first trillion would upgrade our infrastructure, keep unemployment over 8%, despite the promises that over $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars were completely wasted in the first stimulus, this president had the audacity to demand that you immediately pass another $500 billion worth of stimulus." in capitalization: "do not do it." it is clear this administration and its supporters have failed miserably. another stimulus bill is not the solution. we now have a string of economic policies that are big on talking points, light on solutions.
people from all over the country are struggling just to get by and are desperate for real solutions. it's time for new ideas and a new direction. not more of the same. out-of-control spending, a health care law that no one can afford and a seemingly endless stream of regulations are crippling employers, stifling economic growth and killing jobs. the american public and businesses alike are awaiting a plan that can provide the stability and certainty necessary to provide confidence to the american people and bolster economic growth. i hear from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle claims that there are no ideas of job creation coming from republicans. since coming to the senate, i have repeatedly filed job-related amendments when given the opportunity but have yet to see an open debate on any of these amendments.
so if it's true that there are no ideas coming from republicans, then there is nothing to fear from an honest, real debate on jobs. instead of symbolic votes and phreupl grand standing -- and political grand standing, let's actually do the difficult work and address this problem. as i suggested to president obama, nevada needs a proposal that reforms the tax code, stops excessive government spending and provides the certainty businesses need to hire. instead, the administration and the senate majority has recycled the same failed policies. but this time increases taxes on the same businesses we need to create jobs. there are a number of actions congress can take immediately to bolster our nation's economy, such as opening up our country to energy exploration, streamlining the permitting process for responsible development of our domestic
resources, reforming our tax code, making it simpler for individuals and businesses alike, cut out the special interest loopholes while reducing the overall tax burden for all americans. instead of looking for new ways to tax the american public and our job creators, we should make our tax code more competitive and provide businesses the stability that they need to grow and create jobs. as i have stated before, this continual threat of tax increases feeds the uncertainty that serves as an impediment to economic growth. these are all things that both this administration and congress can do immediately to boost economic recovery. i came to washington to make a difference. let's start doing the hard work we were sent here to do. mr. president, i yield the floor.
recognized. mr. moran: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i'm here on the floor today to share a few thoughts on a topic that has a daily impact upon the lives of americans. it's the topic that we've had front and center now for a long time: job creation. whether or not a mom or dad can find a job directly impacts their ability to put food on their family's table, pay their mortgage, save for their children's education and prepare for their own retirement. in august, our economy failed to create any jobs.
and in september our economy created about 100,000 jobs. but that is not fast enough to get us out of our economic slump. in fact, the fact is that 14 million americans are still out of work and about 42% of those unemployed have been looking for a job for more than six months. we know those facts. over the last few weeks, i have asked kansans what their thoughts are about this circumstance, and we find many kansans, as we know in america, people are discouraged, looking for work, unable to find a job, and they want to know why our businesses aren't creating those jobs and making them available for them. i recently had the opportunity to sit down with kansans who own businesses in overland park, a suburb of kansas city, and in hutchison, a community just outside of wichita, to talk about the economy and their outlook for our economic future. throughout our conversations, it became clear that the one main
reason businesses aren't hiring is because of economic uncertainty. in fact, a survey conducted by the u.s. chamber of commerce indicated more than half of small business executives cited economic uncertainty as the greatest obstacle to hiring more employees. from business owners' perspective, i can understand why they are reluctant, because if they don't know how much they will have to pay in taxes or to comply with additional regulations a year from now or how much health care costs will be for any new employee, why would they hire a new employee now or invest in their business? any successful business owner will tell you that you have to take risk to get ahead, but they will also tell you that you have to balance those risks against your expected costs or you will run your business into the ground. one chief executive put it this way. what are the rules of the game going to be in the long term? what are retailers -- what our
retailers would like to have is consistency and predictability. we can handle decisions we don't agree with, but that's easier than not knowing what the decision is going to be. another executive of small business put it very plainly. among the other presidents and c.e.o.'s i interact with, the only consensus of opinion is none of us have any idea where things are going. in my observation, the uncertainty we are experiencing is caused almost entirely out of washington and other governments around the world. the reality is the private sector has been the engine of job creation in our country throughout history, so we should do everything we can to encourage business to create jobs. in fact, small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms and employ half of all private sector employees, according to the small business administration. and in the last two decades, they have generated 65% of the new jobs created in our country. one of the greatest
opportunities we have to improve someone's life is to create an environment where jobs can be created so employers can feel confident about investing in their companies and they can put people to work. today, i want to outline a new approach, one that's based on a proven track record of success, the success of the american entrepreneur. soon i will be introducing legislation called the start-up act to help jump-start our economy through the creation and growth of new businesses. the american dream is based on the principle that anyone can achieve success given the freedom and opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. america has long been known as the land of opportunity for individual risk -- individuals risk all they have to live out their dreams. many fortune 500 companies like ford and apple, general electric, all got their start with a handful of folks, individuals, a great idea and a lot of hard work.
