programs for transportation or education or health or military from them ever again. they may believe lowering taxes is a good thing on everybody. that's an ideology that i don't agree with at this point in time but they cannot claim deficit reduction is a goal when they will increase taxes increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars without it being paid for to give tax breaks to the very few wealthy families here in america. and as for the argument those tax breaks are important to create jobs, no economist really believes that. we're talking about the personal income tax -- not the corporate rate. we're talking about people who

when they had a higher rate, did very well. we're talking about job growth in the last decade among the slowest we've had in a very long time under those low tax rates whether it was times of economic growth or economic decline. there's virtually no good argument to give huge tax breaks to the very wealthy at a time when our deficit is as large as it is. there's a very good argument to give those same tax breaks and percentage basis, of course, to the middle class. and so my colleagues, and to the american people, please watch the floor tonight tomorrow, over the next several days. figure out who's on your side.

figure out who's being fiscally responsible. figure out who wants to help the average middle-class person, at the same time get ahold of our deficit. again i repeat, i respect and salute those who have made a lot of money on their own and are very wealthy. god bless them; they're part of the american dream. but the american dream doesn't say that at a time of need, at a time when deficits are severe, that because you've made all that money, you should get a much hugeer, huger tax break than everybody else. and so this debate is going to be an interesting one. i think it's going to set the tone for what we do over the next two years. and believe me, we will be talking about the millionaires' tax break and who voted for it

and who voted against it not just today and not just tomorrow, but over the next two years. it's a very, very important issue and one that we cannot let rest for the good of the middle class, for the good of deficit reduction, for the good of the country. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president thank you. mr. president, first i'd ask unanimous consent that aaron libo and susan keel be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president i listened with great attention to the speech just given by my friend from new york. senator schumer is right on target when he's talking about who are we fighting for here.

what are we here in the senate for? what are we here to do? who are we fighting for? i've often said the one thing about the very wealthy in our country, you know, they're pretty good taking care of themselves. obviously they wouldn't be rich if they weren't. but what about the people that don't have much? who's fighting for them? this is a -- what i want to spend some time talking about and that's the unemployed in this country. last week we went home for thanksgiving. i hope everyone had a good time with their families. now we're looking at the upcoming holidays with anticipation as we do every year, to be with our families. buy some presents, exchange presents; kids, grandkids. a festive time. what about all those people that

are out of work, have no money whorbgs right now are -- no money, who right now are being cut off of the only lifeline they have, which are unemployment insurance benefits. losing them day after day because they ended two days ago. and by the time christmas rolls around somewhere close to 2 million americans not only will be out of a job but will have no source of income whatsoever. facing another winter season celebrating the holidays with nothing. i had a newspaper headline i showed the other day that said that luxury spending hits new high. luxury spending -- luxury spending is back in fashion. about how much money was being

spent on jewels and fancy wristwatches and high-end types of things. and then right under it in small print it said that the -- however, for millions of americans, they're not shopping anywhere because they're out of work. the two faces of america. is that what we want this country to be? a few that can spend on lavish jewel-encrusted watches buying $2,500 cashmere scarves as i just read about the other day. and everybody else sort of getting in the soup line. we're a better country than that. we're a better country than that. you know, that's what i wanted to talk about is about

reauthorizing the emergency unemployment insurance program. but i -- first of all i listened to my friend, my colleague from iowa about -- senator grassley talked about taxes. i didn't hear the whole speech, but i heard him say that raising taxes never reduces the deficit -- or reduces the debt. none what he said; either the debt or the deficit. i hate to disagree with my friend but in 1993, when we enacted the clinton economic proposal it included increasing taxes. 1993. oh, i remember the senator from texas, senator phil gramm an economist, got up and said this is going to cause a depression. this will be the worst thing that ever happened to this country. we're going to rue the day we ever did this. well we passed it. of course it didn't get one republican vote. and we did raise some taxes.

1993. and what happened then for the next seven years eight years -- we had we had unprecedented growth in this country. and, quite frankly we did balance the budget by 2000. not only did we balance it, but we had a surplus and we had a surplus going into 2001. that's when george bush came to the presidency and said we've got this big surplus. alan greenspan was warning us we had too much of a surplus and it might not be wise to pay down the debt. we were on course to pay down the national debt. and then the bush administration pushed through some tax cuts. pushed through tax cuts. they said we're going to do it temporarily, just until 2010. and we'll keep them in until 2010 and then we'll have to revisit it or we'll go back to

what we had before in 2001. they made that deal. i didn't vote for it. i didn't think we should cut taxes at that time. i thought we should pay off the national debt. tha*fs that would have strepb -- that would have strengthened our economy more than anything. but, no, the bush administration, republicans who controlled the house and the senate said they wanted to cut the taxes. most of the taxes tha*rp were cut, as -- most of the taxes that were cut were for the very wealthy. did we have a lot of job growth? not a bit. not only did we not have job growth the deficit skyrocketed. i don't want to hear any comportations from that -- exhortations from that side of the aisle about how raising taxes never reduced the deficit or the debt. we did under bill clinton. the proof is there. we had a surplus. but they wanted the tax breaks to give to the wealthy.

lastly, like my friend from new york said about being held hostage, now there's been a lot of talk about middle-income americans getting a tax break. but i ask -- i keep asking, who are middle-income americans? who are they? i keep hearing that it's $250,000 a year or below. $250,000 a year. my friends if you're making $250,000 a year, you are in the top 5% of the income earners of america. that's right, if you make $250,000 a year, 95% of the american people make less than you do. so is that middle class? i don't think so. to me, the middle class are the people making $30,000 $40,000

$50,000, $70,000 $80,000 a year. that's the broad class of america living off of $40,000 a year. that's true. they don't take fancy trips and they don't have fancy cars. they don't go to fancy restaurants. they don't wear suits and ties every day. but they're working. a lot of them are working at jobs that are important to our society. they may be nurses aides. they may be taking care of our elderly in a nursing home or in assisted living. they may be our child-care workers taking care of our children. they can be working in fast-food places. and they're making $35,000 $40,000, $50,000 a year, and that's it. that's the middle class of america. what are we doing for them? what are we doing for that middle class?

every time i hear that $250,000 and below is middle class i'm thinking wait a second, you're talking about the top 5% in america. if you want to talk about the broad middle class you've got to start talking about people making less than $100,000 a year. what are we doing for them? it seems to me if we're going to have tax breaks and stuff we ought to think about this group. and in that group -- in that group -- of the broad middle class is the army of the unemployed. that's where the unemployed are. the unemployed are not on wall street. they got their bailouts. they're getting $1 million bonuses this year. and my friends on the republican side want to extend the tax breaks so not only do they get their $1 million bonuses they won't have to pay their fair share of taxes on them either. not to mention that some of them are getting these bonuses the way they're getting their money

they're being charged at the lowest possible tax rate. not as greater income but as capital gains but i'm not going to get into that right now. what are the republicans doing? they're saying that we can't extend the unemployment benefits for the millions of americans who are unemployed until and unless we have tax breaks for the wealthiest americans those making over $250,000, over $500,000, $1 million. they don't care. no matter who you are no matter how much money you make, we've got to give them tax breaks or we cannot extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed. want to talk about hostages? the republicans in this congress are holding hostage the unemployed workers in america. because they want to get the tax breaks for the wealthiest. that's what's happening here. i don't know that many american people know about that.

