edition of the law of government procurement which would be more modern. i also believe notices should be made for procurement for an internet web site to publish information about such things, an opportunity for companies regarding their influence in centers and experts to the extent that they meet modern requirements and in sync with current crisis situation so for the next few years the forecast to the procurement with state of yarder equipment and other things, high-tech product on behalf of the government and state-owned companies provided for and subsequently the forecasting horizon should be extended in which case investors

and research will know exactly the progress of their work will be in demand. a great role in increasing demand for technology can be accomplished through modernization weather they like it or not. it is a series of science and technology pushed ahead specifically by -- and investments by the government in a new technical solution. we are facing the goal of creating a new high-tech -- what we are going to do is over twenty thousand billion rubles toward those purposes. this is a lot of money. the investments will pay for themselves at the end of the day. they give us the use of technology. helping modernize the production and develop a wide research at

universities. we are setting up the special entity whose job is to identify and develop technologies for the defense industry. such entities operate and hoping many of them will find use in everyday life. a most important indicator of quality of life is the quality of the political system. to improve its at the federal level a number of decisions have been made. as i stood at this very place in 2008 i formulated a position and in 2009 and formulated another position which involve improvements in the political system. i would like to thank everyone who was involved in discussing those issues and members of the council of the federation. at the level of local

government, we need additional steps in a local self-government, an important element of any democratic state. the majority in the work of municipality is virtually nonexistent as a result of local level parties performing to function of all russian political organizations and my proposal is make it mandatory to use proportion for the electoral system as the elections of representatives bodies in the municipal contingencies and municipalities for the number of businesses at least 20. we set out to modernize the armed forces and already updated personnel of the armed forces. the system of combat readiness and also started conducting a regular basis war games. next year special focus has to be given to the aerospace defense of this country and

modern russia needs a modern army and navy and also needs to shed and functions that should not be performing. also we are not just building up our forces but also cooperation in the security area. russia is prepared to work on enhancing mechanisms of counteracting missile proliferation. at the russian nato segment i shared my considerations regarding architecture with european systems which would make use of potential russia and the northern alliance and defend europe against missile strikes. the alternative is either we agree on an anti-missile defense and create a full-fledged mechanism or a new spiral of the arms race will begin and we will

have to make a decision on deploying new strike capabilities. it is completely august that this scenario would be very grave. in lisbon decisions were made to build modern partnerships based on the principles of the indivisibility of security and mutual trust, who have determined how we will work and how we will work on the creation of peace and security in the region. this is cautious optimism in evaluating prospects of working on the russian initiative and starting a treaty. we have to correlate results with practical outcomes for the

organization. the policy must be expressed not only in missile but specific and clearly understood achievements by citizens in the creation of joint ventures. and high quality and increase of the number of jobs with these issues and this approach has meant understanding and we should work in a targeted manner with companies that are prepared for that. we are shaping up modernization partnerships essentially with germany and france. great potential lies in building up the innovation component of china, india, brazil, republic of korea and china and canada and several other countries.

these partnerships seek to accomplish five priorities of russia's technological modernization. as far as reaching those goals in extending cooperation with european union and the united states of america of the russian/u.s. partnership must be used in order to establish full scale economic cooperation, improve investment and ensuring direction in the high-tech area. the agreement between russia and the european union partnership for modernization is an idea we formulated a year ago, must work along these avenues. involved the change of technology. modernization of technical regulations, practical assistance of the part of the european union as far as russia

exception to the wto. and solicitation of the recent rich beem with complete elimination in the short term. next week caviling gauge our partners in brussels at the european union -- we must take advantage of russian participation in the forum extending relationships with countries in that region requiring a strategic -- that is something the example of a relationship with china and high levels of cooperation, to our

partnership in the nationally and helping him increase the influence of such entities -- serious reserve is available in terms of long-term cooperation with african nations and special priority is of course an important policy the euro sector that operates in it. already set up a customs union and creating single economic space in the euro sector framework. we are trying out new integration schemes and should work towards building a single economic space from the arctic to the specific that will take up the entire territory. as it relies on unique

