up to age 26, and what they say is -- quote -- "our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible." well, mr. president, during the entire debate on the health care law, people have said that many of these rules and regulations and requirements are going to be financially demanding, but yet this body -- before you have arrived, this body crammed this law -- at the time a bill -- down the throats of the american people, the american people that don't want it, don't like it, ask that it be repealed and replaced, and now even one of the unions that lobbied for it is saying we're not going to cover 6,000 -- actually going to drop 6,000 children who had previously been covered because the legislation, they say, would

be financially impossible to comply with. so, mr. president, i looked at the secretary's letter, looked at this response. tom coburn, another physician in the senate, and i had a lot of concerns about the letter the secretary sent to the medical students of this country, so we also sent a letter, an open letter to american medical students in the first year of their medical school. what we wanted to do is first actually congratulate these young men and women, congratulate them on their dedication. they are dedicating their time and their talent and their skill and they're doing it in the service to others. and we talked about the importance as physicians, as medical students to truly listen to their patients, because one of the basic tenets of medicine is nothing should come between a doctor and his or her patients. it's important for them to be able to have the time to listen,

to focus, and to spend time and not allow anyone or anything to come between the doctor and the patient, and yet we passed a health care law that puts washington and faceless bureaucrats between the doctor and the patient. we talked about the significant change in the doctor-patient relationship in this letter that senator coburn and i sent to medical students and our concerns that washington is now going to have more power to determine the care that these medical students and future doctors are going to be able to deliver to their -- to their patients. we talked about 150 new government regulating bodies coming out as a result of this 2,700-page bill and they are going to intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship. we talked about our concerns about what's called cookbook medicine, follow these -- these rules because of the new

authorities that have been provided by this 150 new bodies that has been created by the law and that decisions are going to be made based on cost rather than on what may be best for the individual patients. the president continues to talk about providing coverage for more people. well, mr. president, there's a lot of difference between coverage and care and that's why when a -- the leader in saudi arabia had a recent health problem within the last two weeks, he chose to come to the united states because it's the best care in the world. the world health organization may have someone else listed at number one, but the -- the ruler from saudi arabia decided to come to the united states. didn't go to cuba, didn't go to england, didn't go to canada -- came here for the care. we want the young men and women who are in medicine, going into medicine, training in medicine to be able to provide that kind of care and we want the american

people to continue to -- to receive that kind of care. unfortunately, in this body, political passion overtook good policy and a law was passed that i think is not going to be good for patients or for providers or for those people that are paying the bill. and so i was -- that's what i hear every weekend at home in wyoming. it may be what you hear as well. i know you have heard that in your home state. but yet the president of the united states said in a wide-ranging interview with barbara walters the other evening on television in what he described as this health care law, he said he was extraordinarily proud of health care reform. what i consider a health spending bill he calls a lasting legacy, he said -- quote -- "that i am extraordinarily proud of." well, mr. president, that's why i was surprised to see the headline in "the washington

post" which i believe was the same day actually as the president's interview with barbara walters, and "the washington post" friday, november 26, the headline, front page, "doctors say medicare cuts forcing them to shift away from elderly." medicare cuts forcing them to shift away from elderly. it's what we talked about during the debate on the floor of this senate when this hack law was being debated -- when this health care law was being debated, that they've taken $500 billion away from medicare not to save medicare, not to help our seniors, not to extend the life of medicare, but, no, to start a whole new government program. and that's why, mr. president, every week i come to the floor to offer a doctor's second opinion and share with you as well as all of those in this chamber and the american people why i believe as a doctor who's practiced medicine for a long, long time, that this is a health care law that we need to repeal

and replace. replace with something that is go for patients and good for providersgood for the -- providers and good for the taxpayers of this country. mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, first of all, let me congratulate you on your victory and welcome you to the united states senate. i know you're going to be a great addition to the senate and i've already enjoyed civic with you on the "help" -- enjoyed serving with you on the "help" committee this morning. mr. president, i rise this morning to talk about three issues: jobs, the economy and housing, which i think all of us will recognize around the country are the three biggest problems thwarting our recovery. and there are some realistic solutions that are out there that i think we could all come together on if we would just take the time to realize that working on disagreement rather than finding agreement is not serving the senate very well right now. you know, one of the reasons

we've had a slow job recovery is because of the uncertainty of american businesses and american wage earners have in what their tax rates are going to be. you know, i ran a company. it started out as a small company t. became a pretty good-sized company. this is the time every year, every december, when we had our management retreat and we'd be ploong what we're going to do next year. we'd talk about budgets, new hires, new ideas. right now, corporations and small businesses in this country who are sitting around their planning retreat talking about next year do not know what their tax rates are going to be, they don't know what the regulatory environment's going to be. and so you know what they're doing? they're doing what every business does, they're making conservative decisions, they're not risking cap tavment they're. they're going to wait until their future regulation-wise and tax-wise has some degree of certainty. so one way to bring back jobs to american and brec -- america and bring them back more than anything else, is to extend the existing tax rates for a predictable period of time so

business knows what the playing field is going to look like. the absence of uncertainty between now and the end of the year means nobody's making a decision to hire anybody until we first make a decision on what their taxes are going to be. and if we decide they're going to go up, if we turn, if we capitulate and just let the current sunset take place, then american business, at a time of high unemployment and low productivity in terms of business activity, is going to see an increase in their tax rate and we're going to see a decrease in employment next year in the united states. i hope that doesn't half. i hope we'll find -- i hope that doesn't happen. i hope we'll find common ground and come together and extend the existing tax rates. secondly, i want to talk about housing for a second because it's an important part of jobs. and i know there was a speech yesterday, in fact, there have been two speeches on the floor this week talking about some stimulus to bring the housing market back. well, one stimulus that will bring it back is to make taxes certain. because if taxes become certain, people know what the taxes are going to cost them, then they make important big-purchase decisions. when they have uncertainty in what their income's going to be or what their net's going to be,

they don't make big-ticket purchases, whether it's an automobile or a house. but there are other problems in housing as well, there are other things we need fundamentally to return to a marketplace that has some degree of liquidity in it for acquisition and purchases. right now, mr. president, except for the f.h.a. and an occasional lender in terms of a jumbo lender to a big-ticket client, there basically is no mortgage money in the united states of america for an american home buyer. and because the mark to market being applied by the fdic and the other cease and desist orders that the banking institution and lenders are under, nobody's extending cred credit. in my state of gonch george, in atlanta -- in my state of georgia, in atlanta, georgia, in 2006, there were 63,000 housing per in its in that area, 2006. four years ago. last year -- this year, there were 5,300. that is a 90% reduction in new construction. now, granted, we were in a hypereconomy in 2006. granted, overbuilding probably contributed to the decline of the economy later o. but a 90% reduction sun healthy, and if we

continue to -- reduction is unhealthy, and if he we continue to sustain that, we'll sustain what is a difficult economic period. so we need to look to the future. so my recommendations are first, give he is predictability and extend existing tax rates and not raise them in a recession. second, recognize there's no liquidity in mortgage money in the united states of america. and the longer we wait to address the question of what happens after freddie and after fannie, the longer the housing market is going to suffer. so i propose a pollution for to problem in term of housing finance. i don't think there's any question that freddie and fannie have to be wound down. they're in a conservativeship now. they've already cost us billions of dollars and they're going to cost us billions month, which is why i worked hard to get them under the financial reregulation bill so we could peel back the layers of the onion to figure out what was wrong. but whatever happens, we've got to create a new entity and whatever happens it's going to have to look in some ways like freddie and fannie but in other ways remarkably different.

but there's got to be a solution. the long-term solution can't be a government-sponsored entity or an implied guarantee. that's coma blowed fannie and freddie. and the taxpayers of america don't want you and they don't want me pledging their full faith and credit behind a mortgage money just to provide mortgage money. but by the same token, they want to us be leaders to find a way to get from where we are now with no liquidity to where we need to be, and that's with good liquidity. here's my suggestion. we create a new entity to replace freddie and fannie, an entity that ends up having a government implied sponsorship or guarantee over a ten-year period of time that declines 10% a year to zero. during that same ten-year period of time, on every mortgage loan made in the united states of america, a fee be attached to it at closing, maybe it's 50 basis points or a half a percent, whatever it mike, that goes into a sinking fund. that sinning fund is wawld off -- sinking fund is wawld off and it grows over ten years. and as that grows, the government guarantee declines. for example, 100% in the first

year of the fund, 90% the second, 80% the third and going down to zero in ten years. as that fund guarantee goes down. the fund builds up so it becomes the backstop for another failure that may or may not happen in the future but one we have to plan for. and this is not a new idea. there aren't a lot of new ideas. in great britain, they've had pool re for years and that's a sinking fund they set up to handle catastrophic losses in terms of insurance. and it's built up to be able to withstand the largest of catastrophic costs and has made their insurance system work very well. we need to establish a way for the government to sponsor an entity that gets out of 9 guaranteeing business -- out of the guaranteeing business but gets into the building of liquidity building and becomes an entity that can supply mortgages in the united states of america because there is not one now and there will not be one in the future until we create an entity that gives a foundation for liquidity to come back to the housing market. so it's here we are 30 days from the end of the year, we don't know what our taxes are going to be next year and if we wanted to go buy a house, we don't know where we're going to find the mortgage money.

this senate can act and can act quickly to make changes to see to it that jobs come back and that's by extending the existing tax rates. and we come back together next year, i look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues in the senate to create a mortgage sponsored entity that will work and begin to bring liquidity back to the housing market so construction returns, jobs come back and america recovers. and i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, two weeks ago before the thanksgiving day recess, again i urged republicans and democrats in the senate to come together and take action to begin to end the vacancy crisis that is threatening our federal courts. my call wasn't extreme or radical or par partisan. i asked only that senators follow the golden rule.

regrettably, that didn't happen and that's really too bad for the country. there are now 38 judicial nominees being delayed who could be confirmed before we adjourn. 38 judicial nominees who've had their hearings, whose qualifications are well established. two weeks ago, i asked the republican leadership to treat president obama's nominees as they would have those of a republican president. i asked for nothing more than we move forward together in the spirit that we teach our children from a young age, by referring to a nearly universal role of behavior that extends across most major religions and ethical behavior systems. and i urged adherence to the golden rule as the way to look forward and make progress. i'd hoped that we could remember our shared values. this simple step would help us return to our senate traditions and allow the senate better to fulfill its responsibilities to

the american people and the federal judiciary. i listened to my dear friend, the senior senator from connecticut, yesterday, senator dodd. he gave a lesson which similar to i've heard but not as eloquently from senators over the years. could have been said by senators of either party about why in the senate you need to work together on certain shared issues. we have 300 million americans but only 100 of us have the privilege to serve in this body to represent all 300 million. certainly you stand up for your political positions, but there are some areas where the american people expect us to come together. they certainly don't expect us to stall judicial nominations for the sake of stalling, especially nominations that have the strong support of both republicans and democrats.

they come out of the judiciary committee unanimously. the across-the-board stalling of judicial nominations that i've been trying to end has continu continued. we have noncontroversial nominations being delayed, obstructed for no good reason. if you have nominees that have come out unanimously, supported by both republicans and democrats, why are they then held up for weeks and months? i've been urging since last year that these consensus nominees be considered promptly and confirmed. if senators would have merely followed the golden rule, that would have happened. as of today, there are 110 vacancies on the federal courts around the country. 50 of them are for vacancies deemed "judicial emergencies" by the nonpartisan administrative office of the u.s. court.

we already know of 20 future vacancies. in addition, the senate has not acted on the request by the judicial conference of the united states to authorize 56 additional judges, which will allow the federal judiciary to do its work. so we're currently more than 180 judges short of the of those needed -- of those needed. i'd urge before the last presidential election that we pass legislation to create those additional judges when we didn't know who was going to be -- whether it was going to be a democratic or republican president. let's just pass the legislation, have it take effect after the presidential elections. we could as if that way. republicans and democrats could join together in what's best for the country, without knowing who is going to be president. unfortunately, it was blocked. the vast majority of the

president's judicial nominees are consensus nominees. i think they -- if they come to a vietnam, they're going to be confirmed by -- if they come it a vote, they're going to be confirmed by a large, bipartisan majority. these are well-qualified nominees. they are supported by their home state nominees, both republicans and democrats. the president has reached out to republican senators in seeking nominations. i have not proceeded in the judiciary committee with a single nominee who is not supported by both home state senators. i've worked with all republican senators to make sure they were included in this process. the president has worked hard with home state jurors, regardless of party affiliation. i urged him to do that as chairman of the committee. we've done that together. regrettably, despite our efforts, the senate is not being allowed to promptly consider his consensus nominees. to the contrary, as the

president has pointed out, nominees are being stalled, who, if they're allowed to be considered, would receive unanimous -- or probably nearly unanimous support and be serving the administration of justice throughout the country. we've had nominees that we've had to file cloture to get to a vote on and then when the roll call happens, it's 100-0, or 99-0. i mean, this makes no sense. it breaks with every tradition in this body. and i speak as one who's been here 36 years. one member of this body that has served longer than i have. i know of both republican and democratic leaders, republican and democratic presidents who have never seen this ha happen. it is counterproductive. what's happened is judicial confirmations are being stalled virtually across the board.

justice anthony condition did i, a republican -- justice anthony kennedy, a republican nominated by a republican president, voted for in his confirmation, i believe, by every single democrat. he spoke to the ninth judicial circuit conference about skyrocketing judicial vacancies in california and throughout the country. he said -- quote -- "it's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk." he added, "if judicial excellence is cast upon a sea of congressional indifference, the rule of law is imperiled." now, a republican, nominated by a republican president saying this. many of these nominees could have been considered and confirmed before the august recess. 23 of them could have been considered and confirmed before the october recess. they could and should have been

confirmed before the thanksgiving recess. they weren't. they're being held in limbo. they don't know -- where their life should be at this point, and their court -- they were not considered because of republican objections that really had nothing to do with the qualifications or quality of these nominees. these are not judicial nominees whose judicial philosophy republicans question. most of they will member were vote the for by every single republican on the senate judiciary committee. the president noted in his september letter to leaders that the real harm of this plail game falls on the american people when they turn for justice. the unnecessary delay in considering these noncontroversial nominations is undermining the ability of our courts to deliver justice to those in need, from working mothers seeking timely compensation for employment

discrimination crams, to swift punishment of perpetrators of crime, to small business owners seeking protection from unfair and anticompetitive practices. the courts are virtually closed to awful these people because the judges around there and they're being -- aren't there and they're being held up here. i think the senate should end this across-the-board blockade against confirming noncontroversial judicial nominees. democrats have not engaged in such practices with president bush. republicans should not continue in their practices any longer. the nearly 110 vacancies plaguing the federal courts, we don't have the luxury of engaging in these kinds of games. the senate is well behind the pace set by the democratic majority? the senate considering president bush's nominations during his first two years in office. at the end of president bush's second year in of course, the senate with a democratic

majority had confirmed 100 of his federal district and circuit court nominee neighs. democrats were in the majority for 17 months of president bush's tboirs years. we confirmed 100 of his federal circuit and district court nominations. i know, because they're all -- every one of them was considered and confirmed during the 17 months i chaired the senate judiciary committee. not a single nominee reported by the judiciary committee remained pending on the senate's executive calendar at the end of that congress. in sharp contrast to the 100 we put through in 17 months for president bush, in 23 months, president obama's first two years in office, the minority republicans have allowed only 41 federal circuit court nominees to be considered by the senate.

in fact in 2002, we proceeded in the lame-duck session after the election to confirm 20 more of president bush's judicial nominees. there are 34 judicial nominees ready for senate consideration. another four noncontroversial nominations on the committee's business agenda. these are 38 additional confirmations that could be easily achieved with a little cooperation from republicans. that would increase the confirmations from the historically low level of 41 where it currently stands to almost 80. it wouldn't be as good as we did for president bush, but at least it would be a start. the bottom line is the senate has been allowed to consider and confirm less than half of the federal circuit and district court nominees we proceeded to

confirm during president bush's first two years. 41 confirmations does not equal or exceed the 100 confirmations during the tboirs years of the bush administration -- during the first two years of the bush administration. for that matter, 75 federal circuit and district court nominees voted unfavorably reported by the senate judiciary committee does not equal the 100 during -- during the bush administration. when i imam chairman of the senate judiciary committee midway through president bush's first tumultuous year in of course, i worked very hard to make sure senate democrats did not perpetuate the judge wars o.a.s. a tit for tat. even though the senate republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of president clinton's judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial vacancies skyrocketed in 2001 and 2002

during the 17 months i chaired the committee, during president bush's first two years in office, we proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial nominations. i said we're not going to plate games they did where they pocket filibustered 60. we confirmed 100. this chart i think, mr. president, shows where we were. president clinton came in the first couple of years. we went from the 109 vacancies down to 49. then the republicans took over, they sphar started pocket filib, the vacancies went up to 110. democrats were in charge for 17 monthsmonths with a republican president. we said we're not going to play the games they did with president cline continue. we brought that down to 60. under president bush. and we actually moved judges

faster than the republicans did when they came back in charge of the senate. but we kept moferg. we kept moving. and then we got down to 34 vacancies. president obama gets elected. they hold up everything, and it goes up to 110 vacancies. you know, maybe that might sound good in some kind of fund-raising letter t doesn't sound any good if you're the one trying to have your case heard in a court. doesn't sound very good if you are the prosecutor and you want some bank robber charged or you want some criminal prosecuted. the judges aren't there. in fact, by refusing to proceed on president clinton's nations, -- nominations, you know, as i said, the senate republicans allowed the vacancies to go to 110.

well, we tried to change that. we did change it. and what i can't understand, why having done that, why having worked with president bush to bring the federal court vacancies from -- from 110 down 34 and the federal circuit vacancies which were a high of 32 to bring it down to single digits, this hasn't happened. it looks like old habits die hard. senate republicans returned to the strategy they had during the clinclinton administration again leading to skyrocketing vacancies. i assume -- last year the senate confidence only 12 federal circuit court judges, the lowest level in 50 years.

mr. president, the judiciary is not supposed to be political or politicized. when a lit gaunts in court, they -- when a litigant is in court, they don't -- in a federal court, they assume they get impartial justice. they're not saying, well, i'm going to be treated differently if i am a republican or a democrat. our federal judiciary is the envy of most of the world because of its impartiality. but this kind of game playing, this kind of holding up judges simply because there was a democratic president, that hurts -- that hurts terribly. it hurts the whole administration of justice. this year we've yet to confirm

30 federal circuit and district judges. we're not even keeping up with retirement and attrition. now judicial vacancies are again near 110, more than 10%. there's also the personal destruction. you have people that get nominated for the federal court, highly qualified, actually by the republican and democratic senators from their state. they get confirmed unanimously. they're in a law practice and everybody says congratulations, john or sue or whatever it might be, you're on the federal bench. by the way, when are you going to get out of that office because we're kind of limited what cases we can take as long as you're here, and they are in limbo. they're going to take -- many of these people are taking a huge

cut in pay to go on the federal bench anyway. they are there six, seven, eight months, they really can't earn anything. and eventually get confirmed 100-0. is there any wonder why people question how the country is being run? so, mr. president, i hope before the year is out this may -- this may change, and i would ask my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, under the previous order, i -- mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 3:30 p.m.