they see us debate this stuff back and forth and who's going to get these tax breaks, but right now unemployment benefits have run out. we have asked, i think three or four times if i'm not mistaken, on the senate floor for unanimous consent to extend the unemployment benefits and the republicans have objected every single time. why? because they wrote a letter yesterday -- yesterday the republican leader had a letter signed by every single republican in the senate that said that they will not allow any bill to pass the senate unless and until we pass a bill giving tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. it almost -- it almost begs creditcredulity.

do they really mean it? well they signed their names to it. that means we can't extend unemployment benefits until we give in -- until we give in to the republicans and give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. what a deal. what a deal. holding people who are at the end of their rope, the most vulnerable in in our society holding them hostage for their wall street friends. and, you know, i hear a lot of time well, you know, i've heard this said by some on the other side that, well, unemployment benefits makes people lazy. if you give them unemployment benefits, they won't look for work. well mr. president, let me tell you what the labor market looks likes right now and we'll see if these people are really lazy. right now there are 15 million people one in five can't find

work one in nine can't find a job and they had one. there are a number of people who have looked for a job and they've given up. they've been out of work for two years. after you know, after 99 weeks you don't get any unemployment benefits whatsoever. and a lot of people have been out of work for over 99 weeks. they have nothing. that means that we don't. our unemployment rate is not around 9%. it's about 17% to 18%. and these unemployed workers are are looking for work. what people have to understand is that before you can get unemployment benefits you have to be actively looking for work. it's a requirement. in order to get it. but what's happening out there? workers can't find jobs because there aren't any. one job for every five workers. well it says here 14.8 million workers unemployed.

that's not really true. it's actually about 26 million. that's just 14.8 million unemployed -- when i say when you take in those that have given up because they've gone beyond 99 weeks, when you take into account those who work part time because they were working full time, but now they can only get a part-time job it's adds up to almost 26 million. let's take the bureau of statistic as they are 14.8 million workers 2.9 million jobs open. one for every five. it's less than that if you look at the overall picture it's more like about one in eight to one in 10. so, in other words for about eight to 10 workers there's one job out there someplace. so most workers will lose on this kind of game of musical chairs. you know you run around when the music stops one person gets a job six or seven people don't

have one. so i challenge my republican friends, how can six or seven or piement can find a -- or eight people find a job when there's only one available. that's why we have so many people facing unemployment. over 16 million people have been out of work half a year. i saw a lot of them here in washington yesterday. out of work for half a year. four in 10 workers will be called the long-term unemployed. have been looking for a job for at least six months. this is higher than in any previous recession. here are recessions going back to 1950. in terms of the share of the total unemployed. you can see the graph here in terms of who has been unemployed for more than six months. and, as you can see as we go from the 1950's to here, look at

where this line now goes in 2010. more than we have ever had in going clear back to the 1950's. long-term unemployed. long-term unemployed. higher than any previous -- it's the highest in 60 years. the highest in 60 years. and they're being held hostage by the republicans. and long-term unemployment is especially common among older workers, over 50. people who work all their lives saved for retirement, and they lost their jobs and they're having a very difficult time to find new work. a year, year and a half, two years. i met people out of work for well over two years. and, again they can't find work because it's not there. through no fault of their own. through no fault of their own. so i said our economy needs at

least -- at least -- at least 11 million jobs. at least. it's obvious to say that the people who are unemployed are lazy and shouldn't get benefits. you say that, you're just out of touch. you're out of touch with the real world and what's happening out there. the difficult circumstances that face our hard-working american families. i know, i tell you i get a lot of letters. i'm sure the occupier of the chair does in his state of people who are just at wit's end. and they just tear your heart out. a 50-year-old woman from altoona, iowa, been unemployed since november of 2009. a year and a month. she wrote me, i can't even get a job at mcdonald's right now and, believe me, i've tried everywhere. unemployment insurance is helping her get by, but she's worried about running out of benefits which just happened

two days ago. i got this letter before two days ago. her unemployment benefits are out. unemployed school teacher from esterville iowa, wrote me. she said i never felt so humiliated in 20 years. i've been a productive and hard-working woman since i was 19. now i feel insignificant. she wrote me that this summer. this month she wrote me again. she said, i have tried to find employment in other states, all over iowa, in every form of employment you can imagine convenience stores, fast food, factories. i'm a high school math teacher with three college degrees and i can't find a job. if it weren't for unemployment, i'd be on food stamps. but without unemployment insurance, she doesn't know what she's going to do. just lost hers a couple of days

ago too. these are two examples. but there are millions in this season from now until new year two million people will be put off if we don't continue these programs. in iowa, my home state, more than 10,000 people will be cut off from their benefits during this holiday season and if we don't do anything, we'll face six million by april. left without any source of income hanging by a thread. her savings are exhausted. their unemployment benefits are the thin lifeline keeping them afloat. congress has never cut back emergency unemployment benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is now and this is no time to start. here's again going back to the 1950's, 1959 when we had high rates of unemployment every single time congress passed

emergency funding to keep unemployment benefits going. that is until now. republicans have said, oh, they'll extend it, but they want to pay for it. about $56 billion to extend it for one year. they have to pay for it and how they want to pay for it is to take money out of the recovery act. there's still some unexpended money there that's gone out that's going for things like roads, bridges infrastructure projects that put people to work. so they want to take money from that which is giving some people some jobs and helping build our infrastructure, to pay for unemployment benefits. going from 1959 through democratic and republican administrations, we always said it was an emergency and that's the way we fund it. the republicans say we have a huge deficit we can't do that anymore. then why are they so intent on

passing a tax cut bit extending a tax cut for the wealthiest americans and they don't pay for it? they put it on the deficit. not for $56 billion. for $700 billion. oh they're willing to do that. they're willing to do that for the wealthiest, but not for people at the end of their rope. the unemployed. so i guess we've entered a new era in this country. we don't help the unemployed. we just help the wealthy. that's all we do. that's why we're here, i guess. look at that. we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. i ask have my republican friends lost all sense of fairness? have my republican friends on the other side of the aisle lost all sense of justice?