experience, technical, russia can become the global european system of fighting emergencies. at the g 20 summit the initiative concerning the amalgamation of efforts to preserve the marine environment from oil spills. now we have to tackle our main goal, exchange the best practices of the area and prevention for liquidation of consequences of oil spills. international action fighting piracy must be made more energetic. we have international mechanisms to help green fighters for a responsibility. as a result, they can get away with it. that remains an incentive for

them. i expect the agency to come up with specific results in these areas. defense. together wese areas. defense. together we have to implement plans. i have not the slightest doubt we will do a great job at that. i will just add a few words that are normally -- these words could be most important worre n. we are rejuvenating this country. we are rejre n.enating our soci. we are changing our life. we ourselves are changing. in the grand scale of things, everything we are doing, we are ghteing for those we love more than anybody else, our children.

we want them to live better than us. we want them to do things we won't have time to do. said that a successful future of our great future will come together. i am positive that this indeed will be the case. [applause] ♪the c

the cthe c ♪ [applause]

>> without the new start treaty being ratified we do not have a verification method to ensure we know what the russians are doing and they don't know what we are ghteing and when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons that is a much more dangerous world to live idy >> find out more about the expired start nuclear arms treaty with russia and what it might accomplish and where it stands now as well as its history on line at the c-span video library. search, watch and share. washington your way. >> we are postponing a regularly scheduled booktv programming today as the u.s. senate is holding a rare saturday session to discuss tax cut legislation. we will discuss two propos. l concerning the bush era tax cuts. amendments by senator muss bd and charles schumer will be debated for two hours this morning and following that ds 10:30 eastern. live coverage of the ogrs. senao on cphpan2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please me in inviting chaplain, dr. barry black, who will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, source of our joys and all our abundance. as we convene for this rare

saturday session, we acknowledge that no problem is too difficult for you. lord, we bring you our needs and difficulties, asking you to take over the things that are more than we can handle. give the members of this body the patience to live bravely with life's challenges, knowing that you are the author and finisher of their faith. use our lawmakers this day to bring healing where there is pain; hope where there is despair; and peace where there is

conflict. may they serve you with pure, exemplary lives and thereby give those whom they lead an ideal to follow. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, december 4, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,

paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark begich, a senator from the state of alaska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: following morning business -- i'm sorry. following any leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to h.r. 4853, which is the legislative vehicle for the tax cut extensions. under a time agreement there, up to two hours of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to conditioconcur on the baucus am. if the cloture is not invoked, the senate will proceed to a cloture vet on the schumer amendment. senators should expect the cloture vote to occur at 10:30 to amendment. senator schumer will control the time on his amendment. senator baucus will control the time on his amendment. they will each have 30 minutes. mr. president, s. 4006 is at the desk. it's due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. 4006, a bill to provide the for the use of unobligated discretionary stimulus dollars to address aids drug assistance program, waiting list and other cost containment measures, impact and state adep programs. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, there is a recurring gag in the comic strip "peanuts," that we're all familiar with. charlie brown is getting ready to kick a field goal. lucy's holding the ball while charlie runs up to the ball. and at the last second, lucy pulls the ball away. charlie brown flies spew the a e air, comes crashing back down and falls flat on his back. we've all seen this time and time again. but what makes this gag funny is that -- is the same thing that

made it famous. it wasn't so much that lucy was tricking charlie brown. it was that it kept happening over and over again. charlie brown kept being tricked. it's obvious by now that our republican friends have drawn their political strategy from this cartoon. we've all heard republicans weep for the deficit. they say they fear. democrats agree that we need to do something about that deficit. so we've said okay, how about cutting the deficit by admitting we can't afford a tax break for millionaires and billionaires? the tax break that would add under the amendment offered b by -- i should say the legislation offered by my republican colleague, senator mcconnell, it would add $4 trillion to the debt. it's a tax cut many admit they don't need, a tax cut billionaires like warren buffett say they don't even want. mr. president, when was the last time you heard an investor ask for less money? but what did the republicans do?