>> the foundation for excellence in education is hosting a conference this week in washington, d.c., on ways to improve the public school system across the country. next remarks of new jersey governor chris christie. this is just under an hour. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. well, thank you all very much. thank you for inviting me tonight, and first and foremost think you to governor bush. he has provided an extraordinary example, not just for me but for governors all across the country, current governors, and

most importantly i think governors to be, who will be taking office in january, and understanding because of his example, not only what is possible but what is still to be done. and his continued leadership through this foundation and this effort provides, not only an enormous intellectual resources, to governors who need that support to fight this fight, but also a model of success. from his eight years as governor of florida. so i am honored when this invitation came into except. thank you, governor. [applause] >> all of you in this room know that you're the ones who are helping us chart a course for reform. state-by-state across the entire country. and we know that this issue is

far from easy. it's not easy at all, but i really believe that if there were ever a time where we can transform the system of public education in this country, that the time is right now. and we cannot wait. we can't afford to wait. i am often called inpatient by folks in my state, and i plead guilty. i plead guilty to him patience, and i will explain a little more about that in a moment. but the intention and focus that developed that was alluded to in introduction had really created a perfect storm. whether you're talking about the things that president obama has tried to do, and articulate regarding education reform. the things that michelle rhee was able to accomplish in the city during her tenure.

and the idea that conservative republicans, like myself, like governor bush, like my senate republican leader who is here tonight and spotted the scholarship act in new jersey which we are going to pass before the end of this term -- [applause] >> the idea that people that have that much every convergence on the ideological spectrum can come together on this issue is what helped to create this moment. i said over and over again in new jersey that this is not a democratic or republican issue. it simply isn't. and, in fact, i say to those folks in the democratic party who represent some of the most ill-served children in our state, in their districts, with parents over and over and over

again vote for them, that they are ignoring of this issue is unacceptable. it's unacceptable for folks like tom kane and i in new jersey, who come from new jersey's suburbs where, there is good public education, this is not a vote getter for us. it's not about politics. it's about caring for those people who are never going to vote for you. i got about 12 votes in newark. [laughter] >> last year. you know, drive the can -- political consultants crazy. i want to go back to newark and talk about education. chris, do you want to win? we be able to do something about it? but it's about a commitment to public education, because i will tell you what i know. i know that i would be standing

here today if it wasn't for the fact that my parents borrowed money from both of their mothers to put a down payment on a house in livingston where tom and i both grew up, to move me in 1967 out of the city of newark and to a place where i could get a great public education. i wouldn't be standing here today if it wasn't for them. because my parents could tell me, and my mother told me all the time, christopher -- [laughter] >> if you work hard enough you could be anything you want to be. she could say that with a clear conscience and with conviction, because she knew i was getting a great education. and she knew that i had certain god-given talent, that each and every one of us has. she could say with conviction or those reasons that it was now up

to me. can the children in the city of newark, the city of paterson, the city of jersey city, the city of trenton, for god's sake, the city of camden, can they say that? those parents can't. they cannot come and that is at the core of our failure. that those parents dream of the same things that my parents dreamed of for me. but because of a system that does not nurture those children, does not educate those children, does not draw out their potential, for it to be exploited, for it to be developed. it is, it is simply a system

that is there to serve the adults, not to serve the children. each and every day in those cities in my state, and others, the worst schools are continuing to be about to operate without any effort, systemically, to fix them. it is time for us to stand up and demand that the teachers, the principals and the administrators truly do what the teachers union say they do everyday, putting the children first. it's for the kids, you understand. well, it's time for us to hold them to that task. if we don't do it, if we don't change what's happening in our mediocre and our poor performing schools, then we fail those children. continue to play the blame game and make excuses, it only makes the adults feel better. it does nothing for the children.

it is a civil rights issue as well. to me it is the seminal civil rights issue of our time. voting is never long the seminal civil rights issue. access to public accommodations is no longer the seminal civil rights issue. go to the cities of our country. certainly go to the cities of new jersey, and what you will see is that it is our minority children in the main for being denied opportunity. and they are being denied opportunity by the very people who claim politically and critically to be championing them in their cause. what's happening in new jersey, we spend on average across the state, $18,000 per pupil per

year. the highest per capita in america. in the city of newark, we spend nearly $25,000 per pupil per year. yet, yet 104,000 students are trapped in new jersey today in 205 chronically failing schools. in 2009, 40% of new jersey's african-american students, and 32% of our hispanic students were unable to meet any basic standards on the national test. 40% of african-americans, 32% of hispanics. in 2009, nearly 30% of all eighth graders in new jersey, not just the urban challenge children, but of all eighth grade students in new jersey lacked basic math skills.

30%. in 2009. the achievement gap between wealthy and low income eighth graders in math is nearly the same today as it was 19 years ago. the gap between at risk fourth graders and those not at risk has remained unchanged for 13 years. this, despite a supreme court ordered spending spree in new jersey, that has focused nearly two-thirds of all of our state resources on 30 at risk districts your the fallacy of money equals quality education. if you need to refer anybody to the example of the fallacy of that notion, come to new jersey. no one spends more -- [applause] >> and no one is getting less.

we have to be honest about these shortcomings, and our own failures, both parties, over the course of the last 30 years. and we have to work together to fix them. now, one of the impediments? of getting this done. let me tell you a story about when i was the united states attorney, and i went to visit the highest achieving public elementary school in new jersey. it is a charter school, robert treat a cat in newark, new jersey. and the founder was proudly showing me around his school for any of you who visited. it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. is extraordinarily proud, and he should be. but i met a mother their of a third grade boy, and she told me that her son had gotten with the

lottery in kindergarten that there are 4000 children today on the waiting list at the academy. 4000 children on the waiting list for this elementary school. and i asked her, what it felt like tonight she was sitting in a gymnasium awaiting for the decision of whether her son would get in or not. and she said to me, chris, i knew that with his number was going to be picked or not was the difference between my son going to college or going to jail. in kindergarten at five years old, a mother sitting there knowing in her heart, and in her head, that that decision was the difference between her son having a chance to cheat everyone of his dreams, and the dreams she had for him, and

going to jail. in a school district that had $980 million in state aid last year for 40,000 students. it's not acceptable any longer, and we need to say these things out loud. it is not acceptable any longer to let a teacher who can't teach stay in the classroom. [applause] >> wouldn't you just love it if, in these 205 chronically failing schools in new jersey, that would have back to school night, that they actually told you the truth? right? i mean, you all been back to school night and i for children between seven and 17, about eight or nine weeks a we head back to school night. and, of course, our four children are in three different

schools, and they all schedule back to school light on the same night. this is something we really have to fix. [laughter] >> these other issues are big, but it wreaks havoc on my sketch in my wife's schedule. we ran to alter those goals. our youngest is bridget, she is in second grade, she is seven years old. now imagine if bridget was one of those chronically failing schools. we went to back to school night and they told you the truth. the principal would walk in the classroom, the parents, good evening. principle, i want to welcome you to back to school night. your teacher this year is mrs. smith. mrs. smith is an awful teacher. [laughter] >> really, sir surgery by any measure she's not good. her students underachieve consistently on testing. they don't like coming to her class. she doesn't really care. she's using the same lesson plans that she used 15 years ago. and no matter what we have tried to do to encourage her to get

more training, to change her attitude, she simply refuses to do it. now, our problem is that because of his union contract that we have in our district, we can't fire her or do anything to hurt. so, as much as we have tried, we just have concluded that we are not going to change her. had a great year. [applause] >> now, of course, they never say that. they never say that. but it doesn't mean it's not happening. it's happening in classrooms all across new jersey and all across america. and they call me impatient. but here's why i'm impatient. my daughter has one year in second grade. one. and if she doesn't learn what she needs learned in the second great she is behind in the third grade and fourth grade in the fifth grade, and less i center for private tutoring or get

lucky and get an extraordinary teacher, one of those other years who's willing to spend the time necessary to bring her back up to speed. and this not only damages her chances to achieve what she wants to achieve in her life, but it kills her self-esteem today. because every child who is in the classroom who is behind knows it. they are smart that the teachers asked questions, they can't raise their hand. they are petrified. they feel stupid. other kids mock them. this is what happens. it not only kills educational opportunity. it kills self-esteem. and when we kill self-esteem in second grade little girls, it's no laughing matter. because that leads to a myriad of other social problems that we are living with in this country. because when that little girl looks in the near and she doesn't see a smart little girl,

when she doesn't see a little girl who can achieve her values, who can achieve her aspirations, who can be proud to bring that great report card home to her mother or father, that's the little girl who was more out to turn to drugs. that's the little girl who is more apt to turn to martin premarital sex. that's the little girl who is more tending to be a mother while she is still a child. that's the little girl who is more prone to be involved in violence, because she doesn't respect herself. i'm impatient because i don't want anymore of those little girls or boys in america. and every time you see a teachers union representatives say we are doing the best we

can, or we can't possibly evaluate teachers in that way, or we can't possibly change or eliminate tenure, we can't possibly have merit pay. we can't possibly have school choice. i tell you who i think about. those little girls. that's who i think about. the ones who are being cheated. not only of the opportunity for a great career, but of the right to have self-esteem. i am inpatient. i am inpatient. and it is an obscenity, an obscenity that those who claim to be involved in public education for the kids aren't just as offended and just as impatient as i am. [applause]

>> our children can no longer afford to bear the consequences of that kind of conduct. we can no longer afford the consequences of propping up an antiquated, an effective model that promotes failing schools. and that's what we're doing. we know that when we give children the opportunity to get out of a fading school and into a different environment, the results are better schools, higher achievement, better education, greater self-esteem, and a better future. charter schools were never meant to be the solution for the problems of public education. what they were meant to be, in all honesty, unencumbered laboratories for innovation and experimentation, and engaging

success. and then taking that model and applying it to the broader public school system. that's what charter schools were meant to be. we've done some of the first part and none of the last part. but what's happening in charter schools in new jersey, for instance, 70% of new jersey's charter schools or charter high schools, have a higher 2000 graduation rate than their local district average. this is not an argument for more charter schools in and of itself. it is an argument for applying the lessons that those charter schools are learning to get that achievement to the broader public school system. but that, of course, means tearing at the union contracts. that's what it means. [applause] >> 11,000 students are waiting for charter high schools in new jersey. 11,000. now, you know all the issues and i'm not going to bore you with

going through any of them. merit, tenure reform, elimination, we'll accountable in the in the classroom, shared sacrifice by everybody to try to remain in this system. we are doing these things in new jersey. we are fighting to do them in new jersey. and whether it is expanding parental choice, trying to make sure that we reform the leaders of our educational system, superintendents and principals who seem, at times, to care more about how much they are making that how much they are achieving. and in new jersey, in ball from district to district to get higher and higher salaries. and crazy school districts in new jersey especially our suburban ones he believed the more they pay their superintendent, the more valuable their district must be. this conspiracy among the superintendents is extraordinary. and you're watching it play out

in new jersey right now because we have impose a cap on superintendent pay. [applause] >> now, being a superintendent of schools is a hard job. i'll tell you this. it's no harder than my job. [laughter] >> now, i make $175,000 a year. i said, how about this? you don't make any more than me. [applause] >> and if you want to make more than me, here's how you do it. you're eligible to 20% bonus on top of that are objectively measured accomplishment by the students in your district. you achieve, i will pay you. [applause] >> showing up for work is not a good enough excuse. think about this. 70% of the superintendents in new jersey make more money than the governor.

70%. now, imagine this, in the conspiracy of superintendents and elected school boards, the cap goes into effect on every seventh -- on every seventh that any contract that expires after february 7, the new contract must conform with again. what's happening across new jersey right now? [laughter] >> folks were in the middle of the contract getting five year contract extensions at salaries over the cap. superintendent of schools writing op-ed pieces as it they are disinterested observers. for the first time in their lives upset about the awful owners arm of government coming in to interfere with the free market. [applause]

>> imagine this. i am being sued today by a school board who wants to give their superintendent a salary higher than the cap and is spending taxpayer money to sue the governor and the commissioner of education to get the higher salary for their superintendent. despite the fact that dozens of citizens showed up at the school board meeting to protest it. this is doctor leroy seitz in parsippany new jersey who i've now crowned the new poster boy of greed and arrogance in public education in new jersey. [applause] >> but as this fight is going on, let me explain to you that he is getting company. people are competing in new jersey for me to give it a new title.

why is this important? why is this fight important? because it's not the we don't have enough money. we have more than enough money in new jersey in the system. it's that this money is being spent so ineffectively, so inefficiently, and again with a focus on the adults and not the children, that we have to fight it at every level. so if you're going to talk about the teachers union, and i know what you are here for, so don't worry, i will get to it that if you're going to talk about the teachers union, you've got to talk about the administrators also, who are failing in leadership, who are being overpaid for that failure, and who need now to have a good news to stand up and say i will be part of the sacrifice in order to prepare the system and make it better for the children who we are supposed to be serving, and their families who are paying the bills. [applause] ..

>> i was walking down, and my wife asked if this was the way i go every day. i said, yeah. she said this is the ramp? i said, yeah, this is the ramp. i said it's been three years, you know. [laughter] i think it's the nature of the

governship in new jersey, great authority and great responsibility, but as i was walking out with her, we had talked about some of the kids we had met that day in the soup kitchen, kids who were public school kids in trenton who were being failed by that educational system, and it made me think on the way home about all the things you're thankful in life on the day before thanksgiving, and how much of a responsibility we have to fight this fight, and i can't afford to be tired or discouraged. the people didn't hire me because of my charm and good looks. they hired me because they know our state is a mess and somebody who had the backbone to actually do something about it. when you become governor of new jersey, you go to the state house for the first time as

governor and drive down state street in trenton. i know some of you have been there, and state street in trenton is a historic old street lined with cobblestone and small little brick front and stone front old homes that are now converted into lobbyist offices. [laughter] not exactly shangrala, but what strikes you is that there's all these very small buildings except for two, the state house,ed second oldest operating state house in america, and right across the street the palace built by the new jersey

education association. a five story brick and glass palace built with $130 million in dues that they collect a year. $130million in dues a year. you say, they must contribute to their member salaries. no, no. they collect $100 million a year, they must be cricketing to their member's pensions. no. $130 million a year, all right ring they are kicking in for their health benefits. no. well, what do they do with $130 million a year? how do you get to that number first of all? dues are deducted from their paychecks by the state of new jersey by statute free of charge and wire transferred directly to them because we want to make

this as convenient as possible in new jersey. [laughter] 200,000 members, so you all can do the math. now, also by statute in new jersey, do you have to be a member of the teachers unions if you are a public school employee? that is incorrect. i'm sorry to call you out, you don't have to be. you can on the out, but if you do opt out, you have to pay 35% of $731 to be out. by statute, 85% of the dues must be paid by someone who wants out. now, for people of my generation, governor bush's generation, this is like the hotel california. [laughter] you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. [laughter]

[applause] what do they do with this money beside build the palace across the street? well, they have an executive director. he makes $550,000 a year. they have an army of in-house lobbyists who senator mccain will tell you every time the word education is mentioned in a bill or in a discussion inside the state house, there are three or four nega lobbyists in the front row speering each lemghtture to -- legislature to remind them they are there. they make contributions to the members of the legislature who total and against those legislatures who dare to speak out, and since march, they have

spent $8 million on television and radio ads in new york and philadelphia against me. now, some people may say that's a big expenditure of money. [laughter] but i think they need to get a refund because in that time from march to today, my approval ratings have gone from 42% to 55%. [applause] today, the disapproval rating of the teacher union in new jersey is 59%. [applause] disapprovement. [applause] how does this happen? it happens because of what we

need to do. it happens because we're shining a bright light on who the union is and what they stand for. this is no longer the time to believe that we can play by some delegate rules. they don't. now, when i came to trenton, i was new to the schoolyard, so i walked on to the schoolyard like any new kid and made my observations. there was a bunch of elected officials, bureaucrats laying on the ground bleeding, cowarding, crying. there was one person standing up. that's the bully. that's the bully in the schoolyard. you have a choice as governor of new jersey, every governor for

the last 30 years walked on to that same schoolyard, and you got a choice. you go up and you try to saddle up next to the bully, try too make friends. with him. you try to get them not to dislike you too much so they don't punch you. that's the path chosen by our governors of both parties over that period of time, or you walk on to the schoolyard and you say, you punch them, i punch you. [applause] you come in -- [applause] you come in and say you protect lousy teachers, i'll tell the public about it. you come in and you say, you're getting 4-5% salary increases a year in a 0% inflation world, i'm telling people about it. in new jersey, the teacher

unions demand free health benefits from the day a teacher is hired for her or him and their family until the day they die, and they get it at the expense of the state of new jersey, and you tell people about it because as i've traveled around my state in the last 10 months, you'd be amazed by how many don't know. they want to know why does it cost this much money, governor, for this education? i say, one answer for you. ngea. that's why it costs so much money, and it doesn't do anything for the kids. they tell you it's for the kids. it is for the kids. that's their slogan. it's for the kids. well, let's go back to bridget, my second grader. here's what you have to believe if you believe that. bridget comes home from that

first marking period and hands me her report card sheepishly, and i open it up, and it's not good. i say, what happened here? you're smarter than this. what happened? dad, i can't concentrate or focus. why? why not? i heard that you're not giving mrs. smith her 5% raise this year -- [laughter] and you're not giving her free health benefits. dad, i can't focus. [laughter] if you would just give her her 5% raise and her free health benefits for her whole life, i swear i'd get all a's. dad, stop the madness, stop the madness. [laughter] now, listen, you all laugh; right? this is the crap i listen to in new jersey.

[laughter] this is the argument they make every day that when i asked them during a time of unprecedented crisis last year to take a pay freeze for a year and contribute 1.5% of their salary to their health benefits, that's $750 a year for full family medical, vision, dental, and health coverage, the ngea called that the greatest assault on public education in the history of new jersey. [laughter] i tell you these stories for two reasons. one, i want to allisit your sympathy. [laughter] secondly, i tell you that so that you can understand what we are up against. we are up against people who are playing on yesterday's play book. we're up against people who believe that people still believe this garbage.

we're up against people who think if i just say it's for the kids and i pit nice tv commercials and pieces showing lovely teachers, the parents will be the dopes that we are and just say, oh, well, all right. it's for the kids, let's pay it. let's not fight. i don't want to anger my teacher. i don't -- i don't want her to be mad at me when i have to go to the conference. you know, when we tried to fite against the school budgets this year and district by district, the tradition over the last ten years has been 74%. new jerseyians are very generous. 74% average pass rate. this year we said, you don't take the pay freeze, you don't take the contribution to your health benefits, we're going to urge the people in your town to vote no on the budget. now, i did this in the way i normally do things, and tom will tell you this.

if they don't take the pay freeze and the benefits, what do voters do, goch nor? i -- governor. >> i said, i don't know, if i were them, i'd vote against the budget. governor bush will tell you this, when your chief of staff is waiting for you in your office -- [laughter] this is never good. [laughter] and i have a very reserved, very bright, very soft spoken chief of staff, and i walked in and he said, so, hod the press -- how did the press conference go? i said it went great. he said, so i hear we're against the school budget. [laughter] i say yes. he said, you know in the last few years it's been a 74% pass rate. i said, yes, i'm aware. maybe this is something we should have batted around a bit before we decided to do this. [laughter] i said, well, it just made sense

to me. [laughter] well, sympathy for me, empathy for him. [laughter] i said, well, we better go out and win. we went out and told people these facts, and we said to the unemployed carpenter and electrician and plumber and pipe setter, the person in middle management who lost their job to corporate downsizing to the folks are hours cut back at their business to the folks who had not gotten a raise in 5 years, we staid, listen, we value teachers. the great ones should be carried on our shoulders every day to school. we should pay them what they deserve and more because they care about our kids and are doing a great job, but we're tired of paying for mediocrity and for people just fogging up the mirror every year. we're tired of paying for that.

this is what we have to do, if they are not willing to be part of the shared sacrifice, vote no on the school budget. they don't qofer these -- cover these elections on tv. we're in the living room with the laptop, and she looks at me and says, you know, buddy, this could be the shortest tenure of governor of all time. [laughter] three months in you could be dead meat in about an hour. i said, well, let's see what happens. we watched as county by county and district by district the results rolled in. people are getting it. 59% of the school budgets were defeated in new jersey that night. [applause] the highest number in the history of the state. we are right. [applause] we are right. [applause] and the public knows it.

it is time for us to not worry about how clever our arguments need to be. of course, we need to strait jiz political -- strait jiz politically and be smart, but never forget the fact we are right, and the power of the issue is we are right to the suburban mother like my mom who wanted their child to be everything he could be and all you have to do is work hard. we are the single african-american mother who newark who was afraid her child would go to jail if he didn't get in the charter school. we are right to the spanish immigrant coming to the country looking for something better for his children and believes that america's education system is going to provide that to his kids. we are right for the teachers who know lousy -- teachers when they see them and break their backs every day to

be good and better, and who watch in silent horror, silence enforced by a union who cares only about political muscle and influence and discipline of their members, watch in silence as they get paid the same amount as the lousy failing teacher down the hall. we are right for those people too, and they know it, and they may not put a bumper sticker on their car, and you bet they are not hanging my picture in their classroom. [laughter] they are the ones who come up to me at the soccer field and at the supermarket and at the shoe store and dellly and come up to me -- deli, and whisper to me, i'm a teacher, and i'm with you. [applause]

that kind of coalition, ladies and gentlemen, creates a moment, and we can't let that moment pass by. we cannot let the enthusiasm and intensity of which our leaders have been discussing this issue diminish in any way. our children need us to remember that they are the future of our public and they need us to remember that the media's attention on this issue right now can be fleeting. our children need us to remember the generosity of folks like mark zuckerberg, a gentleman at 26 years old, decided he wanted to transform the school system in newark, and many others in this room who believe that their lives and their fortunes are worth investing in this issue.

we have to remind our children that those folks are with them. our children seed us to re-- need us to remember that bipartisanship can work when it's focused on results for them, and not for us. our children need us to remember that those of us in charge can't back down from the status quo because its roots are deep and the special interests are entrenched and backing down only em boldens them. the old way no longer works. every day that passes has a real and unacceptable consequence for not only our kids, but for future generations of children, and now we have to engage in the fight, and each of us has to take up our individual role, whatever it is because failure

cannot be an option here. it simply can't. i'd rather lose an election. i'd rather lose my career than look back and realize that i didn't do enough for the future lives of the children of my state. now, listen -- [applause] i tell people this all the time. i'm getting the oil portrait in the state house. like that's done. i won once. i'm getting the big oil painting. [laughter] like, when i walk out to do my press conference, there's tom's father. he has the oil painting and all the other recent governors who got the oil painting. now we just are arguing over the brass plaque at the bottom. [laughter] it just has to say four or eight years, that's all that's left.