have they lost all sense of what's right and wrong? where's the morale outrage -- or ral out -- moral outrage that we're going to let people stand in the soup lines for christmas we're going to give tax breaks to the wealthiest, a bonus to people on wall street that caused a lot of these problems and we won't make them pay their fair share of taxes. where's the outrage? i'll tell you it's out there mr. president. the american people are sensing this. they're saying, wait a minute, congress wants to pass this big tax break and they won't help the unemployed? well they get it. they get it. congress has just -- i can't believe that we're doing this. i can't believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are

so hard-heart that they would hold hostage that they would not let us move a bill to extend the unemployment benefits until we pass their bill to extend the tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. where is our sense of moral outrage at this? well just one other thing mr. president. unemployment benefits that we give out to people is not money that's thrown down a rat hole. quite frankly one of the best economic stimuluses we have is unemployment benefits, believe it or not. now, why is that? well because people who get unemployment benefits -- and right now in my state it averages about $300 a week.

it's about a national average. about $300 a week. you can figure it out. that's $15,000 a year. that's lower than the poverty wage by the way. if you think unemployment benefits are some big deal, it's lower than the poverty wage. so when you get that money what do they do? they go out and they buy groceries. they buy some clothes for their kids. they buy the necessities of life. and that money acts as a multiplier throughout our economy. now, this is mark zandi mood moody's moody'seconomic.com about what the g.d.p. increase is generated by $1 of stimulus going to these various things. food stamps are the best. for every $1 we put into food stamps $1.74, we get a g.d.p.

of $1.74. people spend the foot stamps on food. most of which are grown produced processed packaged, shipped and bought in america. unemployment benefits is next to that $1.61 g.d.p. increase for every $1. unemployment benefits, they're not using these to buy a mercedes. they're not using these to buy a new high-definition 3-d flat screen tv made in japan. they're not using these to buy a gold encrusted diamond studded rolex watch plaids in witsland. -- watch made in america. extending the bush tax cuts, for every dollar we put into it, we get back 32 cents of g.d.p.

growth. that's what the republicans want. why if we're trying to stimulate the economy would we put $1 into something that only returns us 32 cents when we could put $1 into unemployment benefits and get $1.61. or how about infrastructure investments, get back $1.57. aid to the states, but infrastructure. look at that. very close to unemployment benefits. yet, the republicans want to take money out of this and put it here. why don't we take money out of here when we're only getting back 2 cents and put it here? it seems to me that's a better deal for our economy. so it creates jobs, creates jobs and we get an increase in economic activity in our country. as i said earlier here it is. the average u.i. benefit is about $15,600. the poverty level $21,756 for a

family of four, for a family of four. it's powerful. it's a powerful benefit. food growths housing utilities, all of the things that you need just to keep life with the holidays coming up, our economy needs the money people need the benefits. ending the unemployment programs cutting out that revenue would be counterproductive for jobs. it's really counterproductive for the people who need these benefits. it doesn't make any sense. it makes no sense economically to cut off unemployment benefits but more importantly it makes no sense morally. it makes no sense morally. there is such a thing as right and wrong. there is such a thing as fair and unfair and just and unjust.

it is not just, it's not fair, it is not right that through no fault of their own we're saying to these people, the unemployed in america the millions -- whether it's 14.9 million or closer to 26 million or anywhere in between there it's just not right to say that, well, we'll -- we'll -- maybe maybe we'll extend your unemployment benefits after we increase -- or we extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society. totally irresponsible. totally, totally irresponsible. but that's where we find ourselves. that's where we find ourselves. and i say to the president of the united states, i say mr. president, you made a lot of

promises when you were campaigning in my state of iowa, made a lot of them, and one of the most you made was you were going to hold the line. you were going to hold the line, mr. president. you said this time and time and time again. at $250,000. you would extend the tax breaks for middle income below $250,000. you have got to hold to that, mr. president. you have got to hold to it. you have got to hold to it. and we'll see if the republicans want to shut down the government. do they want to shut the government down? that's what they're saying. because we're going to have to have a resolution here on the floor because it's going to run out -- a resolution to keep the government going. they're saying they will not pass that unless and until we extend the bush cuts for the wealthiest. i dare em. i would dare the republicans to shut the government down just

because they want to give tax breaks to the wealthy. i say if that's what they want to do, let the american people see the extent to which the republicans will go in order to help their wealthy friends. mr. president, hold to your guns. hold to your guns on $250,000 and below. don't give in, don't give up. the american people are behind you, mr. president. they're behind you on this one. and tell them you want -- you want unemployment benefits extended you want unemployment benefits extended, you want middle-class class -- tax breaks extended and we want to fund the government. we want to not let us go into default. we want that first. don't give up, mr. president. the american people will be behind you. and this congress will be behind

you, too. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: thank you mr. president. mr. president, the house today did pass legislation that would extend the tax cuts for those middle-class taxpayers that make under $200,000 a year. that's a good thing. i support that. but, mr. president why on earth would we extend the tax cuts for a certain segment of the population and not extend the tax cuts for everyone? why would we do that? who are the job creators in our country? what is the problem our country has right now?

jobs. we have an unemployment rate that is hovering around 10% so what should we be doing in congress to try to alleviate that situation? we should be doing everything in our power to create jobs in the private sector. the private sector is where jobs will be a career, where it will be something that will support a family that can grow. so of course we're going to support tax cuts for everyone, for everyone in this country because we are in an economic recession, and the idea of increasing taxes on the people who would create jobs is something that could only come out of washington. you know, all of us have been home for the last few weeks the last week was thanksgiving, and

we were in the grocery stores and we were talking to our colleagues and the people in our constituency. and time and time and time again, i heard people who are in the real world people who are creating jobs saying why don't you all address the issues of this country? don't you know what is happening here? well you know something? they've got a point. they've got a point because of course many of us have been saying this for a long time, but here we are, it is december, the last month of the year. the i.r.s. can't even print the tax forms because they don't know what the tax rates are going to be because congress left in september and didn't finish the job and now here we

are in december and we're going to have a train wreck. that's why those on our side have signed a letter saying we're not going to address any issue until we settle the tax issue and the issue of funding government. after that, there are many things that could be on the agenda but those are two things that are essential. so knowing the way things work around here and knowing that we could end up talking for two more weeks before we do anything, we're going to set the priority to say it is tax cuts and it is funding government, and if -- if we can do other things fine. if we can't then we go home. and i think the start treaty is very important and we're all looking at that, but we've got to make sure that the small business people of our country know what to expect and if they

can put people on even in this holiday season, it will make a difference. you know, president reagan and president kennedy and president bush 43 all did something that had the same effect on our revenue in this country. they cut taxes and revenue increased. cutting taxes is what increases and spurs the economy and it works every time. so now we're talking about deciding who is going to get their tax cuts and who isn't. we should be saying clearly and simply to the american people and especially to small business people who are waiting to see what their budgets are going to be next year we're not going to raise taxes on anybody because we want you to hire, we want you