many of our businesses started in garages across our country. so we should continue to encourage this spirit of entrepreneurship in our nation. in kansas city, there is a foundation dedicated to the promotion of entrepreneurship called the kaufman foundation. their research shows that between 1980 and 2005, companies less than five years old accounted for nearly all new job growth in the united states. in fact, new firms create about three million jobs each year. for 45 years, the kaufman foundation has worked to strengthen opportunities for entrepreneurs in this country, so when a person comes up with a good idea, they can pursue it and turn it into reality. many of their good ideas are reflected in the legislation i will soon be introducing and are based upon kaufman's extensive research and analysis. the foundation of the start-up act is based on five pro-growth republicans -- removing barriers to growth, attracting business investment, bringing more research from the labbity to the
marketplace, attracting -- from the laboratory to the marketplace, attracting and retaining entrepreneurial talent and encouraging pro growth in state and local policies. first, the start-up act will remove barriers to growth by streamlining federal regulations. rather than hiring new employees, businesses are spending money on complying with unreasonable and sometimes regulations not based upon sound science. new businesses face an especially heavy burden in complying with the multitude of local, state and federal rules governing their business. according to the s.b.a., firms with fewer than 20 employees spend 36% more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. very small firms spend four and a half times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and three times more per employee on tax compliance than the largest corporations. when i met with those business
leaders in kansas city recently, one of them told me he was required to replace all the light bulbs in his factory because of an e.p.a. regulation, but this factory has skylights and was already well lit. he didn't need new lighting, but the government told him he did, and this unnecessary regulation cost him tens of thousands of dollars. this is just an example of just how cumbersome and how costly regulations have become. that money could have and should have been, in my view, better spent on helping that business grow. the start-up act will overhaul the federal regulatory process for all regulations that have an impact on the economy of $100 million or more by requiring these rules to undergo a cost-benefit analysis every ten years. the benefit and burden on business and consumers will become much more clear. this will ease the burden on businesses so they can focus on growing their business and hiring more workers. second, the start-up act will help companies attract investment so they can get off the ground and grow more
quickly. one of the greatest challenges for start-ups is having access to the necessary capital to grow their business. investors' capital gains are currently taxed at 15%. last year, the small business jobs act passed by congress temporarily exempted taxes on capital gains from the sale of certain small business stock held for at least five years. the start-up act will make this exemption permanent so investors have the incentive to partner with entrepreneurs and help provide financial stability for the first few years of that business' beginning. third, the start-up act will make it easier to take research from the laboratory and apply it in the marketplace. some of our brightest and most creative individuals study at american universities. each day, faculty members, graduate students make new discoveries and develop new ideas. the possibilities of research are endless. in fact, university research led to ground-breaking discoveries such as polio vaccine, antibiotics, black and white
television, bar codes and more recently email and google. to help bring more cutting-edge research to the marketplace, my bill creates an incentive for universities to reform their technology policies and practices. the start-up act requires the top federal r&d grant-making agencies to give preference to universities that have a proven track record of success in discovering commercial applications for their research. fourth, this legislation will enable new businesses to attract and retain highly trained workers, including those who emigrate to our country. our country is founded on immigrants who have long contributed to the strength of our economy by starting businesses and creating jobs. in fact, in 2007, a study found that more than a quarter of technology and engineering companies started in our country from 1995-2002, had at least one key founder who was born overseas. these companies produced $52 billion in sales and
employed 450,000 workers in 2005 alone. research shows that 53% of immigrant founders of u.s.-based technology and engineering companies completed their highest degree at an american, united states university. unfortunately, many foreign-born immigrants leave the states after they complete their studies and return to their home countries to start businesses because they have a hard time securing a visa to stay in the united states. it doesn't make much sense to make sump an -- such an investment in these students and then not give them the opportunity to apply what they have learned by starting a company here in the united states that will generate jobs for other americans. we should be doing all we can to attract and retain highly skilled and entrepreneurial folks so they can work in the field where they have studied and contribute to our economy. the start-up act will help retain this talent in two ways. first, it creates a new visa so-called a stim visa for any
immigrant who graduates with a master's or ph.d. in science, technology, engineering or math. this will give those graduates the opportunity to stay for up to a year beyond their graduation date to find a job and put to work their high-tech skills they learned and that our economy so desperately needs. second, the bill creates another visa called an entrepreneur's visa for immigrants who register a business and employ at least one nonfamily member within a year of obtaining that visa. once they have satisfied those requirements, the entrepreneur would be allowed to remain here for an additional three years if they employ additional employees and further grow their business. the goal of both of these visas is to encourage innovation among highly skilled entrepreneurs and to help grow our country. finally, the start-up act would encourage pro-growth state and local policies. while federal policies certainly impact the formation and growth of a new business, state and local policies also play an important role in their creation and growth.
in order to identify the states which are the most entrepreneur friendly, this legislation will create state start-up business report to analyze state laws and policies. the report will encourage healthy competition and lead to the development and expansion of pro growth policies. our first priority, in conclusion, our first priority in congress right now should to be create an environment that encourages companies to grow and create jobs. we know our economy cannot continue with the path it's on. in a recent chamber of commerce study, 64% of small business executives said they do not expect to add to their payroll in the next year, and another 12% said they plan to cut jobs. the start-up act will encourage american entrepreneurs to do what they do best -- dream big and pursue their dreams. the american economy can and will recover when we give american entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed.
by removing those barriers to growth for new companies attracting business investment, bringing more research from the laboratory to the marketplace, retaining talented entrepreneurs and skilled employees and encouraging pro growth policies, we will spur growth in the marketplace and assist in putting people back to work. the ongoing debate about how to create jobs needs to turn from rhetoric to reality. nothing in this legislation is designed to be highly partisan. it's designed to make certain the republicans and democrats can come together with a plan that will make a difference. it's time for congress to put policies in place that give job creators more confidence and certainty in the marketplace. if we fail to act as we should, if we continue to ignore the economic problems facing our country, if we let partisanship and bickering get in our way, we will reduce the opportunities the next generation of americans have to pursue the american dream. it's our greatest responsibility as citizens of our country to make sure the next generation of americans can live in a country