[laughter] here's the thing, when i bring my grandchildren back to the state house, and i show them that painting because i want to show them that their crazy grandfather was governor. my own children don't believe it at the moment. [laughter] when i show them that painting, they will ask me, i hope, grandpa, what did you do? i don't want to say, well, first, let me direct your attention to the little brass plaque at the bottom of the painting, eight years, not a minor accomplishment for a republican in new jersey. let's start there. [laughter] [applause] yeah, but what did you do? i said, well, i got the eight years, and to get the eight years i had to compromise my principles. i had to get in bed with special interests that i didn't approve of, imcrementize and suppress my own personality, but eight years on the plaque, kids, eight

years. i don't want to say that. i want to say whatever that plaque says. i want to be able to say to them every day i was in this job, i was thinking about whether you could live here orment to live -- or want to live here. live in the same way that my parents got to get in the car and drive 25 minutes to watch my kids play baseball, the same way they got in the car to drive 25 minutes to go to that christmas concert or spring play, the same way that they got in the car to drive 25 minutes to go to the little birthday party around the kitchen table, or where they took the dozen pictures of the kids blowing out the candles. that's what i want. my parents had it. i want it. i don't want to get on an airplane to see my grandchildren. i want them to be in new jersey. i am one of the most blessed people in the world because i

get a chance to make that happen. i don't have to leave it to fate or chance. i get a chance to make it happen, so whatever that plaque says underneath it, i want them to see that's what i was focused on every day, not just for me, but for them, for their friends., for the other children in new jersey who wanted the same thing themselves, that wanted to achieve every one of the dreams and aspirations that they had and wanted to believe that when their parents said to them, you can be anything you want to be as long as you work hard enough, that it came true, so that's not only up to me, it's up to all of us. we have to stand together. this is the fight worth having. we just have to have the courage

to do it. we have to have the courage to tear more about children than we care about adults. we have to have the courage to stand up to those people who say it's not possible. we have to have the courage to not care about how we'll be journaled in the short term -- judged in the short term, but to care only about how our children will judge us because they will, every generation judges their parents. governor bush's father was a member of the generation we call the greatest generation. he got to make a judgment of what his father was willing to do at a moment when our country was at grave risk, and it set up for him, i suspect, an extraordinarily high standard of

what was expected of us because of the example they set, because of the covenant they kept to leave this place better for their children than it was left for them. we will be judged too, and what will they say of us? will they say at this moment of maximum crisis in america's educational system that we buried ourselves in the sand or had comforts, that we said the problems are too big and too complex? i cannot make a difference, someone else will have to solve it. will our children say of us, they stood up, they took risk, they were counted, they put their money and their effort and their heart where their mouth was, they kept that greatest american covenant, to leave this

place better for our children than it was left for us. if that does not motivate us, then we have failed as americans, and we have failed as human beings. we cannot accept that failure. i will not accept that failure for me, and i will challenge every one of you and everyone i can speak to not to accept that failure either. this is our moment. it is time to seize it so we can keep that covenant. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> the senate is in recess now, so democratic members can attend a caucus meeting. lawmakers have been giving general speeches today. off the floor, kyl and baucus are talking about extending bush era tax cuts. we'll keep an eye on that and give you comments as they become available. we'll have more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span2.

we have more live events for you today. at 2:15 eastern, that's when robert gibbs briefs reporters. that's live here on c-span2. yesterday, defense secretary robert gates and admiral mic mullen talked about the don't ask, don't tell repeal. that's the subject of a senate armed services committee hearing tomorrow. both men answer senators questions, and that's live starting at 9 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >> the pentagon released the report on don't ask don't tell banning gays of serving in the military. look at the c-span video library and search for the arguments for and against. it's washington, your way.

>> a discussion now on hiv aids prevention and research. from today's washington journal, this is about 40 minutes. >> host: our guest is the executive director of the whitman walker clinic. on this world aids day, give us the latest news about the number of cases and treatment of them. >> guest: oh, sure. i'm glad to be here today, paul. this is reflecting and a sobering day for us, but it's a day of optimism. there's a tremendous amount of treatments available across the globe, and our challenge is getting medications to people in our types of communities all over the globe with more than 3 # million people living with hiv on the planet, and more infected every day here in this country it's 56,000 a year. here in the district it's 1800 a year.

the real challenge is long term, what are we going to do in terms of treatment? we know that medications work, but how are we going to fund those over the life of many, many millions of people across the planet. >> host: there's a will the to go through, and with the number of cases in the city here, this country, around the world, where are the trends? going up or down? >> guest: they are on a community-by-community basis. there's startling information in communities of color. black americans in particular have seen a rise over the 20 year period. the latino community in our country in urban areas are seeing an uptake, and then on a group that doesn't get a lot of coverage, but seniors. we pretend they are not sexually active, but they are. they are at risk. if they don't get tested and know their status, they get

medications and treatment. >> host: describe the work of your operation. >> guest: we have a wonderful operation, 140 employees. our mission is to be a high-quality health center serving this diverse community with a special expertise in hiv care. >> host: phone numbers on the screen for our guest. separate lines for republicans and democrats and independents. wecht to present additional numbers for our guest. diagnosis by age because he touched on age a little bit. just so you know what's out there, through 2008 according to the cdc, those under 25, the number is about 58,000 people diagnosed. 25-49 is about 873,000 and 50

and over is a limit more than 140,000. california is second with 150,000, florida, has over 100 thousand cases. any perspective on those numbers? >> guest: we have a concentration of where individuals are. we have nine states plus puerto rico making up 78% of the known cases of hiv in this country. in those particular states and urban areas within the states, there's a tremendous amount of work that needs to go on with education and treatment. >> host: 33 million globally as you touched on, but here are the top countries, south africa, nigeria, second, india, kenya, moe mozambique, tanzania, a lot

of countries there. >> guest: it has had an amazing impact on keeping people alive in subissai hair ya africa. we're going to keep people alive for 30 plus years. what it means from a societal per pective to pay for those medications, you know the medications are not cheap costing $800-$1,000 a month per person. >> host: a key part of the conversation is how to fund all of this, but to speak first to the actual treatments, what's been the biggest, most positive development in the last couping years? >> guest: well, the easiest to point to is the one a day type pills where instead of a

combinations of medications, you take one pill a day fighting your virus that way. that's the simple and easiest for patients. >> host: first call, pittsburgh, democrat line. hi, there. >> caller: hello? >> host: hi, you're on the air. >> caller: hi, this is jacky, and i'm from pittsburgh pennsylvania, and and i'm a democrat. here on pittsburgh on world aids day, weaver a place that anybody can go get tested, and then they come back and two weeks later i believe to find out if they are positive or negative. i am a lesbian. two years ago i went because i wanted to get checked for because i was straight and in the beginning of my life and

realized that i'm gay and now i'm married and my wife was married for 24 years and we both got tested and it's free in pittsburgh, pennsylvania in a place called oakland where the university of pittsburgh is. >> host: free treatment there. >> guest: it's wonderful. thanks for your question. it's sweet and jackie pointed this out that world aids day is a great day for people to get tested, and there's test sites all over this country, free testing available at many of the local health centers, at local city and state health departments, and what's wonderful about it is actually if the test is the oral test, the oral swab, you can find out your preliminary results in 20 minutes. it's not a really long test. it's something you can do as part of your routine day. if you are diagnosed as a

positive on that test, there's blood tests to do for confirmation, but you can really do this within a short period of time and you can fit it in your day. >> host: it opens the door to funding itself. give us the structure. how does that work beginning with that person in that locality to the federal government and beyond. >> guest: sure. the reality of it is as you know is our health care system a complicated. we would love to have something simpler, sure. a lot of our hiv education prevention and treatment comes through the ryan white care act, a well-known legislative success over the years funding primary medical care, mental health, care, mental health, substance abuse, testing and counseling, case management, and other supportive services. that's a big component. in increasing size of funding for clinics like whitman walker and other hiv organizations has

been medicaid. more people are on medicaid. more people on medicaid are hiv- positive. more of their treatment is covered by the source. sources,st of funding not dissimilar from what health care does now. what goes on in hiv care that a little bit different is that we rely on a lot of fund raising. we do a lot of support of service work, whether in the food banks, housing, peer support groups >> those things help people stay in treatment. doing that requires additional funds and that's where our organization raises money. >> host: does the new health care, federal law, address aids specifically in any way? >> guest: there's opportunities for us to do things better. one of the best opportunities is to rethink how ryan white care act funding and services fits with post health care reform

because more and more of the individuals that we care for are going to have some type of coverage be it medicaid or others. >> host: back to calls, ohio, john, republican, thank you for waiting. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning, john. >> caller: why don't we set up something we did with tv? take care of the people that way? get them out of the population, treat them and treat these people and put them where they can't infect the rest of the country. >> guest: there's a host of concerns i raise. one is just a human dignity perspective. the transmission modes for hiv is different from tb. there are different treatment modalities, and i would not want to discriminate against an individual based on a condition. i personally would not want to live in a society that does that to any individual.

>> host: sam, democrats, north carolina, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: well, when you said that it cost $800-$1,000 a month for these medications, that blue me away. it can't seriously cost that much money to make the little pills and whatever. >> guest: well, let me stop you there, but $800-$1,000, how does that figure come about? there's research and development drugs. explain why it costs that kind of money? >> guest: those are the great questions to ask the manufactures. there's a fair amount of upfront capital invested in making any new drug, and with the hiv, one the unique things is it's a very difficult virus to isolate its behavior on, and we've had

challenges in clinical research in really getting our arms around that, and i think that's why there's not a vaccine yet. we have great medications, but they cost money, and that's the significant long term challenge. >> host: caller, you still there? >> caller: i'm still here. any other points? no, not really. i was surprised by -- >> guest: i'll add one thing, sam. i think there's a lot of home that the pricing over time of the medications comes down. one would hope the manufactures get to the place where they can do more from a generic perspective and lower the cost of the ingredients and lower the cost to distribute the medications across the world, and then there's always, always, always lope that there will be a new medication that comes along or vaccine that will help us. there is ongoing research. the federal government is a tremendous funder here in the united states.

>> host: philip, republican, good morning to you. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. in the interest of full disclosure, i haven't voted republican since 2002, but that's another phone call. what i wanted to address this morning is, you know, i was surprised to see the past year, especially in metropolitan areas, president obama wherever he spoke, the speakers were usually interrupted by aids protesters, and you know, if you look at the numbers as a whole, funding for aids has increased somewhat. but a few months ago, i read an article in the "new york times" that said we have waiting lists in america for people who have been infected with hiv aids for quite a few years because of federal government has not extended the drug program for the uninsured known as adap.

i telephoned the folks in san fransisco in charge of that. i was told, and i couldn't believe it, that the speaker pelosi and president obama had decided that they were not going to go into the debt anymore or cause anymore red ink for this project, and we would have to wait. now, this is just a state-by-state basis right now, but as of today, gentlemen, 3500 plus individuals who received medications to keep them alive no longer do. they are on waiting lists, and i don't mean to take all this time, but i have to finish this. i come to find out who in the congress is fighting for this. it turns out senator cor burn of oklahoma and senator burr of north carolina, and they are trying as they've been fighting

and i call their offices to find out -- and they all tell me the same thing, they don't know why the speaker and the democrats had not made this an issue. for those who are confused out there why there's protesters for the president, they have a damn good reason, and finally, if we can bailout the chevies and the cadillacs, we need to help these individuals. one gentleman died in south carolina. it's time for america to wake up and start dealing with these main street issues. >> host: what would you like to add to that if any? >> guest: i think he's spot on with a couple things. adap, the state based program with some federal support is really in the cross hairs and cross currents of state budget pressure, and so we listed up front, paul, a number of states with high hiv cases, and those

state face budget pressures and then there's waiting lists. if not addressed in the short term, it really going to be a life and death matter for people living with hiv. he's spot on. i think the biggest challenge we have, and this is going to be the global challenge. we see it here locally now in our country, how do we do this long term when we have more and more people infected, more and more people on medications, and we're going to do this for 30-plus years. this is something that's significant. we're going to find a short term solution in the country in the next six to 12 months, but there's long term issues in countries where 40% of their population is living with hiv consuming half of their gdp. >> host: a reminder of the states with the highest number of cases is new york at the top followed by california. as we look at the numbers, ron on the independent line from new orleans. our guest is the executive

director of the whitman clinic. >> caller: i think the people in the hiv industry are going a job at the top level. they need to coordinate something when a person gets tested for hiv, they get tested for syphilis as well. they are tested for some diseases, but the hiv people need to make testing a one-stop type of deal where you get tested for hiv, you are tested for gonorrhea and syphilis and other stds, and that's a problem right there. it seems the hiv has become an industry, an industry of people sitting in jobs, waiting for government grants who are not out there doing their jobs properly. >> host: statement on the process and the folks at the top. >> guest: two points about

ron's comments. i think first and foremost, it's good public health for someone who is sexually active to be tested for hiv as well as other stds, and at whitman walker clinic there's a free evening program for std testing where they get tested for a series of stds and hiv. i couldn't be more whole heartedly bind that comment. the second idea is that whether you look at hiv care as a separate and apart health care need in our society, if you remember where we came from, there was no solutions 30 years ago and people died within 18 months of diagnosis. things were done on the fly with compassionate love with the spent of doing the best we could with little or no knowledge. what happened over time is we made hiv care a separate system of care away from routine primary care, a and that's the

medical area where the two systems are starting to meet. hopefully in five years, ron can look back post-health care reform and say the hiv folks got it right and integrated with primary care. >> host: more about funding not just this country, but elsewhere. the financial times had a section devoted to world aids day and os austerity measures around the world people cutting back on budgets and what that means to aid care. what's your perspective? >> guest: this is one of the hardest things to deal with. i shared this with you before we started today, this notion of what's our societal responsibility of someone living with hiv? in many of these communities, we need these individual toes lead very productive lives over many years, and the idea that any society across the globe takes austerity measures and puts people at risk potentially to die and not step in and whether that step in is another country,

whether that step in is the philanthropic world, whether that step in is churches and other organizations, i just see at some point in time we have to look in the mirror and make those hard choices. there are things governments do that we don't need to do. we have a vie brant open discussion about that in our country now. >> host: there's an ad in final times and other papers as well that fighting aids should be a corporate policy. chevron agrees being a supporter. talk about corporate funding in research areas. >> guest: yeah, the corporate folks don't get enough publicity and positive push from my side. they've done a great job in the global business counsel to be active participants, to be active participants in the community here. we have a number of corporate sponsors helping walker clinic with prevention and treatment.

they don't get enough congrats from my perspective. many of the entities work across all the countries that have really high prevalence rates of hiv. it's in their interest to make sure it's a healthy population where they work. >> host: back to calls, democratic caller, what's your name? >> guest: cd. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: when aids was in communities and it was the only one drug on the market at the time used to fight aids and then later they came out with more, but what bothered me is a lot of these fellows died alone. the hospital policy at the time didn't allow the significant others to be with them, and well, for that reason i might jump back to the last topic in support of repealing don't ask, don't tell.