to give jobs to the people of this country and if we can extend unemployment for those who have been out of work and can't find something and they're really trying and we can do it in a responsible way pay for it hopefully. you know, i believe if we cut taxes that that would spur the economy and pay for it. so tomorrow, apparently in the senate we're going to get the house bill that passed today that cuts taxes for some but not all. so what will happen if we do what the house has suggested? households will lose on average $20,000 in total disposable personal income between 2011-2020. total individual income taxes will increase by $37 million

between 2011-2020. jobs will be lost and small businesses are not going to hire. i mean, i can tell you that anecdotally because i have been talking to the small business owners in my state and i was a small business owner and i know what it takes to increase employment. the death tax will return with a vengeance. now, a lot of people think oh, a death tax that's just going to affect the heirs of rich people. well what i think we have to remember is that a -- estates over $1 million will be taxed at the 55% rate. so many small businesses in this country are either farms or ranches where the valuation at

death on the property is going to be so much hire than the productivity on that land, that heirs are going to be faced with selling the property to pay the taxes which means it will no longer have any capacity for hiring people or productivity. and the same is true for small manufacturing companies. i was a small manufacturer. i can tell you that my congresswomen was worth a whole lot more than the productivity of that equipment. now, you can pay for it over time so you own the equipment but then if you die and your heirs had to pay a huge estate tax on the value of equipment then they're going to have to sell the equipment and therefore you have lost a business. the statistics in this country of family businesses that are passed to the second generation and the third generation are

abysmal. it's about 50% that goes to the second generation. third generation, 20% to 30%. who does that hurt? of course it hurts the families, yes, it does. it also hurts the employees of those family-owned businesses. they're the ones who are out of work. so the estate tax going to 55% over $1 million is not good public policy, and it would be outrageous for us to leave this year and go into that kind of estate tax. it's confiscatory. i mean, i have to tell you that i think it walks away from the american dream. the american dream that you can start from nothing in this country and you can build something and you can give the fruits of your labor to your

children is the american dream. that's what people come here and work seven days a week in restaurants to try to build something to give to their children. and who are we to take that away? that is the american dream but it will be gone at the end of this year if we don't address that issue in congress. capital gains and dividends, how many of our older people are living on capital gains and dividends? because i guarantee you anybody who has got a bank account knows that you're not earning anything from that. you're not earning from cash because the interest rates are so low that many of our seniors are struggling. and if they have a nest egg of a stock that is paying some

dividends, then that's what they're living on, many of them. so we're going to raise the tax on dividends from 15% to 20% at a time when so many seniors are struggling? that's what's going to happen if we don't address the tax cuts by the end of this year. the marriage penalty that's my bill. i introduced the relief from the marriage penalty. why would two people working get married and go into a higher tax bracket in this country? we address that issue. for most people, we have eliminated the marriage penalty but not at the end of this year if we don't act. at the end of this year, the marriage penalty comes back, so a policeman and a schoolteacher who get married are going to have to pay about $1,200 more in

taxes just because they want to get married. a schoolteacher and a policeman. it's an absolute fact. is that what we really want in this country? small business owners pay at the individual rates sub chapter s small business. many small businesses are created to be able to pay at the individual tax rate. over 50% of the income from small businesses in our country is paying at the individual tax rate. so now we're going to say that individuals whose tax rates are going to go up over -- if they make over $250,000, which is

many of the small businesses in our country are going to be paying at the higher rate. so these are the things that are going to happen if we don't act. now, the house has passed legislation that is going to be devastating for the people who are unemployed in this country. how could we even think of doing something so drastic? so i hope that tomorrow when the senate takes up the house bill that we send it back to the house and say this is not going to go? and i will say to the president of the united states i thought that the president -- i thought mr. president, that you said you were open to working on extending the taxes for

everyone and yet here we are with the leadership of the house who just talked to the president this week, and we have the same thing that they have been talking about for all these months. no give, nothing changed there we are. it is december. the people of america expect the leaders of the united states congress to address the issues that are on people's minds. we are three weeks from christmas. we are four weeks from the end of the year. how could we leave without taking responsible action to let everyone in this country who is paying taxes know? i hope for two or three or four or five years so they can plan.

and last, mr. president the last thing i want to say is one thing that seems to be missing in the halls of congress is the importance to a small business especially and to a family, but to a small business that is thinking of expanding and hiring people is stability predictability. you can't say we're going to extend the tax cuts for a year or two and really, really do the right thing for the economy of our country. you really should do it -- you really ought to do it permanently, to be honest, but if you're not going to do it permanently, at least do it for five years. at a minimum three or two years. because it's not going to cost the government to give these tax cuts. we are keeping it the way it is now. we are trying to spur job --

jobs being created in our country. so when people talk about it is going to cost the government "x" billion dollars to let people keep the money they earn, i mean, they're going right over the heads of the american people. so predictability is the most important thing that we can do for small businesses, so they can plan, so they can say we're going to expand our product line, we are going to expand our service area. these are the things that they can do if they know what their tax commitments are going to be. and if they know what their health care costs are going to be. that's what's freezing the economy right now. because people don't know what to expect. so mr. president i hope that the president of the united states is listening. i hope that the leadership of

the senate is listening and most certainly i hope that the house of representatives will come to the table and see that we can do better than this, and we ought to do it before we leave this week or next week, so that people know what to expect and how they can sit down at the end of the year and plan their businesses to create jobs in this country. that is the christmas present that people would like. they want jobs. they want to work to support their families. they don't want to live on unemployment. they don't want to live on food stamps. that's not a life. it's not a future. it's not hope. and that's what they want. a future and hope for their families. so i hope, myself, that we, the leaders of america, will give the american people what they

deserve and what clearly is in the long-term interests of their families. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. lemieux: mr. president are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. lemieux: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor, as many of us have done in recent weeks to pay tribute to a member of congress who is retiring to a great floridian and a great american, a man i'm proud to call a colleague and a friend my friend, congressman lincoln diaz des a. he is retiring after 18 years of service in the united states house of representatives. born in la vanna cuba, he came to the united states in 1959 at the age of four years old. his father raphael had just been elected senator in cuba. but he could not take office or remain in due cuba because of the rise of the dictator fidel castro.

lincoln rose in the house of representatives to become a senior member of the rules committee, the ranking member of the subcommittee of the legislative and budget process and now the cochairman of our congressional delegation. he is also the chairman of the congressional hispanic leadership institute. lincoln grew up in south florida. attended public schools there and high school but also attended school in madrid, spain. he received a degree in international relations from new college in sarasota and obtained a diploma in british politics in cambridge, england. he received his law degree from case western reserve university in cleveland. he started the practice of law in miami. he worked for legal services of greater miami providing free legal services to the poor. he was subsequently an assistant state attorney, prosecuting those who've committed crimes, and a pattern in the prestigious

fouler-white law firm. he was first elected to the legislature in florida in 1986 but just three years later ran for the united states congress. in 1992, he served his first term i guess it was in the florida 21st congressional district and served as member of the house foreign affairs committee. in 1994 he became the first hispanic in history to be named to the powerful rules committee. in 1996 he drafted much of the legislation that strengthened the embargo against cuba and its dictatorship. in 1997, he showed his penchant for helping those in need by carrying out efforts to restore the supplemental security income and food assistance to legal immigrants who were denied aid by the welfare reform law of the previous year. as a member of the house rules committee, on september 14,