they pulled away the football and said rather than reduce the deficit, we'd really rather give an unnecessary, unwanted, unaffordable handout to the richest of the rich. then they went even a step further. they pretend the real victims here are small businesses, conveniently bending the rules so that the multimillion-dollar wall street firms, companies like pricewaterhouse coopers and enormous conglomerates like the "tribune" company, count as small businesses. mr. president, it is a sham. in fact, the republican -- the way the republicans count, president obama himself, who's made a lot of money from his books, and most movie stars and professional athletes count as small businesses. if that's the way they count, perhaps that explains why the republicans' economic policies nearly led us into a depression. and it's why this time around, perhaps we shouldn't count on their ideas to help us recover. this week, every republican sent

me a letter saying they wouldn't let legislators legislate, that they went let the senate operate until we address the tax cuts. so democrats called their bluff. we said okay, let's talk about tax cuts. let's vote. the other body had already passed a middle-class tax cut and we can do the same. the majority in the senate, like the majority of the country, believes the middle class deserves this tax cut. the minority in the senate believes, against all evidence to the contrary, that millionaires, billionaires and these big c.e.o.'s who ship jobs overseas deserve this giveaway. we disagree but that's why the founders created this body, to debate and settle those disagreements. so we said, let's vote. and what did the republicans do? again, just like lucy, pull the football away and said, no deal. they then sat on the ball while we watched the clock count down.

that's why we're here on a saturday morning when we could have resolved this days ago. in that same letter, republicans claim their top priority is putting people back to work. it's a priority with which democrats agree. the difference is, we really mean it. my state, the state of nevada, has the highest unemployment rate in the country, so i know my most important job is to create jobs. so democrats again gave them the chance to walk the walk. we tried to pass a bill that would extend unemployment insurance for so many americans who lost their jobs in the recession and are still trying hard to find work. economists tell us that unemployment insurance is one of the best ways to energize the economy and create jobs. we know that for every dollar of unemployment insurance that goes out, at least $1.61 comes back into the economy. it's a good investment, and the council of economic advisors said this week that failing to

extend this lifeline would cost the country 600,000 more jobs. mr. president, what do you think the republicans did? once again, they did their best lucy impression, pulling away the football and saying, i object. they stepped up and did the same thing they've done over and over again, they stopped us from creating jobs, like the football charlie brown can't kick, the money that would immediately go back into our economy remains out of reach from those who would spend it the fastest. finally, mr. president, republicans like the senator from arizona, his party's nominee for president last election, has given a dizzying -- a dizzying -- it really is hard for people to understand what he's talking about -- trying to defend the don't ask, don't tell. now, this defense that he's given to an obsolete, embarrassing, discriminatory policy that weakens our military and offends our values is as

follows. first, senator mccain said he would seriously considering repealing it if the military leadership thought we should. and the military leadership said it should be repealed. he pulled away the football. then senator mccain said he would need to see a study from the pentagon. when the pentagon produced the study saying repeal would have no neglect five effect at all, he pulled a-- negative effect at all, he pulled away the football again. and his latest trick, he said yesterday that he opposed repealing don't ask, don't tell, a proposal that would be a great stride forward for both equality and military readiness -- and, listen to this -- because of the economy. i repeat, the senior senator from arizona said he couldn't support repealing don't ask, don't tell because of the economy. i have no idea what he's talking about and no one else does either. yesterday, we also heard that te republican leader say this.

americans don't want to see meaningless theatrics in congress. they want us to do something about the economy. that's a quote. well, mr. president, he's right. these theatrics need to end. the time to do something about our economy needs to begin, again, now. and what better way to demonstrate that than by doing what the american people and the economists at every political position know is the right thing to do, that is, protect the middle class from higher taxes and reject a $4 trillion bailout for billionaires. mr. president, our economy isn't a cartoon. the jobs that hard-working americans aren't political footballs. and instead of taking their ball and go home when they don't get their way, it's time republicans realize that we're not here to embarrass one another. we're here to get things done. we're here to help our economy grow again. it's time republicans recognize that, like charlie brown and lucy, we're on the same team. mr. president, i think it would be appropriate -- we're two