you have soldiers woppedded in battle, -- wounded and battle and because of don't ask, don't tell, their loved ones can't be with them. that's all i got. thank you. >> host: anything? >> guest: thing there's a reality around this that our society is slow to change, and we as humans don't like to change, and we struggle around issues of the aids epidemic on how to love someone who is infected. we have all kinds of policyings that if you look back 30 years ago, you'd scratch your head saying i know why we did it because we were scared. we wouldn't use those policies now. >> host: you pointed out there no vaccine yet, and one viewer by twitter wants to know how close are we to a preventative vaccine? >> guest: it's a great question. i don't want to sound negative, but it's a good 15-20 years away. i say that because the virus is

a lot more complicated in its behavior and how it lives in a human being, and doctors have been on the show and all over, you know, to different events talking about how complicated it is to really isolate what this virus does on a regular basis and how to stop it, so i think we're going to put a lot of time and energy as a country into that. i think it's a very worthwhile cause to do that, but i think that's 15-plus years away. >> host: is the u.s. a leader in this and what other countries are prominent? >> guest: there are researchers across the globe. we have a fair amount of work being done in this country through a number of trials which is wonderful, and a number of european countries look at this as an area where they need too that, and there's some institutions in southeast asia with their communities being hard hit, they are looking at it also. >> host: there's a lot written about this including former

president bush talking about aids in africa and why it's america's fight. first of all, what did you make of the last president's approach to aids and the current president? >> guest: thank you for the question. i think that we had an either/or dynamic around the last president, and again regardless of your political views, it was a success. we took things that worked well in this country and other places and brought it to africa and we saved lives. there's no debating that whatsoever. the people here in the u.s. in the advocacy and aids community felt our nation and our individuals living with hiv, americans living with hiv were left behind, and what we've seen is a pendulum swinging back saying, hey, we need to do more on the domestic front. a previous caller mentioned some of the protests or comments made in the public meetings or public speeches that the president has done is really an expression of

what are we going to do here? what are we going to do to step it up and what's the third act if you will in fighting hiv? >> host: africa has millions of cases and president bush writes why it's america's fight in his view. i firmly believe meaning the approach his administration took to aids served the american interest to prevent the collapse of the african continent and supported america's beliefs and america is dedicated to the inherit and equal dignity of lives and it's the idea of our faith and founding that gives rise to the power. >> caller: good morning, yes, i would to know why you do not address the real problem with aids which is passing fee cease from one homo sexual to another. aids will never be cured bows of

this. >> guest: the caller makes a number of comments that factually the clinical research tells you the virus is not transmitted that way. the bigger issue for me in this community and any community is adults are sexually active, and adults living in communities that have a lot of hiv need to take preventative measures as individuals for themselves and their partner and that means wearing a condom on a regular basis, not taking risks and making sure that you know your status all the time. we spend a fair amount of time talking with individuals whro are hiv -- who are hiv positive to stay in treatment, and treatment from our perspective is a prevention measure and if we keep them on medications to keep their viral risk low, they are at less risk

of infecting their partner. wearing a condom is still the best prevention right now. >> host: older folks in the country. here's a story from the paper and show a gentleman, 61 years old living with aids, older new yorkers are living with hiv-aids. explain the most recent issues with this and what else we should know about older americans. >> guest: sure. we're learning lessons for the first time because this group of individuals, 60 or older, are long term survivors and we're learning about the side effects of medicines. we've seen issues of kidney and livers being impacted, brittle bones, and other complications around heart disease, and so we don't really have a full understanding of what it means

to be on these medications for 15-plus years. this group is starting to help us learn about that. the second group that's interesting is because there's a set of survivors who have been infected, the next group is the 60 or older using viagra or another medication who is sexually active and doesn't believe they are at risk for hiv when they have a sexual encounter. we are surprised by that group with the information out there preventing transmissions out there. using a condom is still the best strategy, and yet, we still see people not doing that, and are surprised later on that they are infected. >> host: you mentioned medicaid, what about medicare? >> guest: yes, medicare has a portion of this. it's not as great as you think. most the medicare expenses come from people living with aids on supplemental security income and they end up qualifying for

medicare. the bulk of the expenses are on medicaid. >> host: how much money was put out by the ryan white care act in what amount of time? >> guest: i don't have the number off the top of my head, but i can share in the district of columbia there's $13 million that goes to hiv care and series of services that supports 40 organizations doing both care and prevention strategies, so, i mean, it's in the hundreds of millions, if not billions now in terms of what we've done in this country for ryan white call. >> host: from iowa now, independent caller, hi, roy. >> caller: hello. i'm kind of nervous. what i can't understand is this aids epidemic. back in the 60s when my cousins got hepatitis, they quarantined

everyone and that disease did not kill. it was not a permanent thing. i cannot understand why they did not with this in the bud way back then and quarantine all these people. i do not understand all this political correctness. you do not even have the right to know who has it. guest: the issue is almost a societal criminalization of this condition or any other condition, which i struggle with. should we quarantine someone who has a public health condition? i think the government's role is to keep track, to study the epidemiology of a particular condition, but i'm not someone in a society that values freedom wanting to quarantine somebody. it's not something i. caller: want to be part. good morning. thank you for c-span.

i'm a nurse practitioner and i work with pregnant ladies. i'm in favor >> caller: hiv is one of many stds affecting folks, and the whole equation should be as a person comes in the primary prevention should be to instruct them nod to engage in behavior that, you know, will transmit all of these std's, and you didn't mention anything about teaching youth, especially youth, how to avoid not only hiv, but all of the stds and that's the primary care, abstinence directive working in uganda. you didn't see uganda on the high place risk for hiv because they promote abstinence, and it's a preventable disease. the lady called in earlier and you said it was not the way -- we know the homo sexual have sex

that is the number one way to transmit this disease, and using condoms may reduce the risk, but it will not completely protect -- >> host: thanks. what else can you tell us about education and what's happening out there? >> guest: really interesting strategies are bringing hiv education into schools which is obviously a really difficult political and on a community-level basis for pirnt parents to give permission to school administrators to bring in curriculum or outside experts. in dc with 3% prevalence rate right now, and my daughter is in this cohort of teenagers, i want them to learn about sexual health and be taught about condom use and relationships, and i think again, we spend a lot of time in community and in this country saying there's one solution over another, and there's no one solution to hiv other than individuals being responsible, knowing their

status, using a condom, and if they are hiv positive, they need to stay in treatment because if they stay in treatment, the risk of infecting someone else is decreased. .. package of activity. there's no magic bullet. there's no one thing that will stop this. host: speaking of young people, "the new york times" has an article on what is happening on college campuses. they make the point that some of the activists are not people who have hiv or even lost anybody, but they are public policy people who are studying at colleges. college campuses are producing activists -- and the photo that goes with this. it was part of a group of students who heckled the president in october.

they are making the point that unlike the first generation of patient activists, the latest are budding public health scholars. they are often heterosexuals and rare is the one that has lost somebody to the disease. what does this group of people mean to the fight? guest: it widens our circle. the community had been based on people who were infected or people who have lost. . -- or people who have lost someone. this makes the circle larger. it makes the voice stronger in our community and across the country. it is making this a routine part of daily living. it's introducing hiv into conversations that probably never took place. in the 1980's, these conversations were in smaller places. they were not in middle america.

the practical thing is that hiv is a part of our community now. cannot deny that or ignore that. it's better to talk about that and raise awareness. host: let's hear from gerald on the line for democrats. you are on with donald blanchon. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i wanted to call in on several points. i'm 68 years old. i tested positive in 1989. the good news is that the medication, if you take it properly, it is a lifesaver. i've been undetectable since september 1, 1999. over 10 years, and it is because i've been sticking to the regimen. there is hope out there.

i would recommend that to anyone. guest: i would love to say that yours is a wonderful story. you can be an advocate for treatment, but you can also be an advocate for why it makes sense for society to make sure individuals living with hiv get their medications. host: panama city, fla., ruby, republican. caller: yes, i am also a licensed practical nurse in the state of florida. i have to renew my license every year, even at the age of 77. i'm required to take at least a two-hour course in aids. i believe they've now changed it to every other renewable period. the lady who called in about the oral sex in homosexuals, that

seems to be one of the number one in all of these manuals that i have here. that seems to be the number one transmission course. for someone to say that is a myth is erroneous. that's your erroneous. -- that is the erroneous. until we get to the cause -- we can treat. yes, pharmaceuticals is a big business. the cost of these drugs to treat one individual per month -- is that why we're having the new type of health-care revisions? where is our persons who have every day treatment for everyday things that come along related to our age or our condition? i'm also a survivor of multiple sclerosis, and have been a survivor since i was diagnosed

in 1978. that's a long time. host: i did not mean to cut her off. she did make a couple of other points. guest: the transmission modes between men having sex with men is a little more complicated than having oral sex. it's not something we are going to be able to cover in this time. i'd be willing to help any of your callers go through that. transmission modality is not solely with men having sex with men. one of the fastest-growing transmission areas is heterosexual contact where individuals in either areas of poverty or high rates of hiv have unprotected sex with their partner and they become infected. it is not all gay men. it is not all one group or one place. that has been the challenge of this. it's not isolated in a way that we can say change this

particular behavior and for the rest of your life you will be protected. host: sacramento, calif., richard, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is more of a political view. we are now treating aids education and making it more of a medical concern that we address collectively as opposed to political. it should be done -- everybody, together. that seems to be the battle. host: i think that we'll make that our last call. guest: it's a great observation. in some respects, hiv ended up separate from so much of society in the '80s and the 1990's because we did not know so much and we were researching and doing things quickly. society as a whole did not come

to grips with the fact that this would be here for a long time. the second point i would make is that when we have a problem, particularly a public health challenge as great as hiv, we tend to think that one group should solve this. this is really a community challenge. this goes on every day of the year across the globe right now. that is, how do we educate people to practice safe sex? how do we make sure we educate them about the value of using a condom? adults are going to be sexually active. if they are practicing at risk behavior, how do we be sure to counsel them about not doing it the next time? if they're hiv positive, how do we make sure they take their medications? it will be a community effort across

>> the senate is in recess until 3:30 p.m. so democratic members can attend a party caucus meeting. we take you live now to the white house where, shortly press secretary robert gates will begin his daily press briefing. we expect questions about senate republicans latch to all of all legislative work and tell the budget and tax cuts our results. while we're waiting for the start of this press briefing, we will show you remarks from senate minority leader mitch dmcconnell. this is from earlier today. democratic leaders in washington have spent virtually all of their time ticking off items on the liberal wish list while they've had the chance. government-run health care, a national energy tax, financial regulations, bigger government, bigger deficits, union bailouts, government takeovers, and so here we are, just a few weeks left in the session, and they're still at it. last month the american people issued their verdict on the

democratic priorities. democrats have responded by doubling down. for two years they legislated as if they weren't in the middle of a national jobs crisis and now they're legislating as if they don't realize that the government is about to run out of money and every taxpayer in america is about to get slammed with a giant tax hike. with just a few weeks to go before the end of the session, democrats continue to place their priorities over the prieties of -- priorities of the american peep the. this is what they have chosen to do rather than a -- republicans have pleaded with democrats to put aside their wish list to focus on the things americans want us to focus on. they've ignored us. voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. they've ignored them. time is running out and they're ignoring that. the election was a month ago. it's time to get serious. it's time to focus on priorities. now, a while ago i delivered a

letter to senator reid signed by all 42 senate republicans. it says that every republican will vote against proceeding to any legislative matter until we've funded the government and protected every taxpayer from a tax hike. basically what it means is first things first. with time running out in this session, we need to focus on these critical priorities. as the letter states, our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth. it is time our constituents' priorities become the senate's priorities. at the moment every taxpayer in the country stands to get a massive tax increase and a cut in pay on december 31. we need to show the american people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interest groups' legislative christmas list.

republicans are united in our opposition to proceed to any of these things until democrats make the priorities of the american people their own. so, mr. president, with that i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the letter to senator reid that i just referenced appear in the record at this point. the record at this point. >> the senate is in recess until 3:30 p.m. so democrats can attend a party caucus meeting. we are still waiting for the beginning of the daily white house press briefing with press secretary robert gates. why we are waiting, we will show you some remarks from senate democrats in response to senator mcconnell's earlier remarks. we will show you as much of this as we can and to the press -- ce until the press briefing. the session, i want to talk about what is really happening here for the american people, for small businesses, what's

happening here in terms of the senate and what's really at stake as we come to the end of the year for american families, folks that are struggling every day, people trying to keep in the middle class, get into the middle class, small businesses trying to keep their heads above water, as well as our manufacturerses and so on. and it is exstriewmly concerning to me that -- and it is extremely concerning to me that colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- they've written a letter to the leader today -- they are willing to risk everything in order to get a bonus round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. they are literally willing to stop everything, risk everything in the economy in order to get an extra tax cut. and i'm not talking about -- and the reason i say "extra" or "bonus" is because we have in front of us an agreemen agreeme%

of the public who earn less than $250,000 a year for their family should be continuing to receive tax cuts permanently, and everyone who has income up to $250,000, whether they are their real income is $1 billion or not, they get a tax cut up to $250,000 on their income. so the question that we will be answering this month is whether or not millionaires and billionaires get a bonus, get an extra tax cut on top of that. and here's what's at risk. that the republicans are willing to put at risk. the same people, mr. president -- you heard it as well as i did throughout the year talking about the deficit, how we needed to stop the exploding deficit, we need to bring deficits down.

in order to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to risk the federal deficit, balloon it another $700 billion. not pay for it, not paid for. now, they're saying we at ought to pay for unemployment benefits for somebody who lost their job in this economy through no fault of their own. but $750 billion -- but $700 billion, the average tax cut, $100,000 for somebody earning $1 million. $100,000 is more than the average person in michigan makes, mr. president. my guess is, west virginia is the same. so in order to keep $100,000 a year going in a bonus tax cut for people earning $1 million, they're willing to risk the federal deficit exploding. they are willing to risk jobs,

because, you know, we have seen a policy in the last ten years of basically giving tax cuts to folks at the top and everybody else waiting for them to stricko trickle down. and my folks are tired. colleagues on the other side of the aisle think we just haven't waited long enough for this to trickle down. but the reality is that, that policy that they want to continue, that explodes deficits, gaffes bonus tax cut for people at the top, has not created jobs. in fact, my question is after ten years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the gorks mr. president? my state has lost over 800,000 jobs during the period of this bonus tax cut policy for millionaires and billionaires. if it had worked, if we had created 800,000 jobs in michigan rather than losing 800,000 jobs,

i would be on the floor of the united states senate fighting to continue this policy. this is not partisanship. this is about common sense and what works. we have had a policy in place that has not worked. so why would we continue it? they say, well, we have to continue this because we're in a recession. mr. president, this was part of the reason we're in a recession. in terms of the fact that it didn't invest in the right way. now, if we want to take those dollars and put it back in clean energy manufacturing and focusing on making things in america, we want to put this into things that we know are going to actually focus on jobs, good-paying, middle-class gorks i'm all for t it. $700 billion of a policy that of has not worked for ten years makes no sense. so that's my question. where are the jobs? show me the jobs. i'll be the first person on the floor voting "yes" to continue.

but they are willing to risk the deficit. they are willing to risk jobs. they are willing now, mr. president -- they are willing -- in a letter that they have now sent to the leader today -- to risk tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses. by saying, you know what, we're not going to do anything else until we continue the tax cuts for everybody in this country, including millionaires and billionaires. they're not willing to work with us to make sure middle-class families, who are the folks that need to have money back in their pocket, and small businesses who need to have money back in their pocket get permanent help, and then we can work on the rest of it where people disagree. now, we're going to hear a lot about small business, and i find it quite surprising when colleagues have filibustered in the last two years 16 different

tax cuts for small businesses. a small business jobs bill to put -- make capital available for small businesses so they can keep their head above water, refinance, grow their business. personally, mr. president, i'm not going to be lectured by people who voted against p 16 different tax cuts in the last two years for small businesses. and who are now using small businesses to hide behind. you know, the folks that are hiding behind small businesses that they're holding up are the ones that they're fighting for. we're happy on our side. we take a back seat to no one on fighting for small business. i want to thank our chair, mary landrieu, who was on the floor over and over and over again for from the small business committee and a wonderful group of colleagues who fought and fought and fought to make sure that we put forward a bill, took way too long because of foot dragging, everybody trying to

throw sand in the gears, but we finally got it passed, a tremendous a effort to increase capital and add eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill, which only two republican colleagues had the courage to step across the aisle and join us. we are grateful that they were willing to do that. but the senate republican caucus is willing to put all of that in jeopardy, hold hostage tax cuts needed by people, working people, middle-class families, small businesses, if they can't get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billion yaimplets they're also willing frankly to jeopardize social security and exphair. we've a debt commission coming up with proposals that are very concerning, tough decisions about social security and medicare going forward, because medicare going forward, because >> because we have a deficit and they're saying, wait a minute.

first, you've got to increase the deficit by $700 billion inad order to give millions andut. billionaires a tax cut.e. we don't care. we don't care if that impacts social security. and medicare. that he to b and tough decisions that have to serity be made. seniors who live on social security and medicare. we don't care. the most important thing and ane we've heard this over and over e the most important thing, we don't care if it ist paid for. it doesn't matter thinking else gets done.nationalecurity, national security we're not to e going to take up the s.t.a.r.t.r treaty. relationship with russia.securii we don't care about national security issues. we want a tax cut for our ioiends.mill adding $700 billion. so they are willing to risk t ip all stop the tax cuts for small middle-class families and small businesses. in order to get that bonus tax

cut. and, finally, and most insultinm to mee o of all, mr. president,s they can stand and say we won't support helping people who are out of work in an economy is wad beyond normal.ive pple an economy where there are five people looking for the one job. and in my state, your documentk folks have ne bver been out of work before in their life. they are mortified.can toold i and they're doing everything they can to hold it better. ther they're trying to play to keep ieir head above water. while their houses under water. the k may not have the kids continueut in college this year. it a folks that are just trying toha? make it and they are saying youy know wha,t, we did great thiswal economy, we didn't cause thealte crisis on wall street. we didn't create all the rest og this. that nothing but play by their

rules their whole lives and that t there any situations where they they can't find a job. tk i talked to a lot of folks, 50, 55 years old, 60 years old,ll worked all their lives.ays coming up to the holidays now, s and all they want is for us toas do what we have always done as n country in the past with high unployment unemployment. and that is allow them to received unemployment benefits.t to get them through a tough time, temporarily, while we should be focusing on jobs. people don't want to get $200 or $300 in unemployment benefits. they want to work. they want the dignity of work. americans know how to work, they want to work, and they are looking to us to create a climate, working with businesses so they can get a job. but here we have a situation where the republicans in the house turned down unemployment

benefits yesterday. senator jack reed came to the floor to ask unanimous consent to -- and we will be asking again unanimous consent to be able to extend unemployment benefits. the regular system. not -- i also believe we need to add additionally for people who run out of their benefits, who have been dubbed the 99ers. we need to be helping them as well. this is just to start, this is to keep the regular system going, so somebody who loses their job today is treated as fairly as the person who lost their job on monday. right now, the whole system is up in the air. and what we hear on the other side is oh, my goodness sakes, we can't possibly extend unemployment benefits without -- quote -- "paying for it, cutting someplace else, paying for it. it's for a year

about $50 billion. that's a lot of money. i'm not saying it's not. but how about, how about we help pay for it by not giving a bonus tax cut to millionaires in this country? $700 billion. $700 billion, and colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that should be paid for. somehow, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires have different rules than a little bit of help for somebody who lost their job through no fault of their own and is trying to keep their family together and a roof over their head in these times. that's a heck of a choice in terms of values, mr. president. i'm amazed that what we have here as we come to the end of the year is a situation where colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated that

they are going to continue to block everything. it's not new. filibusters aren't new. throwing sand in the gears is not new. it's been done every day on this floor for the last two years. but now they are saying that in addition to extending -- obviously, getting the budget done, we all agree with that, we all agree with that, but if we don't extend the tax cuts for everybody, meaning millionaires and billionaires, then they're going to filibuster everything else, including unemployment benefits. so let me just say in closing that we are in a situation where right now today we could give 97% of the public certainty going forward about tax cuts, small businesses, middle-class families by simply joining together on a proposal to protect and extend permanently

middle-class tax cuts, and those for the vast majority of small businesses, and we certainly can come together in a way that does even more for small business, and our side is happy to do that. the side that has voted 16 times for tax cuts for small businesses. but we believe that it is economically and morally wrong to allow an average $100,000 in additional tax cuts, tax relief for a millionaire next year while somebody who has worked all their lives and lost their jobs through no fault of their own can't keep a roof over their head this year. it's not right, mr. president. it's just absolutely not right. and so -- and by the way, let me just reiterate one more time

because we're going to hear a lot about small businesses. this is not about small business. this is not about small business. we are willing to come together as we always have for small businesses. this is about a few people, and not even everyone in that category is asking, by the way, for a tax cut. we have got a lot of folks that understand we have the biggest deficit in the history of the country who are blessed through their own hard work or through their circumstances to be very well off who are saying i want to do my part, i'm willing to do my part, ask me to do my part. i will. they're not even asking for this. they are not asking to hurt people who are out of work in order for them to get another tax cut. but unfortunately on the other side of the aisle, our colleagues are willing to risk everything, the deficit, jobs, social security, medicare, tax cuts for the middle class and

small businesses and help for people who are out of work in order to give a bonus tax cut for a privileged few people. and that's not what we're about. that is not what we are about or what we're going to fight for. mr. president, i'd like at this point because it is absolutely critical that we understand what families are going through right now in this holiday season that someone who is losing their job today should be treated as fairly in our country as someone who lost their job two days ago. i would ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from s. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions and that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times,

passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate time in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i will object. i understand that senator brown of massachusetts objected to this request yesterday, and he offered a fully offset alternative. therefore, on his behalf, i do object and ask consent that his proposal be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the -- ms. stabenow: mr. president, i will not object -- i would reserve the right to object. i will not. but i just simply want to say this is a sad day for -- for millions of families in this country, and a message that we should all be embarrassed to have sent, that millionaires and

billionaires should be the ones that are being fought for on the floor of the united states senate and millions of people who are out of work don't count, who are out of work don't count, >> we take you live now to the white house and press secretaries robert gibbs. >> i just want to call your attention -- a significant step forward for the agenda that the president outlined during the nuclear security summit in april. belarus has agreed to eliminate all its stocks of highly enriched uranium by the time for the next nuclear security summit in 2012. this removal represents a significant, as i said, step four. president obama's worldwide effort to secure nuclear material. the united states intends to write technical and financial assistant to support this effort. the republic of korea as host of

the 2012 nuclear security summit has agreed to invite belarus contingent upon the completion of its highly enriched uranium removals. and with that, take us away. speck on the tax cuts negotiation, given that the most obvious compromise is a temporary extension of all the tax cuts, does the white house think that a one year or two year or a three-year extension would make the most since? >> well, erica, i am not one of the two that the president tapped to work through this, worked through these issues with the republicans. obviously, secretary geithner and omb director were on the hill earlier this morning. they will reconvene at 5:30 with members and senators to work through some of these issues.