2001 congressman diaz belard took to the floor of the house the resolution authorizing the use of force in afghanistan after the september 11 attacks. congressman diaz bellart lives in miami with his wife and their two sons lincoln and daniel. when he retires,ful fll lose a voice, as will this country and as will those to care about freedom around the wompletd he has fought for florida families with integrity and effective effectiveness. from his time in the statehouse and the state senate and his service in congress, hayes served with passion, drive and a sphed fast determination to do what is right. most of all, and what i appreciate him most for, he has been a champion of freedom and democracy, and not just in cuba but throughout latin america and

throughout the world. no one in congress is more passionate about ending the oppression that cubans suffer under the regime. his efforts are known not just here but throughout the world. he is a voice of change, and he is a passionate believer in the rights of people to be free everywhere. he speaks for political prisoners held in the regime's prisons. he speaks for those who suffer beatings for speaking out against their captors. and he speaks for everyday cubans who hunger for their freedom they have avenue never felt. i have heard lincoln speak many times about the plight of the cuban people. i have seen his desire to see the people of cuba enjoy the prize of liberty that has been denied them by the tyrant for more than 50 years. and when he speaks about these issues you feel his passion. and it has been great voice and

light of liberty throughout florida, this country, and the world. and to know lincoln is to know one of his heroes, and that was his father, rafael diaz bellard a well-respected public servant when he had to leave cuba in 1959. when he arrived in the united states lincoln's father established the white rose, the first anticastro civic organization. when lincoln returns to florida he will lead a nonprofit inspired by the white rose. and i know that his father looking down from heaven will continue to be proud of his son. the united states house of representatives will not be the same without his talents. but florida will continue to benefit by having him back at home full-time and i am certain, as an article in his hometown pairntion "the miami herald" noted that even thoughes has announced his retirement the pulpit will

change but the passion will not. to me lincoln will always be a steadfast ally in the cause for freedom 90 miles away from our shores in florida. he knows that freedom is not negotiable and its cause is the most noble cause in the world. our country and our world is better off because of my friend, lincoln diaz-balart. and i will always be grateful to him, because when i came here to the united states senate with him and his brother mario diaz-balart, another great champion for freedom, i was mentored in the issues that affect my state and so many of the people of my state who come from cuba and other countries in latin america. and through their mentoring and through their passion and through the education that they provided to me, i was better to understand this plight, a plight that most of my colleagues, i

don't think can know as well as we can in florida. that just 90 miles from our shore is an evil dictator that oppresses his people. when i am in florida talking with folks oftentimes i will make the remark -- if i am, say mr. president, in orlando florida. can they imagine that just 90 miles away, say in west palm beach, florida that it would be illegal to speak out against the government, illegal to practice your religion, illegal to gather together in association to express your political beliefs? all of the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted just 90 miles from our shore people are jailed, are killed for trying to exercise those freedoms. it was brought home to me most when i visited recently a man by the name of ariel siegler.

ariel was a political prisoner in cuba for seven years. he has recently been released and he was in miami receiving medical care. ariel is a man who was a professional boxer a large strapping man but he didn't just fight with his hands. he also raised his voice for freedom in his native cuba. and when he did so, he was thrown in jail, and now he is a man who is about 100 pounds less in weight, whose once towering frame is regulated to a wheelchair. because for seven years, he was in prison just for want to go criticize his government. he was put in a small cell with several other prisoners. he was fed maggot-infested food, and he had to wash in a pipe and drink from a pipe, sitting

outside his cell, as did all the other prisoners and it made him sick desperately sick. and this happens just 90 miles from the shore of this country. it is intolerable, but i know of this and my heart bleeds for the cuban people because of the great work of congressman lincoln diaz-balart. so we will miss him. his voice has fought for freedom in this body in the united states congress for 18 years but as the "miami herald" said, the pulpit will change but the passion will not and we know that he will continue to hold that lamp of freedom and be an advocate for people and people who yearn to be free throughout the world. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: i ask unanimous consent the senate now stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. recess:

>> yesterday senate party leader mitch mcconnell announced that all 42 republican senators have signed a letter stating that

they would block any legislative work until the federal budget and expiring tax cuts were dealt with. today democratic senator sheldon whitehouse mack tried to move the bill forward providing a cost-of-living increase for elderly social security recipients v. juju there plans republican senator john barrassol? presid objected. their exchange less about 25 minutes.d. e pr es >> i see my distinguished friend i the senator from wyoming is here on the floor and i would like to make a few remarks about the social security cola. there's >> there is no time remaining with the majority. ask unan >> may i ask unanimous consent tong speak as if in morning business for 10 minutes? w hi >> without objection. >> thank you. remar, i at the end of my remarks i willconsen propound a unanimous consent request that the minority party

mi isnori coming and i wanted to -- let me find the language of the e l request.an i want to make sure i get that wan right. isl thank you. i travel around madam president my state pretty often and when i do, i hear a lot in rhode island in rh about the sacrifices that people have had to make during what are for our sake still very difficult economic times.ver we are still at 11% o m unemployment. many of my constituents have objected to this difficult economic climate by b cutting backras on extras and finding savings in their personal lives wherever they can, but or our seniors andisla rhode island has a very big big population of seniors who live o

on a limited budget, simply simpl cutting back is a very very harsh option for them and in 2008 rhode island seniors on r social security received an average monthly payment of about $1100.$1,100. $1100 a month is not a lot toot live on.northeas i' particularly in the northeast. who i have heard from seniors who worry abouabt keeping the heat on in their homes because oil ve prices are so high. i've heard from seniors who have to split pills or skip doses because their prescription costs an are so high.srom i am hearing this from people who have worked hard all of their lives who paid into their system throughout their careers b and who believed that they would be able to grow old comfortablyand insad man and instead many of them are really just scraping by on their social security benefits and the

benefits often no longer coveriving their daily living expenses.eople so for people in the situation every penny counts. this past year for the first since time since 1975, social security isl recipients in rhode island and in new york and elsewhere, did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment or cola and it cola. appears that they will not rece receive aiv cost-of-living adjustment or cola in 2011 cost-ofiving either. these yearly adjustments are dictated by a specific formulaer. that is tied to inflation and i are know that because of the slow tide economy inflation has been infla stagnant over the past two inflation has years, so their rigid mathematical formula that drives the cost-of-living adjustment does not presently provide for the cost-of-living adjustment se that seniors n need. this is a misfire in the cost-of-living calculation does a