minutes or so from the two hours for the time on the tax-cut debate here. we have a couple of amendments. unless there's an objection, we should go ahead and start that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: an extra two minutes for people to share. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent under the time that's been allotted by the unanimous consent to senator baucus on the democratic side for the first amendment. i ask time to speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i think that -- i think there's a consent in effect that baucus would control a half-hour, schumer would control a half-hour of the time. if not, i would so move. the presiding officer: is there objection? under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of house message to h.r. 4853, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to the

senate amendment with an amendment to h.r. 4853, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund to amend title 49, united states code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, it's been my honor to serve on president obama's deficit commission, a commission chaired by former white house chief of staff erskine bowles and former u.s. senator from wyoming, alan simpson. for ten months, we met and considered all of the possibilities for us to move toward a more stable fiscal picture in america. our goal was simple: to reduce federal spending, reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. it took us ten months to come up with a proposal, and yesterday 11 out of the 18 members of the commission voted in favor, as i did. i will tell you that i had my reservations about some of their

provisions but i did not quarrel with the goal. unless we are serious about budget deficit reduction, america's economy will be in peril, borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend and borrowing it from countries like china, which as a result have leverage on the united states economy which we should not ever accept as normal. it is abnormal and dangerous. i left that commission hearing yesterday voting to cut $4 trillion over ten years to come to the floor of the senate, where the republican side of the aisle, the republican senate leader, mitch mcconnell, has a proposal for tax cuts over the next ten years of $4 trillion. what a coincidence. all of the pain that would be inflicted on the american people and our economy from the deficit commission proposal to reach the goal of moving toward budget balance and sensible budgeting

would be completely wiped away by the republican tax-cut proposal. and that's why this debate is so kricritical. i support the amendment offered by senator baucus as chairman of the finance committee. an amendment which says we will have tax cuts, but we will do it sparingly because we need to not only to help middle-class families but to help this economy. the baucus proposal would cost us over 10 years $1.5 trillion. it's a huge sum of money. but it's a sum of money we should invest at this moment because of the reports we received yesterday that the unemployment rate in america continues to rise. that our economy is fragile. that this recession is serious. and we need to move to breathe life into this economy as quickly as possible for workers and small businesses all across the united states. that's why i support the baucus proposal, that's why president obama supports it, that's why

it's a sensible way to go and that is why the republican position calling for expanding our deficit, calling for expanding tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, the republican position is indefensible. indefensible not just among democrats and independents, but even in their own political party amount recent cbs poll shows that more than 50% of republicans across america reject the senate republican position calling for tax breaks for millionaires. when you add those who say just extend the tax breaks for those making $250,000 or less or don't extend any tax breaks, the republican position is rejected by republicans across america. why? because they can add and subtract. and they understand that to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in america at this moment in history is foolish and reckless and, yet, that is the position of the republican party

and a definition of their values. i might also add to think that the republicans could stand before us and argue that we should give tax breaks to those making over a million dollars a year -- and let me quantify those tax breaks -- the average tax break for a person making a million dollars a year under the republican proposal is $100,000 a year in tax breaks. to millionaires. $100,000 a year, that's what they are prepared to ask for and then turn around, argue that it doesn't add to the deficit, which it clearly does, som some $700 billion, and then argue that we can't extend unemployment benefits because it might add to the deficit. so on one hand giving help to those who don't need it, didn't ask for it and won't help our economy when they receive it is acceptable to republicans. but turning around to help

127,000 unemployed people in illinois who will lose hair unemployment insurance this month, merry christmas, they lose their unemployment insurance, 40,000 people in missouri who will lose their unemployment benefits this month this holiday season and over 30,000 who will lose it in the state of iowa to cut off those unemployment benefits the republicans say tough luck. that's the way it has to go. we have to be very careful about the way we spend money. tax breaks for the wealthy. no unemployment insurance for those who struggle, that's an unacceptable position for america's economy and america's future. mr. president, this is a clear choice. i support the baucus amendment. help middle income families reduce the deficit. do not reward those who have done so well in our economy, have not asked for a tax break, do not need it and only add to our nation's deficit. as part of the proposal from senator baucus, provide unemployment benefits for those in america who lost their job

through no faults of their own and need a helping hand this holiday season. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i yield my time to myself 15 minutes out of the -- what we control. first of all, i remember before the president was sworn in he announced that even though he ran on a platform of increasing taxes on higher-income people, you don't raise taxes during a recession, he said. so during the year 2009 there were no proposals to increase taxes from the administration. and, obviously, the congress went along with that.