and i think secretary geithner was clear in the brief stakeout that they did that they were not going to get into reading out the negotiations, and i'm not going to either. >> and i believe that senator kyl said that he thinks the tax cut issue needs to be wrapped up by monday in order for there to be enough time to deal with start. do you agree with that and you think that timeline -- >> look, i think first and foremost, everybody agreed yesterday that the issue of taxes needs to be resolved before anybody can go home. and certainly before the end of the year. the president's position obviously is, as he stated, as you stated before, and that is our goal is to ensure that middle-class families don't see their tax bills go up on new year's day. we're going to work through a series of these issues, but if people come to the discussions

that are being had up on capitol hill with an open mind and a desire to find common ground, the president believes we can get, we can get an agreement on this and still have time to sequence other issues that are important to the country to get done before the end of the lame duck. and s.t.a.r.t. is certainly one of those. i think we still have -- i don't think congress is going anywhere just yet. and will have plenty times to get all of these things done. >> how would the president interpret majority vote in support of recommendation that was short of the 14? would even be inclined to embrace the recommendations? >> as you know, the commission is meeting today. the president looks forward to reviewing their work at the conclusion of their votes, which

i think will be toward the end of the week. and evaluate their proposals and those votes as we move forward to put together a budget of our own for next year. so let me not get too far out of the commission until they've had a chance to complete their work, as we've said before. >> just to follow up on the debt commission as well. does the president actually see the possibility of picking and choosing what he likes from these proposals? or will he be going to look at it all wholesale and present it? >> i think some of this is going to be calm again, we will get a sense of where the commission comes down on certain things again towards the end of the week as they complete their work. bless you. i know that, you know, in a meeting yesterday, both the president, democrats and republicans, senator durbin for one is on the commission, mentioned the important work that's being done.

and hope that that the work of the commission would, would be looked at in certain ways at its conclusion as a way to make some decisions on giving us toward a path to fiscal responsibility. i'm not going to again prejudge the outcome of those votes as the president said before. i think we believe and have believed it is important to give the commission space to come up with its judgment. >> on the european debt crisis, there's talk of possible expansion of the nearly $1 trillion fund that's already in place, have come through as a commitment of additional money for the international monetary fund. with the administration support that? is enough being done to ease that christ is?

>> first of all, as we said throughout last spring, we think that obviously this is a concern, not just in europe, but it has and certainly last spring affected our economic recovery. it was brought up yesterday by secretary geithner director sommers when they went around in discussing where we were on the economy. i would point you to treasury for specifics on the stabilization fund your but europe is obviously something a series of issues that will have to be addressed by the european union. because they're going to affect more than just the cotton. they will affect the overall global economy, and we will sorely stay close and monitor what's going on.

>> has the president been briefed on the negotiations, the -- >> i believe so. the secretary geithner and director lou came back, let's see, a little before i think 12:30, and i presume, i will double check and see if they directly briefed the president. i believe they did. >> i know you don't want to give a route i -- a readout of product, but it's the president encouraged by what is -- >> i think it's encouraging their meeting. i think it is encouraging that had me and i going to go back this afternoon. you know, it's going to tickle time to get something done, and we understand that. i think what's important is what everyone agreed on yesterday, that is, this is a problem that has to be dealt with by the end of the year.

we cannot have congress leave for the holidays without a solution to an issue that will bring a hardship, potentially a big hardship to middle-class families at the end of the year. >> i think yesterday you were talking about a couple of days. so what are we talking about now in terms of getting -- >> look, i gave up. i hung up my hat on congressional predicting months ago. >> way, i have one more question on colin powell. he was here today and meeting with the president. is the white house looking for sort of a heavy here to help push this through? do you think colin powell is the person? >> let's be clear. the number of people i think, any estimation you can think of heavy hitters on either the democrat or republican side, have weighed in in strong

support of ratifying the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. certainly general powell is among those. general powell, secretary -- former secretary state colin powell, call him either one i guess, if somebody obviously whose advice the president seeks on a radio basis. he will be here, as you said, to talk about national security issues, particularly around the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, as well as to talk to the president and vice president about his work on dropouts and education, which obviously is a passion of his. and important work that he is doing on behalf of the country. but i think if you look at the number, i think there's a reason why 75% of these american people think that ratifying the s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a good

idea. and i think one of the reasons is, you know, henry kissinger or jim baker or colin powell, or madeline albright, i'm leaving out dozens, but a whole host of important national security heavyweights from both parties that understand the importance of reducing our deployed nuclear weapons, having a verification regime as it relates to the nuclear arsenal of russia, and our engagement and our placement, all those are important factors in trying to get something finish this year. >> senate republicans have said they don't want to move ahead on anything until the tax issue is done in a continuing resolution. is that reasonable considering those are the president's priorities? >> again, i don't know that i would get hung up on process.

i think we're in the midst of productive discussions and negotiations around what i think everybody, an issue that has to get done in taxes. but, you know, i think we can get a substitute, i think we can get some substantive agreements and i think we can move to the sequence of other issues that are important, like s.t.a.r.t. so i think there's miles to go before we sleep. >> and secretary geithner's mandate in these negotiations at 5:30 is to come up with numbers and to be able to compromise, expecting the republicans to compromise as well as? >> i think you've heard the president discussed his focus in ensuring the middle-class families don't see their tax rates go up. i think you're for the president lay out what is not acceptable

to him, and that's barring an additional $700 billion for a permanent extension of the upper income tax cuts. [inaudible] >> well, that's why we are having meetings. when we have, will we have a more report on the outcome of that, we will walk through. >> so the president yesterday -- [inaudible] and republicans in the senate signed an agreement not to pursue anything but possibly these tax cuts. what does he make of that? what do you make of it? >> again, i think there's with a willingness to find common ground, plenty of time to solve the issue of taxes and do many things are back. >> what evidence is there given that particular avenue? >> again, there's an agreement that we have to do something on the issue of taxes before the end of the year. that's why they had a meeting

earlier today and that's what they will go back and had a meeting. [inaudible] >> i don't think, i don't think there's anything that precludes a healthy legislative agenda. >> you don't? >> no, not at all. >> despite what's being said on the hill? >> despite -- >> what makes you such an optimist? >> i'm a hopeful man, bill. [laughter] >> i'm a hopeful man. >> to the house. where democrats want to vote on the middle-class tax cut only tomorrow, that seems to -- one of the negotiators in the room, does the president have any concern that this could blow up the spirit of good will? anything further you care to say? [laughter] >> he is still optimistic apparently. >> i think if you take everybody

at their word, they support making middle-class tax cuts permanent. so, there's going to be a vote on the. we will get a chance, to get a chance to see what people are. we strongly support making tax cuts for middle-class families permanent. again, i think as the president yesterday -- that's what, if you read the statements from everybody involved, that's what we agree on. let's agree on that, and that gives us more time to finish what we have some disagreements on, as well as finish up bills agenda. >> he called it a sign of bad faith after everybody agreed to sit down and talk. why are we talking in effect if we're just going to vote on, go ahead and don't? >> again, this is going to take a little time. it's going to take a little time come and i anticipate that

congress will continue working. >> there are a couple other tax issues looming out there. the amt tax, the estate tax, the irs commissioner write a letter saying without an amt patch it could create chaos with the irs. your thoughts ?-que?-quex have been assurances made that that tax will get don? >> we talked about -- i mentioned this on multiple occasions. that is something that, that's not in the bush era tax cuts, '01 four '03, -- '01 or '03. is not something that expires at the end of year. there is no amt patch for 2010. now, one would have thought, based on what you said, the concern for an amt patch, as i have said here before, that patch was included in the recovery act.

in 2009 the reason there was, the reason the amt did not impact the middle-class families was as they're intended to impact was because of, i think this is important to understand, because of what that patch was contained in the recovery act. there was no similar -- no provision was done in 2010, and that is certainly among the issues that these talks are going to have to address. we had a two-year tax cut for make work pay, 495% of working americans got a tax cut. middle-class families. small businesspeople. that expires also at the end of the year. so there's some stuff, there's some work left to be done on these issues. >> is the president hopeful these will get resolved the? >> i think the estate tax was talked about yesterday. amt was talked about yesterday.

these are all, you know, when we talk about not having, when you hear people say tax rates should go up on anybody, we are talking about not just '01 and '03 bush tax cuts. there is a panoply of other taxes that are either, that even have to be passed for the 2010 tax year, or are set to expire the end of year that weren't originally composed or comprised of a one and '03 bush tax cuts. [inaudible] did he get bipartisan support and? >> i do want to prejudge what the commission might come up with at the conclusion of their work toward the end of the week. i think the president will, looks forward to evaluating and i think you'll get a sense, be

interesting to see where people line up, and whether or not you can get, whether or not you can get certain -- >> but the ability to get bipartisan support for maybe trump parts of the plan he may not like? >> again, i think to evaluate in a vacuum would be difficult to do. obviously, you've got -- [inaudible] >> but again, i do want to do that as a one off with out some context that i think it's a port to understand, look, you'll get a sense of some of the dynamics on east side of the aisle. and i think obviously, look, some of these has to go through congress and we're in the midst of preparing a debt -- budget and anxious to see their work. >> on tax cuts, how is senator mcconnell -- >> killer spider. >> wow. [laughter]

>> "spider-man." >> i want to follow up on -- [laughter] >> let me know if there's a bigger one behind me. [laughter] >> so nothing about what the senate republicans did today punctures the happy talk from yesterday? >> again, i think that -- >> are you totally brushing it off the? >> much like the spider. [laughter] >> they continue this next week and it's a different story? >> again, i don't get -- i know the president isn't going to get hung up on this. we've got important work that has to be done. >> the president said the d.r.e.a.m. act, he didn't say anything but these guys, we are

not going to touch any of this until -- do you believe this is a fair proposal on their part of? >> i think there's plenty of time to get plenty of work done, and i think speedy's and you're okay with their prioritizing? >> no. i think we all agree we have to get the tax issue resolved by the end of the year. and i think once, i think we can get an agreement at some point on the. i think we can figure out the single thing of the rest. look, i will point you to -- [inaudible] >> i'm not hung up on the web, how about that? i will say that, i point you to what secretary gates said yesterday on don't ask, don't tell. this is an issue that is going to be solved one of two venues. it is either going to be solved in legislative venue, in congress, or in court. and a court is not likely to provide the pentagon with the

type of transition period that they would like to see. and that's why secretary gates, after going through this study, and admiral mullen, have urged congress to act in this lame duck to change this law. because they understand that one, it's not disrupted. that's exactly what the survey showed. it doesn't stress -- threatened unit cohesion that there's an ability to do this without any harm. and it does this in a way that provides an orderly process. >> do you think don't ask, don't tell should be brought about the same time as the tax is? >> i think that is among the issues that i think many people believe the secretary of defense and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, included, should be addressed over the

next few weeks. and i think we'll get an opportunity to address, not just how we fund the government, and not just the tax rates for next year. i think the president, and it'll in the room agrees, that's the most important thing to address. but there's plenty of time to do plenty of other work. >> do you think you can combine all of this into one bill? >> that's -- i don't know the answer to that. i mean, i don't know if you put it in one big massive bill. i don't, to be honest with you, know whether that's possible. again, i think, i think there is the ability to get a lot of this stuff done. laura? >> what are you hoping that general powell will do in support of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty? >> general powell and others have been helpful in having

conversations with the discussions with a whole host of people, i believe including those on capitol hill and on why it is important, why this treaty is important, why it is important to get it done, why it's important to get this treaty done. and its impact on our relationship in the world, and the progress that we can make in reducing dangerous weapons. again, he and others, many of whom i outlined earlier, have an helpful in this effort. and i think over the course of the past, you know, you guys have mentioned this letter. i think over the course of the last 24 hours we've seen, the last week we are ready to pronounce s.t.a.r.t., or two weeks ago ready to pronounce s.t.a.r.t. debt. we got senator voinovich, who said just yesterday, that he hopes we can get it done this

year. and i think he said he would likely support it. i think there's an understanding that it's something that is tremendously important to do. >> do you think that colin powell are some of the other republicans who are in support of this treaty have more credibility than people in the administration to? >> no. look, i think you get different things to different people. obviously, colin powell brings i think a unique perspective as somebody who was the chair of the joint chiefs that brings a military perspective. he brings the perspective of having been the chief architect of foreign policy as the secretary of state. but look, there are technical expert in the administration that can walk people through what different parts of the agreement mean. you know, this is -- the director has had top secret

briefings with folks. there are a whole lot of different questions that people might have and a lot of different places to get the answers. i think begin to unique perspective that colin powell brings is as a former secretary of state and former commander in general, that i think lends a particular weight and credibility to his words. mark? >> robert, what have you got on this wikileaks review panel that is reported on the wired? >> i believe there's something that's going to go out -- >> is already out. >> see, that was fast. [laughter] >> on different procedures, and we will get you some more information. >> and what did you say earlier about korea's role in the belarus nuclear material? >> korea is the next post of the

nuclear security summit in 2012. they will be extending an invitation to belarus, if they follow through on their commitment, participate in the next nuclear security summit if they follow through on the commitment that they have made to the secretary of state to remove all their highly enriched uranium. >> do you know what costs are involved with the u.s.? >> i would -- state has the technical answers on it. yes, ma'am. >> i'm sorry cup has the president made any more calls to senators himself and aside from senator voinovich, is there any indication it could happen in the lame duck session? >> i don't think the president, to my knowledge, has made any, that i know of, has made additional calls. i know vice president biden has been working on this extensively. obviously, senator mccain made some comments yesterday as well. i think that demonstrated the ability to get this done.

so, obviously we still think it's going to happen. [inaudible] >> not sent since yesterday. >> how concerned is the president about the financial condition of europe? can you say anything more about what the administration is planning to do about it? >> look, again, i think it is something that we are watching and bears watching because we understand the impact that what happened was what was happening and what happened in greece had on our recovery last spring. so i obviously it is something that the president has received updates on during his economic daily briefings. it's half a world away but it is important to the global economy and to our economic recovery.

[inaudible] >> i can't remember the last time that europe was specifically brought into this. it's probably been a few days, but he gets, if there is news on that that's what he gets it. >> given the oversight transparency accountability has been such a buzzword for this white house in the last two years, to what extent does the republican oversight in january seemed worrisome to the white house? and what extent does it to the white house in general? >> i think you mentioned many other things that are important to the president, both as as a senator and as the president oversight, oversight and transparency are important. and obviously important functions of tearing out an efficient and effective government -- carrying out an

efficient and effective government. i think it is our hope that vice president biden met with congressman issa here yesterday. i think that we are certainly efficient oversight is important. that was something that we made a great hallmark in the recovery act. i think everybody's help is that we don't see, as we did, certainly in parts of the early to mid '90s, where oversight becomes the buzzword for gamesmanship, political posturing, and witchhunts. i don't think that, i don't think anybody, particularly the american public has an appetite for that. ..

>> i know you talked about education and the economy. they did talk about -- i need to get specifics on -- i know they touched on voting rights and home rule and let me get a little more -- get some more details on that. >> peter? >> is there anything you can provide in addition to support of the specific removal of the atu, in other words looking at sanctions, visa things, a lot of

actions america has taken over the years. is there any incentive to them beyond paying -- >> let me double check on that, but not that i'm aware of. >> when should we see the con sensual medal of freedom -- conventional medal of freedom? >> my understanding -- let me double check the date, but my unking is she is -- understanding is she is not going to be here during the ceremony when most of this will happen, but let me double check on the early january date. yes? >> thank you, robert. you have spoken forcefully from this podium and the president has certainly spoken forcefully about no higher taxes on the middle class. will you commit now or will the president commit to rejecting

the suggestions of the debt commission if they conclude a 15 cent increase on the gas households? >> again, i'm going to reiterate what -- an independent commission set up by this white house to look into our long term fiscal crisis and we're going to let the commission do their work. we're going to let them -- >> just to follow-up on that for a second. is the white house weighing in on the report in advance to the report on friday? >> not that i'm aware of. >> okay, and also what will happen if you don't get a recommendation that has 14 votes from the commission? >> what happens -- >> what if there are not 14 votes for a recommendation? >> again, i don't want to get into -- i don't want to get into guess work on what some of the votes may end up, what may happen,

what evaluation some in here including the president might give to certain vote counts. i think we'll have a chance to obviously examine the full record of their work at the conclusion of the their meeting this week. >> the impacts that were made talked about yesterday, do you know if they were talked about today on the hill? >> i don't know the answer to that. well, let me check. i want to double check on that. >> and also the ui extension? >> yeah, let me check. >> thank you. >> yes, ma'am? >> robert -- >> you didn't have your hand up, april. >> i did have my hand up. >> oh, sorry. [laughter] >> let's try that again. [laughter] >> most entertainment i had. [laughter]

go ahead. >> any way, i'm a vertically challenged person. first of all, do you have any daytimelines for the farmer signing ceremony? >> i don't. let me check. >> possibly? >> it's a possibility. again, i don't know -- we get e-mails when a bill is received here, and i don't remember if i've seen one if the bill made its way down or not. >> could you talk to me about the president's relationship -- >> sorry. >> okay. >> i think it's the same active spider that bites my ankles. kill that spider. >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> smash it with your fingers.