it is based on a market basket senion't b which includes things that o seniors don't buy a lot of senate doesn't put adequate weight on heat and oil and ergy energy a and prescriptions and medical devices and things that seniors do spend a lot of money on.it it also overlooks people like chuck who is a 67-year-oldrovidenc retiree from north providence, rhode island who wrote to me expre h is recently to express his concern that his monthly social security frozen income will be frozen at its current level for yet another ye year.rote that he wrote that regardless of what cola the cola formula concludes hisf l cost of living continues to rises chuck says prices have risen --tions ha also everson at the supermarket. medications have increased inayin co-payments.e today i am paying more and getting less for the dollar. chk madam president i believe chucks speaks for many american seniorses

when he expresses ccooncerns about the lack of an increase in social security payments. rise i so today i rise in support of the emergency senior citizens a relief act introduced by my colleague, senator sanders, a vermont.l this bill would help ease the strain strain on the budgets of our seniors by provid ing a special one-time payment in 2011 of $250 to all social securitywould b a recipients. in effect it would be cola replacent. replacement. although a 250-dollar cola r replacement may not sound like muchep money for those on aget, limited bud get, the extra financial assistance provides a mi little extra peace of mind in this skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. for seniors in new england the keep payment can help keep the heathe on through the approaching winter. winter. this assistance would not beile thishe fir unprecedented. while this is the first year inreceive decades that seniors did not tak

receive a cola we have taken steps in recent years to provide a special help to seniors and toing th disabled american struggling through this recession. in 2008 i worked very hard with my colleague to secure a 300-dollar rebate for seniors and ssdi recipients in that year's economic stimulus act.make s in 2090 uragain works to make sure and that the american recovery and reinvestment act included a one-time, 250-dollar payment to seniors and ssdi recipients. we now have the chance to once ag lend again landed at helping hands too our seniors. t passing this bill would be the for right thing to do for seniors obviously, but it is also a goodor thing to do for our struggling in rho islan economy. in rhode island for example the $ payments would inject more51 than $51 million into our economy money that would be quickly spent on essential items like food and medicine. the

madam president as i said at the beginning, rhode island is hurting. unemployment stands at 11.4%. tn gas is now more than $3 per gallon and their seniors face fzen so ci their frozen social security passing payment. i passing the emergency senior citizens relief act we can show our seniors that they are notour forgotten and to turn to the local grocery stores pharmacies that remains such an integrall part of our local economies areues to joi urged my colleagues to join me by o in standing by our nation's seniors and to support the emergency senior citizens relief act. and, i am done with that. in that regard i ask unanimous consentt consent that the financemittee committee be discharged of s. 3976, which is the emergency

senior citizens relief act of 2010 that i have beenac discussing that the senate proceed to its immediatee be consideration that there be resp four hours ofect debate with respect to the bill divided and controlled by senator sanders and the republican leader or his designee and that no amendmentse in or motions be in order during upon u o dependency of the agreement, that upon the use or yielding rea back my time the bill be read a thired time and the senateassage o proceed to vote on passage of the bill. objectio >> is there an objection? >> madam president?wyoming. >> the senator from wyoming.esident, res >> madam president reserving the right toervi object.enator aee with the senator agreed to that include an amendment that would offset the cost of the bill with the unspent federal funds the text of which i have at the desk? at t >> at the moment, the unanimous ve consent that i have propounded pro

is the one that has been cleareded w with the floor managers on both sides, and i would stick to what has been cleared. wh i am happy to discuss with side how colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for but i cannot help but note that theo colleagues on the other side do not share their concern for the payment and paygo side of the equation when it comes to for people making many millions of many dollars a year that we are at we trying to get exempted as we try to provide tax relief to the middle class. so what would be hard for me to hold seniors getting a

250-dollar, one-time benefit in a year in which the cola formula has misfired and they areisfi getting no cola benefit despite their other costs going up and at the same time that they asked t to oagree to hundreds of thousands of dollars per million per air in some cases in tax relief that is not paid for and i should think that we should hold if anything, the senior should be held to a lower standard than multimillionaires for home the ltimil tax benefit would amount to potentially hundreds of amo thousands of dollars. so whenun i set those two ie m appreciate my colleagues very legitimate concern about the w cost that this would provide. i would submit that we are in still, at least in my state, in this stage of recovery where we continue t o need to revive thee eco economy, but this will be veryin t

beneficial to our country in terms of its economic recovery and that it wunould be unfair to hold seniors to a different standard for the 250-dollar cola replacement at a harsher a standard then we withhold our multimillionaires to hundreds of for hundr thousands of dollars in tax relief. so i standdoll by the request asnimous cons propounded for unanimousent - consent.-ing offi >> madam president? there >> is there an objection? >> madam president reserving the rerv in the rigght to object and a note on today's front page of "usa today," jobless data could break the 80's record. not since the early 1980s has 1 the nation's unemployment rate been so grim for so long. the government report due fridayy is likely to show. show. it goes on to say the chronic level of high unemployment shows that many americans are still suffering, even though the gove rn government the national bureau has said on economic research has said receson

has the recession officially ended. the people of this country know know what is happening in their own communities and in their own an doesn 't states and it doesn't need to hey be told different things by the in government when they know the reality in which they are my living. i heard from my distinguishede some conrns t colleague some concerns that we all share about the economy and what's best way to stimulatewth. an economic growth. and i believe as to members of my side of the aisle that one of things things you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times. we we are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that position but madam p resident listening to myoy colleague, there are now actually it growing chorus of c members on that side of the ai aisle that are agreeing with met including the two newest members of the senate from the other side of the aisle who have come distinged here and the distinguished senator from west virginia and the one from delaware. from we st the one from west virginia,

while running for the senate said i wouldn't raise any taxes ferrin referring tog the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire come the y end of this year. the senator elect and newly signed, sworn in fromro delaware in terms of tax cuts he said i w would extend them for everyone,here so there is a growing chorus on the way to give this economy and the job creating segment of this economy some certainty. so, they can then make thehire the investments, make the decisions hire the people to try to dot -- we are that. so we are unanimous in oursing support for not raising taxes on anyone during economic times and like these and a growing chorus chnd the and then as a result madam o president i object. >> i appreciate the senator's objection. i would respond by saying that even i f even if we decide the right

answer at this point is to raise is to continue a massivemassive tax cut for people who make i think it was recently reported that the 400 vaguest income earners in the country earned an average each of $344 million a of third of a trillion a third ofn -- a billion dollars each and so the tax cuts for people like a god create a very very significant i und cost to the country. and i understand that it is the senator's theory that it is to h our economic benefit but clearly there is a very high cost in our