then in august 2009, the president was in alcart, indiana and there was an exchange there along the same line and the president said this -- quote -- "you don't raise taxes in a recession. we haven't raised taxes in a recession." end of quote. well, with 9.8% unemployment yesterday, it's quite obvious we're still in a recession. and this debate is not about cutting taxes. this debate is whether or not we ought to increase taxes on anybody during a recession and we feel you should not raise taxes on anybody during a recession. also i heard the other side in their early speeches talk about efforts on this side to prevent unemployment insurance from

being extended. well, that's the same saw that we heard from the majority party during june and july. i would remind people on the other side of the aisle the results of the election were that the people of this country said they were concerned about jobs about, the economy, and about the legacy of debt. and during that period of time last summer when we're being accused, just like we were just accused this time of not wanting to do anything about unemployment compensation, that on june 14, june 17, june 24, june the 30th, we tried to not only extend unemployment compensation, but we tried to do it in a way that was paid for so that we did not increase the deficit. but we were denied that opportunity. finally soon after the july 4

break, we were given an opportunity to at least vote on an opportunity to extend unemployment compensation and paid for, but we didn't get the votes because the other side -- a deficit doesn't bother them except when it comes to increasing taxes on somebody else. and then they say the deficit is of concern to them. but the fact is, as i said yesterday, right here as i spoke to my colleagues, if you look at the history of tax increases in this congress -- i mean in congress generally over a long period of time, it's one thing to raise taxes if it goes to the bottom line. but we have seen time after time after time raise a dollar worth of taxes and it's a license to spend about $1.15 and $1.17. so raising taxes does not reduce

deficit only. and the reason for that is people in country are undertaxed is because congress overspends and the tax increases in the past and the expenditures that follow, $1 of income giving a license to spend $1.15 is just like the dog chasing his tail. you never catch it. so here we are just one month after the people of this country very definitely spoke about their concern about jobs, the deficit, and the economy we're here right back where the president said we shouldn't be both before he was sworn in and then august of 2009. -- 2009 that you shouldn't increase taxes during a recession. so i'd like to quickly discuss the proposal to increase taxes

on some americans starting in less than a month from right now. the first one would be unemployment. just yesterday, as i just stated, but to be more specific, what the bureau of labor statistics said that the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8% from 9.6%. in july the unemployment rate was 9.5%. for the three months of august, september, and october, pretty steady, 9.6%. and now, november, 9.8%. the unemployment rate for minorities are significantly worse than what it is for the average. the trend is in the wrong direction. in other words, the economy is in a very fragile situation. the economy is clearly telling congress handle with extreme care. the second point is what the

economists say. a majority of the economists -- and i have a chart right here that says what various economists say we ought to do. this was surveyed by cnn money say that preventing the 2011 tax hikes is nument one thing that -- the number one thing that congress can do right now to help the economy. and that would be the 60% that says don't raise taxes for any taxpayers. the 60% of the economists said that preventing tax hikes on all americans was the best course of action, but only 10% of the economists said that preventing tax hikes on only the middle class was the best way to help the economy. that's 60% saying don't increase taxes on anybody versus 10% say it's okay to increase it on

some. and, of course, the survey is by cnn, hardly known as being a republican network. four, some on the other side may say that preventing tax hikes on higher-income folks is not important. the theory goes is high-income people would just save the money. there's a couple of problems with that point. the first is, that we all know that the lack of savings and investment is -- is harmful to the economy. but the other more direct response is that they probably would increase their spending on consumption. mark zandi, a respected economist with moody's, had this to say -- quote -- "normally i would firmly agree that raising taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year would not make a meaningful difference in the way that they spend money,

but he went on to say, i worry that these are not normal times and that even this income group may be sensitive." end of quote. now, obviously, these are not normal times when you still have almost 10% of the people unemployed, a fragile economy and what this congress does has consequences and we ought to be very, very cautious how we approach it. fifth, we have c.b.o. saying that the gross domestic product would be as much as 1.4% higher in 2011 if all the tax relief of 2001 and 2003 is made permanent. if the tax relief is only for lower-income americans, as is proposed by the amendment before