[inaudible conversations] >> hope it's not a brown recluse. go ahead, sorry. >> what about the relationship with president obama in the meeting today? did you talk about that? >> again, i have a list of the issues, and again, i'll get more details because i know this is important for many of you. i went to see the president right before the lunch on a topic, but i have not had a opportunity to talk to him afterwards. >> one more. on the -- it was said to help the economy. it's also -- >> the employment benefits? >> yeah, the unemployment benefits into the economy for every $1 supposedly generates a $1.90 for economic growth. >> yes. >> if it's a priority for this administration, why is it at this critical by pass right

now? why are we at a point with unemployment insurance? >> look, i think you can go back throughout the congressional history and find that the exploration of unemployment benefits, the extensions and things like that that have gone back and forth, that is not to say that this isn't -- as you've heard the president and others discuss here, how important it is you mention the economic impact of -- the economic impact that those benefits have. that's money like if you are on your unemployment benefits, you don't have full-time work, and you're using that money to pay your bills to continue to look for work, and it's an important part of -- it's an important part of the

effort of individuals use to keep going to pay their bills, and it's an important part of the economy. it's something the president and economic team particularly feel strongly has to be extended. i will say this. we are -- if we're going to have a debate in this town about extending tax cuts for people who make $1 billion a year, how do we not have a debate, and how do we not come to some conclusion for unemployment benefits for people who lost their job? that is -- nothing could be more completely out of whack with what is important to the american people and to getting our economy going again and to watch a debate about billionaire tax cuts while people lose their unemployment benefits. yes, sir. >> thanks, robert. this comes from -- >> i was pounding on that, and

that was a spider. good enough. >> in phone calls to the smithsonian to the national portrait gallery featured among other things, is that something that should continue? >> i would need to get more informing on this. i don't have anything on this. >> thanks, robert. >> yeah, savannah? >> with the tax sheets and everything the white house and state department is doing in response to the wikileaks, and why is it that we're just hearing about these remedial efforts now or in the last couple of days when you guys have known about the leaks since at least gule? why -- july. why did it take so long? >> i point you to dod and to state on some of the particulars on that. obviously, look, this is the same working through the same

data bases and systems that have existed across administrations. >> but why start months and months after this is well-known? >> i don't think it's accurate to say we somehow read the paper over the weekend and started to do this. i just don't think -- >> you guys have been working on this for months? >> this is an ongoing effort as we talked here on monday to ensure that we have the information sharing that we understand is important. again, look, some of the initial stuff that came out of these leaks was battlefield assessments and battlefield intelligence that are used by those on the ground in particular places in iraq and afghanistan, and that's important that they have access to that, but at the same time, i said earlier this week, we have to balance the need to know, the need to share with appropriate

oversight, and that's what we're yorking on -- working on doing. yes, sir? >> there's a report released yesterday on don't ask, don't tell, has the president talked to senators to work on that repeal? >> not that i'm aware of. >> will he? >> again, this is a priority of the president, and as i've said in the past, he'll be involved in this, yeah. >> has the president issued guidance on rescheduling the don't ask, don't tell with tax cuts? >> we have not provided specific calendar guidance. i would reiterate what i said here earlier, and what i was thinking fairly powerful elegant statement from secretary gates about the strong need to get something done and address this issue in the lame duck session.

it is tremendously important that we do this over the next few weeks. >> secretary gates will make calls on this? >> he has. he already has. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama and vice president biden are meeting with

general colin powell this hour talking about effects to reduce the high school dropout rate and ratifying the u.s.-russia nuclear arms treaty. we'll have that later in the schedule. the senate is in recess for a party caucus meetings and senators are expected back in a little over 15 minutes from now at 3:30 eastern. all 42 senate republicans signed on to a letter promising to vote against bringing any legislation to the floor before two things happen. the government has been funded for the current fiscal year and congress deals with expiring tax cuts. congressional quarterly quoting from that letter while there's other items that might be ultimately worthy of the senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matter above the critical issues of funding government and providing a job killing tax hike, that from a letter of senator

republicans to harry reed. senate back in at 3:30 eastern tim, and tomorrow the senate arms services committee meet to hear from defense secretary robert gates about a review of the department's don't ask, don't tell policy. that's happening at # a.m. eastern -- 9 a.m. eastern time on c-span3. representative joe wilson of south carolina was on this morning's washington journal talking about that policy. >> host: congressman joe wilson is here, republican from north carolina, second district including buford, west columbia and hillton head there. we asked you to talk about this debate over ending don't ask, don't tell, this big report came out from the pentagon, and here's one of the headlines in the "philadelphia inquiry" saying gay troops are not a problem. what's your take? >> guest: i appreciate you referencing the district i represent.

i represent fort jackson, paris island, marine corp. station, and i have extraordinary military facilities, and i serve 31 years myself, and i have four sons currently serving the military who served in iraq one for a year and another for 3 months with the rangers. as i hear that headline, there's other headlines that indicate that the frontline fighting forces, the marines, infantry of the army, special operations of the air force and navy all have great reservations that, in fact, this would affect their war fighting capabilities. > host: here's another headline, washington put it this way. they are weary of repealing don't ask. dell us more, -- tell us more. >> guest: the report came out yesterday, it was a briefing, not a hearing.

we didn't receive the report. there were two copies begin to democratic and republicans and the outgoing chairman of the armed services committee that we had that hearing. i'm working with congressman, the incoming chairman of the committee. both of us have sent out a release yesterday indicating that we need to have hearings on this. the lame duck is not the time to make significant steps to the policy -- >> host: to the pollty, what are your issues? >> guest: first of all, the current system is working. it's respectful of interests, that is the privacy of members of the military. it is a system that is working, and where you don't need to change a system, and where we do have that our combat forces nearly 60% indicate this would affect their ability to protect themselves, to protect their comrades. we need to take that into

consideration and have hearings and have an orderly process, but in the lame duck, we have to stop the tax increases on january 1st. >> host: hearings on the way this week later. we will cove them live on the senate side. phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest, republican from south carolina. lines here for republican, democrats, and independents on don't ask, don't tell. congressman, specifically to the defense department of report, a very extensive study is hay put it talk -- as they put it talks to lots and lots of folks. they put it this way. the effect of don't ask, don't tell, to repeal it up to 20% of folks say positive turnout. 30% say it's negative, and up to 55% say a mixed or no effect. anymore perspective on those numbers? >> guest: we can see they are so inconclusive that we need to have hearings which is why i'm

grateful the chairman from california of the armed services committee in january, we would have hearings sometime in the spring to really go over the issues, but the focus in the lame duck over the next two weeks should be on creating jobs, on stopping the tax increases. the tax increase is incredible. on january 1st, on a typical family, $2551 is what the tax increase will be. that needs to be addressed. >> host: what will you be looking for in hearings that you haven't heard from a majority of the troops that were surveyed. >> guest: well, there is a difference. i was combat service support, and then you have your frontline combat units, the marines in particular, infantry, special operations, we need to hear from them because that's who would be most impacted if they feel like

it's negative. >> host: first call, i understand, jimmy, republican for congressman, good morning. jimmy, start over, i didn't have the button upright away. >> caller: okay. good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i served in the military, and i believe the military is a completely unique beast. it is designed for killing, unity, it is designed for one purpose. as soon as you add distractions into the military, you're going to have a break of command, a break of unity, and the moral fiber of our country, the moral fiber of our soldiers, what we stand for, if you go to church on sunday and the pastor reads of the bible and if a man lays with another man should be put to death, how can you pick up your weapon and stand next to a man that is opposite of what the good lord spoke. >> host: let me ask you about the distractions. there's a take from the study

from the pentagon i want your reaction too before we go back to the congressman. 92% of troops who serve they believe someone to be gay their ability to work together is very good, good, or neither good nor poor. what's your take on that? >> caller: my take is sometimes people do a survey and answer something politically correct rather than what they feel behind closed doors, and that can be taken two ways. my personal opinion is that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military in the beginning. >> guest: i believe the system is working now. i respected jimmy's point of view, but the system is working now where privacy is respected and i believe that as we have hearings next spring, that this will become clear that the system is working as it is. it does not need to be changed. >> host: california, cynthia,

democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to make this statement to the young man also. i was going to say something else, but when i heard his comments about the biblical connotations, i wanted to say to him that one sin is not worse than the other, and when you go to what jesus said about those who are without sin cast the first stone, then i feel like that it is something for god almighty above to judge, but when these people are allowed to intr the military bsh enter the military, give their lives, there were a lot of gays who came home in coffins, i just feel it has to do with the human rights issue. >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: paul, this clearly indicates with jimmy and cynthia

howdy verse the views -- how diverse the views are in the u.s.. we have to create jobs and then later next year we need to have hearings where we can have a discussion over what really divides substantially. the people in the military and the american people, but we need to be respectful of getting different pointings of views like we just heard. >> host: there's a survey that provides don't ask, don't tell repeal. they said if it wasn't an election, the results would be a land slide. 115,000 personnel believed serving with openly gay service members would not harm their ability to work together. they say it mirrors 70% of the public letting gays serve openly. >> guest: i disagree. it's 20% within the military have indicated it would not be a

problem. 30% say it is a problem. the 50%, i've been there. really they don't want to be involved. what i really respect about the military is they don't want to be involved in controversial issues, distractions. they want to focus on truly protecting the american people, and so i would not use the 70% number, but look at the 60% number of people in combat arms, who are marines, infantry, special operations, who indicate this would affect their ability to fight effectively in a combat readiness role. >> host: there are the figures again for the pentagon study yesterday. positive, 20%, and negative is 30% and no effect is 50-5050%. -- 50-55%. >> second, the working group examined thoroughly all the

potential changes to the didn't's regulations and policies dealing with benefits, housing, relationships within the ranks, separations, and discharges. as the cochairs explain in a few minutes, the majority of concerns raise in association with the repeal dealing with sexual conduct, frat ternization, marital or survivor benefits could be governed by existing laws and regulations, existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. a repeal requires some changes to regulation, the key to success with all things military is training, education, and above all strong and principle leadership unand down the chain of -- up and down the chain of command. >> guest: i would respond that secretary gates actually identified so many different issues recuting, retention on to

living conditions. there's so many different issues that should be considered. this should not be in the lame duck session, but next year. there's so many issues to be discussed, and us on the arm services committees have not had hearings. they will tomorrow, secretary gates will appear before the senate armed services committee, and i appreciate the leadership of senator john mccain. we know of his devotion to the military and senator lindsay grahm. i look forward to hearing their view. >> host: we'll cover that tomorrow, c-span3, 9 a.m. eastern to get the full committee hearing tomorrow, and secretary gates will be there, admiral mullen and the commander of the u.s. army in europe, but he has one of the co-chair of this report here.

michigan, john, independent caller, hi there. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> host: good morning. >> caller: i'm a retired marine corp. and served 30 years. i've been from vietnam to the phoenix program all the way up. i don't know where you people get your facts from, but we had gays in the military since vietnam that i know of. now, in the marine corp., we trust one another. once a marine, always a marine. the second thing i want to say is since you people can raise millions of dollars to reelect yourselves or elect yourselves, why not raise enough money to pay your salaries and medical and save the billions of dollars and be a public servant? >> host: a voice there. >> guest: i appreciate your military service, and i represent paris island. i hope you were trained there and also the marine corp. air station and buford naval

hospital. as i hear what you're saying, in fact, you're right. gays andless beians can serve in the military. what we're talking about is people openly stating and actively promoting their lifestyle, and so we have a system that works now. it respects privacy. that what i'm in favor of and i hope we continue to do. we need to have hearings so we can have all points of view presented. >> host: point out also on the editorial page of "usa today" an opposing viewpoint. don't rush to appeal. it's from david beady, a retired colonel who served 30 years. the conclusions ought not be lively accepted. congress should scrutinize the method doling, bias, and compleesness and intention to

unintended consequences spending sufficient time to objective criteria in order to make informed judgments. california, jeff, next call on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: yes, mr. wilson, i just never heard you apologize to the american people for your outburst that time in the chamber. >> guest: i'm glad you brought the issue up. of course i apologized to the president within an hour without being asked to, and because i am a gentleman, and i -- hey, i'm the dad of scouts, and i know honor and integrity and responsibility. i apologized one time. there was an effort by people on the far left to put me on a apology tour. i'm not going to do it. i know that i'm a gentleman. i apologized to the president one time. he accepted the apology. the vice president the next day accepted the apology and pointed out that he knows joe wilson

because senator biden and i have actually traveled together to iraq, and so, yes, the apology was made, and i'm glad you brought that up so i could say again, one apology, one time, and that's the way it should be. it was my oldest son who pointed out to me, allen, served a year in iraq, elected attorney general of south carolina. he said, the next day, dad, i know what happened. it was a town hall moment. it was. it was -- i apologized within one hour. i did the right thing, and the agreement i have was to continue discussing the issues of the health care takeover civilly, and i've done that over a year now, so i'm happy for that issue to come up because i was vindicated by the people i represent. they know i'm a gentleman. i received an overwhelming vote in november and in the

republican primary in june, so hey, i'm grateful to be serving and i respect the president, and he knows that, and he's accepted my apology. >> host: rep mended by the house? >> guest: no, admonished. >> host: admonished. >> guest: from my understanding, paul, it's the lowest level of activity, and it was a political stunt, and i appreciate the incoming speaker of the house. >> we're leaving this to go live to the senate, a possible work on funding the government through december 18 now that the house passed it live on cell phone-span-- c-span2. quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent at that dispense with

the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i will in a moment -- awaiting the spirit of fair play, waiting until some republicans enter the chamber, i will ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged of s. 3981, so that we can bring up and move forward on maintaining unemployment benefits for thousands of people in our country. and in my state aloan, last night at midnight, 85,000 -- i'm sorry, 88,000 -- that's 1,000 people in every county on the average -- we've 88 counties in ohio, just coincidentally -- 88,000 ohioans saw their unemployment benefits interrupted, stopped, killed last night because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want maintain unemployment benefits in this country. and i -- what's just shocking to me, mr. president, is that this

senate and the house of representatives, regardless of party, for years when our country has been in bad economic times has extended and maintained unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. i hear that -- i mean, i know that senator mcconnell, the republican leader, has made a couple of comments that disturb me and make it very hard to do this. we need a supermajority. we need 60 votes. they continue to filibuster, threaten to filibuster. senator mcconnell, the leader of the republicans, has made two statements, one through a letter in the last 24 hours, one three or four weeks ago -- three or for weeks ago senator mcconnell said his number-one goal is that barack obama be a one-term president. i understand political parties and all that, but that he would make that his number-one goal, that president obama serve only one term. the other thing is majority leader mcconnell in a letter signed by his -- all of his

republican colleagues -- senator udall from new mexico just handed it to me -- he sent to senator reid a letter, as i said signed by every republican member -- "write to inform you we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increases currently" -- and he goes on. this currently will happen in january. what the preens are doing is, again, i don't even understand this. they are saying that they insist on a millionaire and billionaire tax cut come january, and they will for all intents and purposes shut the government down if they don't get their way. they're saying, forget extending unemployment benefits, forget maintaining unemployment benefits, forget food safety legislation, forget don't ask, don't tell, forget the russian-american start treaty -- used to be politics standing at

the water's edge. those days are over, mr. president. and forget a middle-class tax cut. they're saying, we will do nothing. we will shut the government down if we can't get a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. my first priority is to extend unemployment benefits so that these 88,000 ohioans, perhaps 60,000 for 70,000 michiganders, perhaps senator schumer's state, i would guess over 100,000 new yorkers. i would guess in alaska thousands, senator begich's state, the presiding officer's state, several thousand, the state of oregon. they are willing to say to those unemployed workers, this is unemployment insurance. every worker in this country, he or his employer -- a cay deem i guesses will debate whether the employee or employer pays it. but they put into an u unemployment insurance fund. it's like car insurance, health

insurance. you don't want to collect on it but it is called insurance. you hope you're working so you don't have to collect on it. they they need to. thr five people applying for every open job in this dun. in michigan and ohio it is probably worse than that. these are not people not wanting to work. i stand on this floor -- i'll spare nigh colleagues because they've heard me do this. but i read letter after letter after letter from ohioans saying, here's my story. i have lost my medical coverage because i don't have a job and you're cutting off my unemployment benefits they're saying. "you" meaning the republican filibuster. they'll say, i'm about to lose my house and i have to tell my 12-year-old daughter that we're going to have to switch schools and i don't even though what school we're going to go to because we're going to live in an apartment because our house is foreclosed on. they're getting food from a food bank. i say to my republican clerks to they know any of these people? they've got to explain to their

wife that they got their insurance canceled because they won't extend unemployment benefits. this is not a big, new welfare program. this is extending unemployment benefits. i just don't get it. they'd rather do tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. they'd rather borrow $700 billion -- this is $700 billion from the chinese, put it on a credit card that their kids and grandkids will have to pay off, and then give it to billionaires and millionaires. that's the choice they're make. i mean, its a clear whose side you're on here. are you on the side of the millionaires or billionaires or are you on the side of maintaining unemployment benefits, giving a tax cut to the middle class, providing -- eliminating the -- moving to pay down the budget deficit? this is so clear, mr. president. what we need to do -- i guess my colleagues still aren't here to make this unanimous consent request. i would just add a couple other comments then, mr. president, that when i come to the senate -- this is the last -- the other

reason to maintain unemployment benefits is all economics. senator mccain, when he was a candidate for president, his chief economic advisor said the best way to grow the economy, the best -- he said the best stimulus dollar you can spend is unemployment insurance because when you put a dollar in a laid-off workers' pocket from lima, ohio, or zanesville, ohio, she will spend it at the local grocery storks the local shoe store, pay her property tax, pay her gas bill, whatever. that money is recycled in the economy. you give a tax cut to upper-income people, millionaire or billionaire, according to john mccain's economic advisor, you only get 32 cents bang for your buck out of that versus $1.60 when you pay unemployment benefits. mr. president, what that means clearly is the best thing to do for our economy is these unemployment benefits, not tax cuts for somebody already making $3 million a year.

they're not going to buy anything more. they got everything they already need. they give them another $30,000, $50,000 in tax cuts simply doesn't mean anything, mr. president. i just -- it's so important for purposes of the budget deficit, it's so important for purposes of growing this economy, it's so important because it's the right thing to do for our workers, our laid-off people, our communities who suffer if these workers aren't spending these dollars in our community. it's just so important that we move forward, mr. president, and do that. i will yield the floor to one of my colleagues who have another unanimous consent request. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. brown: i yield to the senator from new york. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i thank you, mr. president. at the beginning of this letter signed by 42 of our colleagues said the nation's unemployment level stuck near 10% is unacceptable to americans.

i just want to clarify what my colleague is saying; we'll all be talking about this. it is more important to the people on the other side of the aisle to get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than move forward on unemployment insurance. we're going to ask unanimous consent on that proposal and on other proposals which we'll hear from. is my colleague basically saying despite fact our colleagues admit unemployment is high and many are out of work, their solution for people looking for jobs is to give tax breaks to people who are making millions and billions of dollars and people who did very well over the last decade; the only group? mr. brown: that's it. to i will stimulate further, senator schumer and to the presiding officer, is the last two big tax cuts that were done in this country for the wealthy -- 2003, president bush; 2001, president bush. we know what happened from those two tax cuts. in the last ten years -- well,

the eight years of president bush, the hallmark of his economic package was of his economic policy was two major tax cuts for the wealthy. a million job increase in those eight years during george bush's presidency. a million job net increase, not even enough to keep up with people coming out of the army, college or high school. during the clinton years where they had a mix of tax cuts, some increases for higher-income people, balance the budget, did so the budget cuts that skphafbg supports -- senator mack cask supports, some of those. we ended up 22 million job increase. 22 million job increase with managing a budget right and giving a lot of assistance to middle-class people, the bush eight years tax cuts for the wealthy, 1 million jobs. yet, republicans now are arguing the most important thing possibly to do for the economy, the most important thing to do for our country is to reward the people who have already done very well the last ten years at

the expense of the broad middle class who have seen basically stagnant wages or worse during this decade. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i'll be very brief, and we'll be staying on the floor for a little while to make one point, and i say this to the american people. we have an economy that needs improvement. and our colleagues have said they will not let anything happen, whether it be tax credits for employers who hire the unemployed, which i am talking about, help for the energy industry, tax credits to help manufacturers hire people, unemployment insurance. all of those will be put on hold until we give tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires who, god bless them, they're wonderful, they're part of the american dream. but they are the one group who's done well. and it seems to me, as we will

talk about for the next little while, that it is absolutely absurd to say that should be the linchpin of our economic policy. and we will ask unanimous consent to bring proposals that we think will do far more to get people back to work and help the middle class stretch the paycheck than giving tax breaks to the billionaires. i yield the floor because i know my colleague -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. just to follow with my colleagues, and i so appreciate the senator from ohio and his comments regarding what's happening to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. five people at least looking for every one job that's available and the critical urgency that families feel and the senator from new york and his passion as well, as well as my other colleagues. let me just take a moment to emphasize what we're talking about here. the republicans -- and they've done this now through a letter to the leader -- are basically saying they're willing to risk everything -- everything -- to

give a bonus tax cut, as my friend and colleague from alaska talks about. not a tax cut. everyone's going to get a tax cut on their first $250,000 in income. they want a bonus tax cut on millionaires and billionaires that for the average millionaire will be about $100,000 next year, which is more than the average person in michigan makes in a year. so they're willing to shut this place down and risk everything in order to be able to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. and what does that mean? they're willing to risk the deficit. they don't want to pay -- $700 billion, they say we can't help people who are out of work because it will cost $50 billion, unless it's totally paid for. but $700 billion for their wealthiest friends and supporters is okay. so they'll risk the deficit. they'll risk jobs. where are the jobs? we had ten years of this policy, ten years of this policy of tax cuts at the top waiting for it to trickle down. they think we haven't waited

long enough. folks in michigan have waited far too long for it to trickle down. we're tired of waiting. we want a policy that works. i'm going to be putting forward a unanimous consent request on something that has worked, an advanced manufacturing tax credit that has allowed now a number of businesses, i think over 12 businesses, to open in michigan with clean energy manufacturing, with stamped made in america. we want to see "made in michigan" stamped on everything, mr. president. we need to extend this tax credit because it is putting people back to work in michigan and across the country. i'll be making that unanimous consent request in just a moment. they're willing to risk jobs, go home without focusing on jobs. they're willing to hold tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses hostage for a tax cut for a few people at the top. we won't be lectured by them about small business by a group of folks who have filibustered