deficit to going down that path and my motivation in offering this unanimous consent is thatt our seniors who will spend the 250-dollar one-time payment virtually immediately, which every economist i have ever seen who discusses the economic stimulus effects of these different types of expenditure agrees would be far more beneficial if it were the 250-dollar payment on behalf of seniors then it would be when the highest end people get these massive tax refunds and benefits benefs. that it would be fair to treat seniors the same way and so i regret t regret that we face this the

objection, and i think the obction objection is inconsistent in the sense that you are holding with this objection seniors to a higher standard a harsher standard then you are holding millionaires and billionaires to everybody knows about the marginal utility of money and for a senior on a fixed income, $250 extra at the end of the year at christmastime, whether it means keeping the house warm, 40 new prescription drug payments, being a old to set as little money aside for presents for their grandchildren, that is very important funding and notot just from a humanitarian point of view. it it needs to get plowed right back into the economy. into goes to the local toy store, the g local grocery store or the local pharmac pharmacy. it gets put try to work. work. i don't know what happens with

somebody making $344 million a m year gets a million-dollar tax break, but -- you have been extended your time. >> i thank the presiding officer for her courtesy. >> madam president? >> the senator from wyoming. >> thank you madam president. in response to myou colleague rum rhode island despite over a $13 trillion in existing debt that we can't pay back, theer democrats are back with another proposal to add another $13 billion to the deficit added to the growing deficit.'t even and this one isn't even a new's a proposal. pposal it is a a proposal that was 50 already rejected by 50 senators including 11 members from acrossm acrohe ais le the aisle and number of months ago. if we are going to attempt toe a going help those seniors to help thehaveeen seniors as mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way.rt -- i

so i support, i absolutely support helping the seniors that are having a hard time. d that's w i just propose that we pay for it and that is why i offered the amendment to the proposal from w the senator from rhode island that would in factfact just pay for it, simple as that. i propose that instead of pilingtn money, debt on top of our massive debt what i have offered as an amendment that would offer the office of management and budget to cut ant appropriate amount from other other programs to help them find money to pay for this one.mr. whehouse: wo >> you with the senator yield for a question?dam >> yes maam president, i would. >> with the senator questioned through the chair?in with the senator explained why it is when it comes to the deficit is more important toan it

is protect our national debt than it is to help our seniors, but it is less important to help our deficit and our debt than it is to give tax breaks to multi,multimulionair multimillionaires. as i said, the 400 highest incom income earners have made moreearners e than one third of a billion dollars each on average, so it t woulhad strike me that the deficition e and the debt is a patter of nationalac concern that should apply equally to millionaires, ian mean super, ultra, hypermillionaires as seniors to getting by on social security get and i don't understand by the security. deficit matter so much when it the comes to depriving our seniors of the cola adjustments that doesn't appear to matter at all snore when it comes to providing the very wealthiest americans, the people who have their own jets col

the people whoa have their own yachts, the people who have you know, seven homes additional tax relief that the most millionaires that come forward on the state sago goldwater need.that it is unpatriotic frankly from f their perspective not to be asked to contribute more. aske to >> madam president, thank you. the way that i have proposed to i pay for this, to help those seniors and help those that have help those needs is a proposal that is very familiar to this p bodybody a and it is because 21 of my democratic colleagues voted in fa favor of this way to pay for thi something earlier this week. when this same pay for was for attached to an amendment from my colleague, senator johanns, fromco nebraska that would haveould repealed an unfortunatealed paperwork and eight in the health care law and i would be happy to list all of the senators who voted forll this. i'm

sorry so i am sorry that my friend ais isn across the iowa since joining me in supporting this fiscally fiscall responsible support for our s seniors but as they say on theayating thno issue of stimulating the economy thi ands giving some certainty in this nation to those jobreators, creators the republicans are united, 42 of us say younyone shouldn't raise taxes on anyone during economic times like theserus and the chorus of democrats whod itrew support that continues to grow and it grew this past week from confere nc five members of the democratic conference to seven, with the swearing in of senator kunz of delaware and senator manchin west virginia. virgini senator kent conrad from north dakota has said the general rule of thumb is that you do not raise raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn so that would be counterproductive so he says do not raise taxes during an economic downturn.

senator evan bayh said the economy is very weak right now. rais raising taxes will over consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy.b, docrat senate jim www.senator fromvirg virginia said i don't think they think ought to be drawing aht to be distinction at a certain dollar number. er. senator ben nelson from nebraska iupport said, i support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until nebraska and the nation's economy is in better shape he said, and perhaps longer because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery. senator joe liebermanon'think connecticut, said i don't they raise can make sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are then, of struggling through. and then of course senator coons i would extend the tax cuts for would everyone and senator mention and vir then governor of west virginia i would raise any taxes so the

time was 9.6 unemployment come at a time when our nation continues to struggle time people economically, it is time people wor are looking for work wanting to work, looking forki jobs that job co creationun sector of this country an needs some certainty.health with a mandate to the health care laws, which are expensive comin the environmental mandates rules coming from the environmental protection agency with their rules and regulations impactingst o the cost of energy and then they that uncertainty the significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax rates will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their take-home pay come january 1. is it is no surprise that people rtant are concerned and reluctant toterm make commitments, long-term commitments innd investments in businesses and in the future and that is why i stand here to object to my colleagues from colle rhode island when he makes a

al w proposal which there is support for but is unpaid for. for we just need to pay for it and ior bring to the senate floor a responsible way in which to pay for it and which he has rejected. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. >> the senate is now in a recess. subject to the call of the chair so democratic members can attend a caucus meeting on their approach to tax legislation. a lot of talk today on the senate floor on extending bush era tax cuts and the house approved measure that extends tax cuts for those families earning less than $250000. while we wait for the senate to return, president obama today said his top rarities for the lame-duck session are extending those bush era tax cuts for the middle-class. and extending unemployment benefits. he pm vice president biden addressed a group of newly-elected governors of the blair house which is just across the street from the white house.

this is almost 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me begin by saying congratulations to all of you and you know, i always ran for united states senate and would never have had the courage to run for governor or mayor because they know where you live and you really have to get rings done. in the senate we had a nice time. [laughter] seriously, congratulations and i know all of you are facing no matter how good a shape you are in your states because of this worldwide recession that is going on and because of the slowness of the recovery although it is recovering. you have a whole lot of daunting problems to face and you all have to balance your budgets and so we know it is going to be

tough. but i can tell you and if you talk to some of your colleagues who did not run this time i have had the pleasure over the last year and a half literally to be in contact with every governor multiple times in trying to implement the recovery act, and so and they made a commitment to the governors and i make it again. you may or may not need or want the assistance that the federal level on some of the things which might be helpful on, but i guarantee you any questions you have, any difficulty you have been dealing with any aspect of the federal bureaucracy, and i kept this commitment pick up the phone and call me personally. i guarantee you i will have you an answer within 24 hours and if i don't have the final answer i will call you within 24 hours and tell you when you get the answer.