this body, and by people on the other side of the aisle, then according to c.b.o., the g.d.p. would only be 1.1% higher in 2011. some people may think the difference between 1.4% and 1.1% of more growth is insignificant. let me tell you when it comes to 10% unemployment, that sort of economic growth is going to put a significant number of people back to work if we allow to hire 1.4% to happen. in other words, the difference between preventing tax increases on all americans and only preventing the tax increases on some americans, that .3% of 1% in 2011 is a very significant difference of economic growth. i'd like to point -- go to a six

point given the recession, given the unemployment rate, given business reluctance to invest and grow is this the time to reduce the gross domestic product at all? if it were just a matter of either the government got the money or the private sector, that would be one thing. as government does have a deficit problem. but in this case it's a matter of money simply not being there because of the hit to the gross domestic product so we're talking about dead weight loss. then, seventh, fiscal history proves higher rates don't yield higher revenue. and this is -- this is a 50-year history of revenue coming into the federal government. it's a percentage of gross national product. the red line, pretty steady. it doesn't matter whurtsdz you

have 9 -- whether you have 93% rates back in the eisenhower and early kennedy years and then they were reduced down and down and down and down and down eventually to 1987 when they got down to 26%, 1991 -- no, 1990, back up to 39.6%. and now down to 35 now. and are they going to go up to 39.40. it proves to you that the taxpayers of this country are smarter than we are in congress because we think that we can raise high marginal tax rates and bring in more revenue. and it doesn't have anything to do with what the american people are willing to send to washington. because i want to quote not this

senator, but the joint committee on taxation in regard to high marginal tax rates not making much difference of what money comes into the federal government because the taxpayers are smarter than we are. they're smart enough to know if you've got 93% marginal tax rates, why work? so you didn't get anymore revenue, still about 18.2% of the gross national product coming in here for us to spend. but we don't give the taxpayers of this country any credit for having any smarts because we think they're smarter than they are, and this chart moves that the taxpayers are smarter than we are because you have high marginal tax rates and it doesn't bring any more revenue. when are we going to learn? so the joint committee on taxation says about this, "we anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased marginal rates by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance

strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to taxation." ninth point out of 11, and i'm about done. done, is i often quote the national fed ration of independent businesses, the voice of small business here, because the president says 70% of the new jobs in america are created by small business so we ought to listen to what their voice in washington has to say for small business and what we do here and the effect, good or bad, on the economy. quote -- "members of congress fled with no action on important issues like expiring tax rates, leaving the cloud of uncertainty larger and darker. in response, consumer sentiment fell and owner optimism remained anchored solidly, solidly in recession territory.

thus, spending stayed at maintenance mode, deterioration of jobs continues, and capital spending remains at historically low rates. owners won't make spending commitments when sales prospects remain weak and important decisions" -- and i want to highlight this -- "such as tax rates and labor costs remain as uncertain as they are." and this debate adds to that uncertainty if you're going to have tax increases. so here we are on a saturday. and i've put a chart up here that i think says what today's debate is all about. we don't need a dog-and-pony show going on on a saturday when we ought to be giving certainty to the economy. because the word "uncertainty"

is exactly what c.e.o.'s of major corporations told the president back in june when he called them in and said, you've got $2 trillion in cash sitting in corporate treasuries, why aren't you spending it and creating jobs? and they said, because of so much uncertainty. so the bottom line is this -- stop the tax hikes. i yield the floor. oh, can i ask -- well, no, we don't have to do this right now. oh, can i do this right now, please? unanimous consent that senator hatch have 15 minutes, senator thune, 10 minutes; senator kyl, 10 minutes; and senator graham, 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: would my colleague yield for a question? mr. grassley: will i yield for a question? mr. schumer: yeah. mr. grassley: because you new yorkers think you can make us midwesterns look bad. but i'll be glad to yield. mr. schumer: not you. i thank my colleague. and through the chair, i'd