16 different tax cuts for small businesses in this congress. 16 different tax cuts, including 8 tax cuts for small business in the small business jobs bill that added capital for small businesses last fall. believe me, we're here for small business as well as middle-class families. social security and medicare, the debt commission succombing out with very serious recommendations that are focused on social security and medicare, they're willing to risk that by adding more to the debt. does that mean more changes for social security and medicare. finally help for people that are out of work. help for people that are out of work. they're willing to say, mr. president, that our country, our great country is not good enough, is not strong enough to step up when our families need it the most, families who never before in their lives have needed help, the families in my state, the average person is 50, 55, 60 years old, worked all their lives; never dreamed that

they would find themselves in this situation. but here they are through no fault of their own. and now in this holiday season when we're asking that we just extend the regular program, not even dealing with long-term unemployment, which is what i also want to do, but even extend the regular program so that the person that today loses their job gets the same kind of opportunity to get help as the person who lost their job on monday, because today we begin, over 100,000 people in michigan are going to lose the opportunity to get any kind of help because they lost their job. so our colleagues have set their priorities. big letters: tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. don't want us to do anything else until that gets done. mr. president, we have a different set of priorities on behalf of american families, middle-class families, small businesses, people who need help right now. i'm going to yield the floor at the moment, but i'm going to be happy to have a unanimous consent request regarding a very

effective jobs tax credit that we could pass today and get going and get people back to work. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, let me say thank you very much. earlier today i spoke on the floor and talked about how the economy is from fragile but goie right direction, how many of us on this side of the aisle -- as a matter of fact, all of us on this side of the aisle took a lonely road over the last two years on some controversial issues that the public sees as controversial, but we knew we had to do something -- something -- to get this economy moving. and we're now seeing the benefits of this. every time i open up, i don't care if it's the "wall street journal," "business week" you name the business magazine or newspaper which are not the liberal phag stkaoerpbgs these are conservative magazines or newspaper on the internet and they will show you statistic after statistic that we're moving in the right direction. this last month i think it's

92,000 new jobs the private sector created. in order to do it, we need to do more things. i'm a little frustrated by the letter -- and i do have also unanimous consent which i hope to be able to bring up on hub zones and the small business act, rebuilding small business -- i was on the floor earlier today. what amazes me about this letter is it seems like for some reason we can only do one thing at a time in this place. you know, i come from local government whereas a mayor we had to do multiple things because we always had many things on the table. it didn't matter if it was public safety or creating jobs or rebuilding a neighborhood; you had to do multiple things. this country has multiple issues in front of it. we have an important start treaty that needs to be done. as a member of the armed services committee, our national security is at risk. for some reason the other side wants to wait until we get -- i'm not going to call it a tax cut. i'm going to call it a bonus for the millionaires and billionaires.

it's a bonus. it's not a tax cut. it's a bonus of $700 billion of money we do not have. we cannot afford it. the working class of this country cannot afford it. the middle class cannot afford it. my son cannot afford it. my son's future kids cannot afford t. what are we doing? -- cannot afford it. what are we doing? $700 billion of more debt to give a bonus to the people that drove our economy into the ditch. i don't really get it. you know, it seems to me when i came here that there was going to be a logical thought process, great debate. once again we're down here, nothing on the other side. they'll come out; i know they'll have their charts and one liners about how the economy will fall if we don't give the millionaires and billionaires another tax break or bonus. it's not going to. we are on the road of recovery because this side took that lonely road. when people told us that's

politically going to hurt you; and it did. we lost some people in the last election. the leadership is not about taking the easy road, the easy answer, the simple solution. we're in a very complex time with many issues facing us internationally and nationally, economic, energy, world issues. we have to be able to juggle those all and move them forward. the public demands it of us. so, you know, this ultimatum or whatever that is they wrote, this letter, this shows the classic tactic they have used for the last two years. i mentioned earlier this morning, i'll mention again, i read in one of the political news stories yesterday that someone on the other side, one of the senators on the other side, one of my colleagues said "i can't believe it took us a week -- a week -- to do food safety." neither can i, but it wasn't anyone on this side of the equation. over there, they demanded us to have two 30-hour periods to

debate food safety, that ended up passing with over three-quarters of the body supporting it. why? because it was a good bill, but they wanted to delay it so we don't get to the main issue. again, mr. president, i have a unanimous consent. i want to give it. i thought they would be down here at 3:30 we thought they would be down here at 3:45. now it's 4:00. they told us to get busy. we're trying to get busy by doing job creation. it is important for us to recognize what their goal is here: delay, tkhraeurbgs not helping -- delay, delay, not helping the american people and giving bonuses to millionaires and billionaires which is unreal. i'm going to yield to my colleague from new york. i'm hopeful there will be members on the other side so we can get on with asking for unanimous consents to get the business moving. i yield. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i know my colleague from new mexico wants to say a few words on some of

the job-creating proposals he has that have been held up by republicans blocking for their millionaire tax cut. here is the headline i wanted to alert my colleagues and the american people to. this is "newsweek." it came out today. i want to read to the american people the headline. this is not a democratic publication. "republicans hold senate ransom for rich tax cut." let me repeat that. "republicans hold senate ran some for -- ransom for rich tax cut." i couldn't have said it better myself. they are so eager to reward the wealthiest among us with a huge tax cut even though we have a deficit, even though we have unemployment, even though we have so many other things to do that they're holding the entire senate up. enough already.

enough already. and i'd like them to come to the floor and defend holding everything up for the tax cut for the millionaires. we are willing, many of us, i know the senator from missouri, myself, we're saying, give the tax cut to the middle class, but not to the wealthiest among us. not because we don't like them. not because we don't admire them. but rather, they are doing well. we have a deficit. we have other problems. "republicans hold senate ransom for rich tax cut." it says it all. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. schumer: i'd be happy to yield to the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: we have had an awful lot of economists who have met i think with all of the senators about the frustrations we have with this economy. and so the question we have asked over and over again is, what is the most stimulative thing we can do for the economy?

what can we do in terms of our actions that will provide the most injection of money into the economy and, therefore, create the most jobs? and i'm wondering if the senator could share with us what it is that is the most stimulative thing we can do. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague from missouri for the question, which i'd answer through the chair. the most stimulative thing we could do is extend unemployment benefits. those folks will spend every dollar in our stores, in our restaurants. it will create jobs. you give a tax break to multimillionaires, oh, yeah, they're going to rush right to the supermarket to buy that prime rib because they didn't have the money. please. mrs. mccaskill: let me ask another question. mr. schumer: yield for another question. mrs. mccaskill: we obviously passed this tax cut a decade or so ago and they decided to make

it temporary. not permanent. -- not permanent when it was passed. and so there was a decision made by the senate that it wasn't worthy of being permanent. that it was temporary. now, -- so now here we are, it was temporary. and now we have to decide whether or not we make it permanent. and that's really where the rubber meets the road. because if it had worked, i think one of the reasons, and correct me if i'm wrong they made it temporary, was to see if the tax cut for the wealthy created jobs. i'm so sick of hearing on every tv show in america, well, if you give a 3% tax differential to the wealthiest people in america, they're not going to create all these jobs. well, i'm trying to figure out, where are the jobs that this tax cut for the wealthy created? this was an experiment. it didn't work. it didn't create the jobs. that's why we have this debate right now. now, we've got to decide whose

side are we on? are we on the side of the middle class with shrinking income, with more frustration that they can't do some of the basic things with their families that they always assumed they'd be able to do in america? or are we going to continue a bonus to the wealthiest americans that doesn't even stimulate jobs? there are so many -- in fact, what we're going to do today, we're going to make a number of unanimous consent requests for things that will make jobs. and see if we can get our republican colleagues to go along. you were here for that debate. i'm assuming one of the reasons it was temporary was to see if this experiment and more bonuses for the wealthy would trickle down and create these jobs. it's been a decade and i ask the senator how well has it worked? mr. schumer: my colleague asks an excellent question. it has not worked.

unemployment is higher today with these tax cuts in effect than it was before they went into effect. we have had the slowest job growth in this decade even before the recession with these so-called breaks for the wealthy in effect. let's go back a decade. the tax rate was for the wealthiest at 40%. we're not talking about a huge increase here. we're talking about the difference between 35 and 39.6. but during that time, jobs were created at a much more rapid rate, number one. number two, middle class incomes ex he pannedded at a quicker -- expanded at a quicker rate than they did in this decade. and, number three, we had a surplus, not a deficit. the bottom line is very simple. the tax cuts for the wealthy did not work. the tax cuts for the wealthy did not work. they may have their ideological reasons to give them.

but i'd rather see that money go not only for unemployment insurance -- i'll talk later about this -- but the hire act which gives breaks to businesses. they don't have to pay the payroll tax if they hire someone who's unemployed, for energy tax credits, which my colleague from new mexico will talk about. for all kinds of different activities that have proved to be work. and i know my colleague from new mexico is waiting but i will once more read the headline -- "republicans from -- "republicans hold senate ransom for rich tax cut" how do you like that, america? i yield the floor because i know my colleague from new mexico has been waiting. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i would emphasize -- particularly what all of my colleagues are saying, but what senator mccaskill from

missouri said, a state last night at midnight 40,000 to 50,000 to 60,000 people from missouri lost their unemployment benefit last waco because they had worked -- benefit was lost because they had worked. it was an economic experiment. i opposed them. i was in the house. then congresswoman stabenow opposed them. shit was clear they didn't work. 22 million jobs during the clinton years. and as a result, and i would emphasize too that all of these proposals we're going to bring forward now, ask unanimous consent to get them passed so we can get the economy up and running better. the cost of all of them is more than the tax cut to the millionaires and billionaires. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged of s. s. 391, a bill to provide for

temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions, that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements relating thereto appear in the appropriate place in the congressional record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. i'm sorry. the senator from wyoming. a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: mr. president, we have heard here in -- in speaking with senators here on the floor about a really appalling action that has been taking place. mr. udall: i have a letter here signed by all of the republicans that have really threatened to

bring this place to a halt. completely bring it to a halt. and they've written a letter to senator reid. and in the letter they say, "we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed for any legislative item -- any legislative item until they get what i would characterize is these taxpayer funded bonuses for millionaires and billionaires. so they're going to bring the entire senate to a stop. and here we are, as the letter says, they quote president obama saying, "we owe it to the american people to focus on those issues that affect their jobs." well, i have a bill right here that will affect the jobs of american people. this is a -- it's called a clean energy bill. this is a clean energy bill. it's s. 1574, clean energy for homes and buildings. as all of us know, clean energy

is going to be the -- the industrial revolution of future. trying to move us toward renewable energy, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal. this is where we are going to see job growth in the future. this is -- this is our chance to be out there in front on the technology that we invented here in the united states of america. this is the way you create clean energy jobs. and so the demand they issued to us, the ultimatum that they said you can't bring a clean energy jobs bill, which we worked on very hard, to the floor. well, i ask, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1574, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and the bill be read three times and

passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you very much, mr. president. reserving the right to object. this request has just come to us moments ago. this is the first time that we have seen this request and i cannot and won't speak on the merits of this bill or the problems that may exist. what i do know is 42 senators from this side of the aisle have signed a letter, a letter to say that what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and to prevent a tax hike on every american come january 1st. mr. president, some of these requests may have bipartisan support, but we don't know anything about the specific legislation as we have just received this request. i think almost every bill in

this package that we're going to be considering now is still in committee, so we don't even know if the ranking member of that committee has concerns of -- or potential changes. so this is not the way to handle this. this is december and it is a lame duck session. let's stop the theater and get to the business that we although we need to address. i object. mr. schumer: will the senator from wyoming yield to a question? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. i'm sorry, the senator from neww mexico has the floor. mr. udall: mr. president, the gentleman from wyoming has said that these bills that we're trying to bring to the floor here aren't out of committee. i -- i believe he's incorrect when it comes to things like the start treaty. i mean, here you have the republican party saying that they aren't going to consider anything else -- anything else until they get these taxpayer

funded bonuses for their millionaires and billionaires. so that's what they're saying, and, yet, we have a treaty that's pending. it's on the calendar, mr. president. if you look on that executive calendar, it's on the calendar. we want to bring that up. and, in fact, i believe senator kyl said today, we're not going to bring that up. we -- we're going to stop everything. i saw him on television talking about how we're going to stop everything and this treaty, we're just not going to bring it up. so there are things pending on the calendar that are ready to go. and this treaty in particular -- this treaty in particular deals with our national security. national security used to be an issue where democrats and republicans worked together. but with this letter, it looks like they're not going to be bipartisan. they're going to issue this ultimatum, and they're not going

to try to work with us on these kinds of issues. and -- and while they're doing that, we no longer have inspections. we no longer are allowed to go to the soviet union and -- and look at their sites and find out if they're complying with previous treaties. so the start treaty -- the start treaty -- this new start treaty would allow us to do that and -- and what we're seeing here over and over again is these kinds of objections. with that, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i'd like to ask my colleague from wyoming a question in reference to what he just spoke about. i thank him for yielding. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. my colleague said he wanted to make sure his colleague's on that -- his colleagues on that side of the aisle didn't do anything else until they made

sure there's a tax cut for every american. let me pose the hypothetical. let's say we gave a tax break to every american whose income was below a million dollars, but not to people above a million dollars. would he and his colleagues continue to block things like unemployment insurance, the hire act, energy tax credits? in other words, when you say a tax break for every american, do you mean it has to be for millionaires? mr. barrasso: mr. president, my statement was what i do know is 42 republicans have signed a letter to say that what we ought to do and what we need to do is to find a way to fund the government and prevent a tax hike on every american come january 1. thank you, mr. president. mr. schumer: would my colleague yield for another question? a follow-up? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. barrasso: i would be happy, mr. president, to read the entire letter that was sent to

senator reid if there is some question as to exactly what was in that letter. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: my question is very simple. you said you wanted to prevent a tax hike on every american. hypothetically, if we prevented a tax hike on every american except the small number whose income was over a million dollars last year, would my colleague and his colleagues continue to block efforts to do any other piece of legislation? mr. barrasso: mr. president, i'm not going to answer a hypothetical. what i will tell you is that we did send a letter to -- to leader reid, and i would be happy to go through the entire letter at this point. it said "dear leader reid, the nation's unemployment level stuck near 10% is unacceptable to americans. senate republicans have been urging congress to make private sector job creation a priority all year. president obama in his first

speech after the november election said we owe it to the american people to focus on those issues that affect their jobs. he went on to say that americans want jobs to come back faster. our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment, an environment for private sector job growth, and it is time that our constituents' priorities become the senate priorities." the letter goes on, "for that reason, we write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all american taxpayers. with little time left in this congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. while there are some items that might ultimately be worthy of the senate's attention, we

cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike. given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority. without congressional action by december 31, all american taxpayers will be hit by an increase in their individual income tax rates and investment income through the capital gains and dividend rates. if congress were to adopt the president's tax proposal to prevent the tax increases for only some americans, small businesses would be targeted with a job-killing tax increase at the worst possible time. specifically, more than 750,000 small businesses will see a tax increase which will affect 50% of small business income and nearly 25% of the entire work force. the death tax rate will also

climb from 0% to 55% which makes it the top concern for america's small businesses. republicans and democrats agree that small businesses create most new jobs, so we ought to be able to agree that raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong remedy in this economy. finally, congress still needs to act on the tax extenders and the alternative minimum tax patch, all of which expired on december 31 of 2009. we look forward to continuing to work with you in a constructive manner to keep the government operating and provide the nation's small businesses with economic certainty that the job-killing tax hike will be prevented, and with that, mr. president, i will tell you that all 42 members of the republican party, this side of the aisle, have signed their names. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president, reclaiming my time, i have a

great deal of respect for my colleague from wyoming, but he has not answered the question, and it's obvious why. because the republican party and all 42 members care as much or more about giving $100,000 tax break to someone whose income is a million dollars as they care to give a small tax break to somebody whose income is $50,000. that's what we're here talking about. the reason that this letter and my good friend from wyoming's response to my question doesn't answer the question is because they're hiding. they're hiding behind the curtain of protecting the millionaires, and we're pulling that curtain open and we are showing the american people and will continue to show them that the number-one goal of the republican party is not jobs, is not helping the middle class, is not getting our green energy

industry going, is not helping small businesses hire new people as in the hire act. it's to give the millionaires a huge tax break and hold it hostage, hold it hostage so that the middle class won't get their tax break, and we're going to continue to go at this, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would agree with one thing that my friend from wyoming said in the letter that they signed, which is we should not be continuing job-killing practices. i would say after ten years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the jobs? if there ever was a policy that didn't work, it was that one. we have lost in michigan alone over 800,000 jobs under the policy that they want to continue. in the country, we have lost over eight million jobs under

the economic policy that they want to continue. not helping the middle class, not helping small business, but giving the bonus benefit, the extra tax cuts to those at the top, hoping it will trickle down, and frankly, we're tired of waiting for it to trickle down. and what we are proposing -- and i'm going to offer unanimous consent -- is to continue something that is actually working, that is actually creating jobs in this country and beginning to turn manufacturing around. i think the exchange between the distinguished senator from new york with my friend from wyoming is very, very telling, that even if we were talking about tax cuts for those up to a million dollars, that's still not enough. mr. president, this is not about small business. this is not about small business. people on the other side of the aisle have filibustered and

voted against 16 different tax cuts for small businesses in the last 18 months. eight of those in september and october. this isn't about small business. we're the folks that have been fighting for small business and we'll continue to do that as well as those in the middle class. i'm going to ask in a moment unanimous consent for something that is an extremely effective and exciting new focus for our country, and that's on clean energy manufacturing. you know, we're committed to making it in america. we want to see the words "made in america" again. i want to see "made in michigan," frankly, on all of those products. and one of the things that 18 months ago we passed as part of the recovery act was something called an advanced manufacturing tax credit, to be able to allow companies to deduct 30% of their costs for new plants, new equipment, hiring people in the area of clean energy -- wind,

solar, electric, batteries and so on. and we have seen across the country now 183 new manufacturing facilities in 43 different states across the country as a result of that. people that are being hired in every month, we are seeing manufacturing numbers go up rather than down in the last 18 months. if, in fact, we add another $5 billion, a very small investment compared to the the $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires in a tax cut, if we just invest $5 billion of that, it is estimated that we will unleash at least $15 billion in total capital investments, partnering with the private sector and create tens of thousands of new construction and manufacturing jobs. that's our priority, things that work, focusing on jobs and making things in america again. and therefore, mr. president, i

would ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3324, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. barrasso: mr. president? mr. president, reserving the right to object. this request again has come to us moments ago. this is the first time that we have had a chance to look at this. i won't speak to the merits of the bill or the problems that may exist, but this is not the way to handle this, mr. president. as you know, we are now in december of the lame-duck session. there are things that could have been brought up any time in the last year and a half to two years, and we have focused specifically on making sure that taxes are not increased for

americans between now and january 1 because all americans are concerned about those taxes going up, and as a result i think it's time to stop the theater that we have here and get to the business that we all know we need to address, and i object. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: this isn't theater. this is about real people in my state that want to work. this is about investing in middle-class jobs and manufacturing. it is about taking a policy that has been in place for now 18 months that has worked and being able to extend it. and in terms of bringing this up for the first team, we have focused on this and been debating this and discussing this over and over and over again. the bill that i ask unanimous consent for is bipartisan. this is not new. we have not been able to get through the obstructionism, the throwing the sand in the gears and the filibustering to bring this up. so if we want to focus on

something between now and the end of the year, let's focus on jobs and getting people back to work. the presiding officer: the senator from -- the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4915, something we have been discussing the last week, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk, a fully offset repeal of section 9006 of the patient protection and affordable care act, the small business 1099 paperwork mandate be agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: let me just

indicate as someone who has, in fact, voted to repeal this particular provision, i think it's important that we get that done. we actually have a majority of members that have supported getting that done. senator baucus, the chair of the finance committee, brought forward a proposal that unfortunately did not get the bipartisan support necessary to be able to do it, but we are committed to getting this done, and it is something that i hope our colleagues will join with us in as we bring this tax bill to the floor before the end of the year. it is important in my judgment that we repeal this provision, that i do believe is onerous for small business, but it needs to be done in the context of the broader package, and so i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming still has the floor. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. we have had -- and i appreciate the comments by my colleague from michigan because this was brought to the floor briefly, but with a threshold of 67

votes. there were two different approaches trying to help the small businesses across the country who are being all held hostage by a very onerous paperwork requirement and filing, but the threshold of needing 67 votes was too high even though people from both sides of the aisle voted for both of the -- of the measures that were offered. we want to help small businesses around the country and eliminate what the i.r.s. says is going to be almost impossible to comply with, what small businesses say is going to be expensive to carry out, and what senator johanns' amendment has paid for as a paid-for solution, i think this is something we should as a senate and as a body be committed to adopting. and the president of the united states said this needs to be solved.