because this is a partnership whether we like it or not. i happen to like it that you are in a place where people look. you are the place where all the basic services to that determine the quality of life are determined, and we want to be helpful. one of the things we are doing and i look around at cabinet members here and they can attest to this, is that we want to make sure that we are totally responsive and when we don't agree, we don't agree. when we agree, we agree that the only thing that is dangerous is uncertainty, and so rest assured you literally, not figuratively can pick up the phone. i encourage you to call me. you probably don't have to do that at you will get responsive answers from the cabinet members here. if you did not or you are having any difficulty, call and that will give you an answer. now the other thing i want to say to you is that you know, i

have had the chance to travel in most of your states and literally talks to thousands of your constituents from your teachers and your firefighters to the business owners to the mothers and fathers. everybody has a sense of anxiety about is this thing going to keep on moving. so to the extent we can all be on the same page and doing the one thing we all want to do. we want to provide people with jobs. we want to provide people with decent jobs and a decent opportunity. part of it all relates to giving them some vision for how we are going to get to the place that they want to be, which is once again an economy that is growing robustly and with middle-class people having a fair chance of staying there and those seeking have an equal opportunity to climb into it because that is what i think at

least my view, the vast majority of people in the states want. folks, we are going to have to rebuild the economy together. we are going to have to reimagine a better future for the american people and we are going to have to renew a sense of hope in all of our constituents, all americans, in order to get to the place we have to be. i would just offer is an observation that i can't think of any time as a student of history, like all of you, where the american people were given a chance that they have ever ever, ever ever let the country down. i can't think of a single solitary incident where that is the case. that is what democrats and republicans are about just give them a chance. give them a fighting chance is all we are asking for. i want to help you out. i am from the federal government but we are here and

use us as best you can in dealing with the problems you have. so folks without further ado my real job here today is to introduce the president of the united states and without any further explanation ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the president of the united states of america, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you so much everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. please, have a seat. have a seat. well congratulations first of all to all of you for your victory and welcome to the blair house. you are part of a long line of illustrious visitors in this space. winston churchill used to hang out here when he was in the

midst of working with fdr during world war ii. truman stayed here for four years when they were redoing the white house residence, and abraham lincoln was a close friend of blair's so he used to visit here almost every night. and, you know, as some of you i am sure are aware i read link in a lot and think about lincoln a lot and i think one story that comes to mind right now is at the time that he was president he used to come in and secret service weren't there to nag you and for askew and somebody demands to see him and insist on waiting and finally lincoln left him in. the guy says i am responsible for you being elected president of the united states. and lincoln says, really? i did all the work. i was one of your hardest workers and now expects some

help and lincoln says well let me tell you if you are indeed responsible for helping me get elected, i forgive you. [laughter] now some of you may feel the same way or at least you will and a month or so but you know the truth is that as somebody who has served in state government i am aware of the fact that state government and local government is where the rubber hits the road. a lot of times we have a lot of abstract debate here in washington, but each day and every day, you are close to the ground and you are seeing the impacts of the decisions that are made whether in washington or in your state capitols. in very intimate ways. and so i have nothing but respect and regard for the chief executives of all 50 of our state and i am looking forward to working with each and everyone of you. i want to spend most of my time in a dialogue so i'm not going

to give a long speech. underscore to remark on a couple of points. point number one, we have just had a very vigorously contested election that the election is over, and now i think it is time for all of us to make sure we are working together. i am a very proud democrat and some of you in the room park, although not as many as i had expected. [laughter] some of you are very proud republicans but we are all prouder to be americans in this country has gone through a wrenching two years, the worst financial crisis since the great depression and the toughest economy that most of us have seen in our lifetimes. so as a consequence i think it is absolutely critical that whatever our position, whatever our parties that wherever we can we can pull together to make sure we are doing right by the american people and they know that everybody in this room

believes that. in that spirit, just earlier this week we had a meeting with both democratic and republican leaders here in washington to start talking about how we can find ways to agree on promoting growth and promoting jobs across all 50 states. i am actually optimistic that before the end of the year, we are going to have come to some agreements on some critical issues. obviously issue number one is making sure that on january 1 middle-class families aren't seeing their taxes go up as a consequence of the expiration of some of the bush tax cuts that are currently in place and some of the tax cuts we put in place over the last two years. so that is going to be an important discussion over the next several days. i believe it will get resolved. that doesn't mean there may not be some posturing over the next several days, but i'm confident in the end people are going to recognize that it is important

for families who are still struggling to have some relief and it is important for our economy to make sure that money is still out there circulating at a time when we are recovering but we are not recovering as fast as we need to. along the same lines, i am hopeful that we get the issue of unemployment insurance resolved. some of you may be aware that as of today we have got 2 million people is stand to lose their unemployment insurance over the course of the year if we don't do something. 7 million people could lose their unemployment insurance. that is not -- not that is not just a potential tragedy for those individual families. it could have a huge impact on your local economies because every economist of every stripe will tell you that unemployment insurance dollars are probably the ones that are most likely to be spent most likely to be recirculated, most likely to help to boost small business and

services all across your states and they are going to have an effect on your sales revenue. so our hope and expectation is that unemployment insurance, something that traditionally has had bipartisan support, is something that once again will be dealt with as part of a broader package. here is the good news. the economy is on the uptick. we have now had five consecutive quarters of economic growth and we have had 10 consecutive months of private-sector job growth. but i think we all recognize that it is not moving as quickly as it needs to and there are going to be a whole range of issues that we are going to have to focus on together at the federal and state levels to assure not only that we get out of this crisis but more importantly that we are laying the foundation for long-term growth in the future. and although there are going to be some disagreements on how we get there, there are going to be some areas where we agree. wield agreed that were going to

have to have the best educated workforce in the world because their children now are not just competing against other children in other states in our union, they are now competing against kids in beijing and bangalore and seoul, south korea. if they don't have what it takes to compete, then america is going to have problems economically over the long-term. that is why i'm so proud under the guidance of arne duncan, that we have initiated some reforms that have garnered strong bipartisan support and frankly as a democrat, i have been willing to go after some long held dogmas in our party in order to spring loose a smarter conversation about how we are educating our kids. our race to the top program is something that has allowed states across the country to initiate reforms in a competitive way and make sure that ideas like charter schools get traction despite reviews resistance.

and i am hoping that we can incorporate with all of you to see how we can continue to make progress on the education front. all of us are going to be interested in innovation and research and development. and there are governors here governor select here from both parties who are adjusted and clean energy for example and what can we do to make sure that wind turbines and solar panels and electric cars are made here in the united states, that doesn't become one more source of imports from other countries. i am eager to work with all of you on those issues. i th