so what i have heard now is an objection to something that i think is a very reasonable request, and i'm sorry that that objection has been made. thank you, mr. president. ms. stabenow: mr. president, if i might just respond to my friend? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. let me just indicate again, as someone for the senator who voted against both of the proposals before us, i think there is a commitment on both sides of the aisle to get this done. you are correct that the 67-vote threshold was very high. we need to come back in a different context and get this done, and i'm committed to working with my colleague to do that. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, my friend from wyoming, who is a good guy, just said that the motions that we're making, unanimous consent motions, these things could have been brought up earlier. oh, if only it were true.

if only it were true that we could have brought these things up earlier. because if anybody's been paying attention, they would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking everything, including motherhood and apple pie, for the last year. they have voted unanimously to move judicial nominations out of judiciary committee and then they languish and they will not allow us to bring them up for a vote. and then my friend said that this -- we need to stop the theater. well, let me tell you what theater is. theater is when a senator says, if we can't get everything resolved and all the spending decisions made by monday, well, then i just don't think we can do the start treaty. theater is having 42 senators

say we will not participate unless you do what we want to do today. that's theater. that's theater. theater is saying, well, you could have brought this up earlier, when everyone knows they've blocked everything we want to bring up. that's theater. what you're seeing on this side right now is a healthy dose of indignation on behalf of the american people that are hurting. and i think back, i think back to elections past, where great patriots were accused in the most vicious ways of being soft on national security. i remember a senator who lost his limbs in battle, who had advertisements run against him that somehow he was soft on terror because of a twist and distortion of a vote he had cast

in the united states senate. now, fast forward. we have a treaty, we have a treaty that the military unanimously supports, that the secretaries of state for those presidents, those republican presidents that warned us about loose nuclear weapons and terrorists, their secretary of states have stood up and said this is the thing to do. the ranking member of the foreign relations committee in the united states senate, senator lugar, is there anyone more respected on what we should be doing to protect this nation than senator dick lugar? and they are holding this treaty hostage to protect millionaires.

has it come to that? they now are willing to risk national security, the security of this nation because they refuse to allow us to stop the extra big tax bonuses to millionaires and billionaires. can you imagine what would have happened to somebody in my party that had the nerve to stand up in the face of our allies, our military, bipartisan support, everyone from pat buchanan to colin powell, that has said to the american people this start treaty is necessary? and they're saying, well, if you don't give us a tax break for millionaires by monday, we're going to go home. really? i just -- it takes your breath away. it just takes your breath away.

so i -- i -- i have some unanimous consent motions i will make also today, but i really want that to sink in. every goal post they've put up on the start treaty, we have reached and then they've moved it. we have no verification of nuclear weapons in russia right now and we haven't for months, and they're nibbling around the edges because you know i believe this might be? i might believe this was part of the strategy that was announced by the leader of the republican party that their number-one priority is to defeat president obama, to damage him. they want to deny the passage of this treaty i believe -- it certainly has the appearance, anyway -- that this is about damaging president obama. we should be focused on our national security. we should be focused on giving tax cuts to middle america. we should be focused on tax cuts

to small businesses. we've done net tax cuts in this country of $300 billion in the last 18 months and all of those tax cuts were focused like a laser on the middle class and on small businesses. don't anybody -- don't let anybody sell you a bill of goods that the democratic party is not fighting for tax cuts for middle america and small businesses. now, we're not so excited about the millionaires. those are stimulative, they haven't created the jobs. it has been an economic experiment that's failed. once again, the trickle down didn't trickle and it's time for us to get busy, make these tax cuts permanent for the middle class, ton try to reduce our deaf -- continue to try to reduce our deficit. i see my friends -- nobody has worked harder and i've tried to be a partner with him and to reduce spending in the federal government, but this, all of a sudden we're going to take our football and go home if you don't give us what we want by monday? and here's the richest part of this. the person who's saying we're

going to go home on monday if we don't get it by monday is the person who's negotiating. he's supposed to be negotiating at 5:30. i mean, it's like looking in the mirror and saying, hey, if you don't get it done by monday, if he wants to get it done by monday, then be reasonable about the millionaires, be reasonable about the millionaires and we can get this done and we can go home and celebrate christmas with our families and come back and start hard next year to reduce this deficit with a good down payment, $300 billion going to reduce the deficit because we're not going to give a very small incremental tax increase to people who have plenty of cash right now but they really need those millionaires, they need the middle class to have some money to spend to create the demand. that's the economic policy that makes sense in this climate. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, i have also a unanimous consent i want to do. but before i do that, i want to say i know the senator from wyoming is not here right now

but i want to echo the point that we're going to deal with the 1099's, it's a question of making sure we pay for it the right way. i don't think anyone in this body -- we are motivated and i think a lot of us are working in a bipartisan way to resolve that issue. as someone who's been in the small business world since the age of 14, who's had a business license since that age, i have aggressively talked about the issue of small business, i have lived the business of small business, and i clearly wanted what the 1099's all about. so i talked about this issue back in july and clearly made it clear that we need to deal with it and great rid of it. so we're going to be working on it. we'll see this hopefully part of the tax package, the tax extender package, and we'll deal with it. mr. chairman -- or, mr. president, i come to the floor because i have also a unanimous consent i'd like to do in regards to small business. this is a bill that will help what they call hub zones, areas

that are high unemployment to the tune of 140% of the average of adjusted unemployment rate. these have been very helpful for many different communities across this country as well as in our state. and this is a rebuilding local business act of 2010. it amends the small business act and designates hub zones and gives them another three years of opportunity. mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the small business committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3563 and that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening actions or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: and i wonder if i might be recognized to speak following the objection that i

intend to make? mr. begich: mr. president? mr. alexander: reserving the right to object. republicans have -- have said that we believe the singlemost important step we can take to create jobs is to keep the current tax rates which will go up automatically january 1. secondly, we need to fund the government. funding expires this friday. and that after that, we can move to whatever else the democratic leader would like to bring up. we should fund the government, keep the tax rates where they are, freeze spending and go home, mr. president. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. begich: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you, investment and still having the floor. first of a, i want to make sure for the pup who is watching this -- for the public who is watching this what this means.

keeping the tax rates where they are means billionaires and millionaires continue to get a bonus -- because that's what it is, no disrespect to my colleagues on the other side. it means corporations again today -- and i can speak about this, again, no disrespect to my colleagues, again, as someone in the small business world. our family is in this business. my wife owns four retail stores, she started it from scratch just like i did in many of my businesses. the small business community, the small business community benefits not by the people over the 2% -- the top 2%. the small business community are the ones below that. you know, half of the businesses in this country, half of the businesses in this country, the small businesses, gross less than $25,000. that's a fact. so for us to say -- just kind of continue business as usual and keep these tax rates where they're at for the millionaires and billionaire club, that didn't help us the last three years. the fact is, right now they have

those tax breaks. right today they have those. they had them last year. they had them the year before. and what happened to this economy? it crashed and burned almost to the ground. what has happened to the millionaire and billionaire club? they've got more money in their bank accounts today than ever before. that's not me saying that. that's other independent data out there. corporations have more cash on hand today than they've had in decades. and so for us now to say, hey, let's give the millionaire, billionaires another bonus for the next year for running our economy into the ground, doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't make sense to the people back home in my state. the alaskans i talk to every single day. as a matter of fact, when i came here january of 2009, we were in our fourth or fifth month, if i remember right, losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month. do you know what that's equal to? that's the total population of my state.

every single month being lost. people who are saying that we've got to make sure the millionaires and billionaires have this $700 billion bonus paid by the taxpayers of this country to drive us more into debt -- and believe me, that's going to solve this economic problem? it's absolutely wrong. i've had to scratch nickels and dimes together to build businesses. i have done it before. i have succeeded and failed. that's not what grows business. giving millionaires and billionaires breaks. what makes the difference, for example, is the small business bill we passed where we only got two votes on the other side, small business bill that brought money to loan to small businesses. that's what makes a difference. or extending the tax credit, which we did, not only during the recovery bill, the stimulus bill, which i know everyone hates on the other side, but also during our small business

bill so kee people can buy equit and depreciate is in the first year, write it off in the first year. that's real benefits to small businesses. or extending the s.b.a. loan program, expanding it from this their limitations they had before to $5 million to make sure the front-end fees don't have to be charged. what did that do in my state? it tripled, tripled the loan capacity of s.b.a. to small businesses. that was supported on this side. you want to grow small business? that's how you do it, because the way it has worked, we drove into the biggest recession since the great depression. so i respect the comments on the other side, but for to us say to the american taxpayers, hey, we're going to give another $00 billion to millionaires and billionaires is beyond comprehension. beyond comprehension. especially when we tell them, oh, by the way, it's going to be debt financed. so my son, who's eight today, and his grandkids, my grandkids

maybe in the future, will still be paying that bill because we were told that by monday accident w, wehave to make a dim not doing that. you know -- we have to make a decision. iept not doing that. you know, i didn't come here to play these games, to swap off the start treaty, the national security, for the benefit of millionaires and billionaires. and the other thing i've learned about this place, we can multitask. you know, i came down here this morning, no one was on the floor. no one. you -- you know, i go to committee meetings. supposed to be 15, 25 people showing up at committee meetings. two people show up. i was sent here to come and do work. for us to sit around here and say, we can only do one thing at one tile, i talk to families every single day. they're doing multiple things every single day. and why we can't with all the staff that we have, all the

abilities we have here, we cannot focus on more than one thing is ridiculous. and, again, no disrespect to the senator from tennessee. i mean him no ill words. i just am strufted. i didn't come here for these kinds of games, you know. we put a 1099 amendment on the food safety act. people looking at, what are we doing? i heard yesterday why did you spend a week on the food safety bill? well, because the other side wanted to delay it because it was good politics for them to delay and drag it out. so here we are. here we are now. got a deadline. got to get this passed or we're going home. well, heck, if you don't want to be around here, then go home. but the fact is, the american people sent us here, alaskans sent me here to not just do one issue, to do multiple issues because that's what our country is about. it is complex. there's no single issue that drives the economy.

but giving millionaires and billionaires a $700 billion tax bonus, taxpayer-paid bonus is ridiculous. and so i appreciate the comments. i'm sorry that you object to this one item because in order to build this economy, we have to have multiple things in play. this gives more tools to the private sector, the private sector to grow their neighborhoods and businesses. the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. begich: mr. president, i yield my time, and i just appreciate the time to rant for a little bit there. officer officer the senator from -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i see the senator from alabama here and i don't want to take time from hirnlings but let me see if i can go back to the beginning here. the government runs out of money friday. taxes go up at the end of the month. republicans have written a

letter to the majority leader that say, let's focus on those two things. let's fund the government, keep the tax rates where they are, which woul would be the single t thing we can do in the middle of a downturn to help create jobs. we think we heard the results of the election. our friends on the other side are, like, they keep insignificance or an encore after a concert which attracted a lot of boos i think what the american people were saying to us is fund the government, keep the tax rates where they are, freeze the spending and go home. bring the new congress back in january and let's begin to work on the priorities of the american people. which are to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, number one; bring spending closer to revenues, number two; and be smart and strategic in dealing with terror, number three. those are our objectives. in the last fee weeks of the

so-called lame-duck session insisting on an encore after a concert that attracted a lot of boos shows a lot of tone-deaf politicians, if i may say soavment now, what we have asked is extraordinarily reasonable. the president -- u.a.e. and i give him -- and i give him great credit for this. he had a bipartisan meetings yesterday. the best one he has since he's been president, constructive. and as a result of it, the republican and democratic leaders who met together said we'll designate a smaller group to say if we can work out the tax part of this. and then in the discussion that came afterwards, we on our side made it clear to the president and clear to the democratic leader that after you fund the government -- rerks the money runs out -- remember, the money runtsz runs out friday; with ever to do this. nobody want wants government tot down. and after we deal with taxes.

they go up automatic after the 1st of the year. then we go to wherever the majority leader of the united states senate wants to go. he is the single person in this body who can bring something up. and if he chooses to go to the "dream" act, if he chooses to go to don't ask, don't tell, if he chooses to go if a whole laundry list of other issues, that's his prerogative and we under the traditions of the senate have a right to make the voices heard of the people we represent and debate those and amend those. that's what we should be doing. or, if the majority leader says i've listened to the president, he thinks the new start treaty is the most important thing to go to next, he can bring that up next, if he wishes to. and we can debate that. now, we want ample time to do that. that's a part of the senate tradition as well. there's nothing in the letter that the 42 republicans signed that says anything about national security or the new start treaty t talks about legislative proposals. we recognize that until some

fortuitous event should occur that we might have the majority instead of them, that it's up to the democratic leader's what what comes up. so the senator from missouri was talking about the no start treaty. we're not talking about it. in fact, we're meeting on t we're working with the administration to see if nuclear modernization -- a senator: will the senator yield for a a question? mr. alexander: i will not. i willstin mi will continue my d the senator may gain the floor later. we're working on making certain that if the new start street approved, we're not left with a collection of wet matches. we want to make sure that the nuclear warheads that we have work. i'm one republican who's open to voting for the new start trevment i see the vangs of the data and i see the advantage of inspection that comes from it. i know the tradition of disarmament and nuclear arms control. and i'm deeply concerned about

the condition of the facilities that do our nuclear modernization. i'm very impressed with the progress the president is making in that area and let's continue to make that progress. and after we keep the tax rates where they are and after we fund the government, if the majority leader wants to move to that, he can. but instead, we get this afternoon a long list of new proposals that have come in here that we haven't read that haven't been through committee. reminds me of christmas eve a year ago. let's just bring a bunch of bills in here and start passing them on the floor. nobody has read them. the american people said in november we didn't like that. so they sent a bunch of new people here. so, mr. president, with all respect, we understand what it's like to lose an election. we've lost a lot of them lately. we had very few republicans elected in 2006. we had very few elected in 2008. we thought the people had something to say to us. we tried to learn from that.

we hadn't been doing some things well. we're traig to reearn the confidence of the american people going step by step. we think the steps that are appropriate today are to keep the tax rates where they are in the middle of an economic yon turn. it makes no -- downturn. it makes no sense to tax job creators in a time ash at a time when unemployment has been above 9 poit 5% for 16 out of the last 17 months, and when it's only been that high for 30 out of the last 862 months. and what we're suggesting is the cientdz of thing that -- the kind of thing that mr. orszag has suggested. he said, let's extend it for two years because raising taxes in the missile defense an economic downturn makes no sense because it doesn't create jobs. so we'd like for them to be permanent. that's a possible area of compromise. keep the tax rates where they are.

deal with funding the government. and then let's move to whatever subject the majority leader would like to move to, including the new start treaty, if he thinks that's the most important area. so i want to make sure that the republican position is well-understood. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record our letter to senator reid of yesterday, which says very simply, "dear mr. majority leader, we 42 republicans believe that we should keep tax rates where they are because they go up at the end of the month, and we should fund the government because it runs out of money friday, and after those two, we can move to whatever legislative item you would like to, and, of course, we have no comment on whether you move to a treaty such as the new start treaty. that's our position. well be that's a reasonable position. -- we believe that's a reasonable position. and i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama.

mr. sessions: i'll just be brief. but i do appreciate so much the senator from tennessee's comments, senator alexander is one of our most valuable members. and he's an honest person. he can summarize complex matters in ways even i can understand. i think he stated honestically and fairly where we are today. i would just point out, not only did president obama's own office of management and budget director peter orszag suggest -- say that we ought to keep the rates where they are, not go up on the upper-income people at this time of economic stress and job loss, not raise taxes on them, although my colleagues say somehow if we pass this legislation, there would be a bonus for ten years these rates have been at this. we're talking about raising these rats if we don't take

action. but i was going to recall that senator alexander served on the budget committee, as senator mccaskill does and we worked hard on some important legislation together. i think it will be helpful in containing spending. i would just note that we recently had a budget committee hearing just a few months ago, and i think senator alexander and mccaskill were there. we had three premier, exceedingly well-known economists testify, two called by the democratic majority, one called by the republican minority on the committee. that's sort of traditional, isn't it, senator alexander, 2-1, or 5-4, or something -- on the witnesses. mr. zandi from moody's, someone from princeton and john taylor of the taylor rule -- the violation of his rule by

mr. bernanke, i believe, was a significant factor in the bubble in housing. but mr. taylor was a republican witness. all three said don't raise taxes now in this economy. so it is owe fennive to me a bit to have my colleagues stand up -- so it is offensive to me in a bit to have my colleagues stand up in a demagogic way to say you are trying to give a tax benefit, a bonus to millionaires. i don't believe that's accurate. these three premier economists, two of them called by the democratic majority, said, don't raise taxes because there has -- senator alexander, do you think these economists were saying this because they want to help millionaires? or do you think they were making that opinion because they believe it would be best for the economy and help more americans who are out of work get work?

mr. alexander: i am assuming the senator from barack obama still has the floor. -- the senator from alabama still has the floor. i agree with his answer. in answer to the question that -- the idea is that you don't raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn. because it makes it harder to create jobs and that makes no sense. that's simply the ampleght. mr. sessions: and mr. or zach zag was a -- and mr. orszag was a former congressional budget office head and also was chosen by president obama when he first came to office for that significant premier center of the government, the office 6 management and budget, a student of these issues, far more, i guess, liberal in ways than i would be in a lot of matters.

and he has indicated that he did not think we should raise taxes now that he's left the administration. mr. alexander: to the senator, if i may speak in his remaining time as if in coul queerks yes, that's his point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: he wrote in the "wall street journal" shortly after he left. he believes in fairness to mr. orszag that the tax rates ought to be different shalted and he expected that we we'd have a big argument here about the levels of ta taxation if wee doing something in a permanent way. but he did say very clearly that given the length and severity of the economic downturn that the logical thing to do would be to keep the current rates exactly where they are for at least two years because not to do so would clearly cause job loss. and if we're listening to people and we have our eyes open,

senator sessions, making it