simply like to ask my colleague this. i understand we have a different point of view here. we both care about deficit reduction. could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance extensi extension? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thought i made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in congress are. they know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it's a license to spend $1.15. so it just increases the national debt. and when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it's not being spent. and if you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you don't increase the deficit and

you'll also have the money spent right away. mr. schumer: reclaiming my time. i thank my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i would just say that the answer doesn't deal with deficit reduction. if you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. a dollar of tax break for millionaire and a dollar of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. however, every economist -- i saw we had a chart up about economists before -- will tell you that a dollar into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as a dollar into tax decreases for millionaires. that's pretty universal. mark zandy, john mccain's economic advisor during his campaign, said that a dollar of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents worth. a dollar of tax -- a dollar of

unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62. now, i know we have a few of my colleagues coming, but do you have -- does my colleague have anyone else here he wishes to have speak right now? mr. grassley: i don't think they're here. mr. schumer: okay. then i'll speak for a minute or two rather than go into quorum call, unless you'd like to speak a little longer. mr. grassley: are you saying you don't want to use any time, your side to speak? mr. schumer: well, if you have more time that you'd like to use, that's fine. otherwise, i will. mr. grassley: i don't want to eat into my colleagues' time. mr. schumer: okay. then i will speak for a few minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: this debate is very simple, and that is, do we believe -- everyone here believes, in all good faith, that we ought to extend permanently tax breaks for the middle class. the question that is on the floor today is: do we want to extend those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires at a time of huge deficit? mr. schumer: i would argue

vociferously, no. i would argue most economists agree that shouldn't happen. i would argue that the american people by 26% to 74% are against giving new tax breaks to millionaires. why? it's very simple. it's not that we are against millionaires. god bless them. most of them made their money the hard way. they worked hard, they made the american dream. every one of us would like to have done that, or most of us. so this is not aimed at being critical of them. but it, rather, says we have two economic realities. one, we have an economy that, under the bush tax cuts right now -- my colleague mentioned unemployment went up to 9.8%. that's under these tax cuts. when the rates were a little higher under president clinton, we never had unemployment that high. but we would argue, so the middle class needs to continue that break for two reasons. one, it stimulates the economy.

and, number two, middle-class incomes have declined over the last decade. first decade under the bush tax cuts, middle-class incomes declined. first decade since world war ii. under the clinton rates, middle-class incomes increased rather significantly. and, second, we would say this. but at the same time -- and this is the conundrum we have economically here -- we have a large deficit. and the question is, how do you reduce the deficit? again, i think both of us agree we should reduce the deficit. it seems to me that about the best way to reduce the deficit is not to give $300 billion of tax breaks to the 315,000 americans whose income is over a million dollars. by the way, i would remind my colleague, there are 160 million people.

my colleague from alaska has reminded me. 160 million people file tax returns. only 315,000 -- by quick math, that's about .03% -- have an income over a million dollars. but over the last decade under the bush tax cuts, those people have garnered all the increase in wealth, all the increase in income, or just about, a huge proportion of it. so if you're looking for deficit reduction, should you hurt the middle class? no. should you stop building roads? in my opinion, no. should you take money out of social security? my opinion, no. where are you going to get it? don't do unemployment benefits? which stimulate the economy and means so much to middle-class people who've been out of work for so long under this regime of

bush tax cuts? no. the best place to get that mon money -- it's not that we want to punish wealthy people. we want to praise them. but they're doing fine and they're not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy. and for some reason, 42 members of this senate, all on the other side of the aisle, somehow 9 linchpin of their entire -- somehow the linchpin of their entire economic policy is tax breaks and further tax breaks for those who are very, very wealthy. let me remind my colleague, every person whose income is $100 million -- there aren't many of them, but they have a lot of the income -- would get a $3.8 million tax break a year. the average middle-class person under our plan would get about a $2,000 tax break a year. is that equivalent? certainly the person making

$3.8 million isn't going to rush to j.c. penney and buy that warm winter coat they've been waiting for? huh-uh. so i say to my colleague, it is a bit contradictory to say pay for unemployment benefits but don't pay for tax cuts to the rich. it's also a bit contradictory to say you care about deficit reduction but not when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthiest people. and i'm going to be here for the next year, next two years to remind my colleagues every time they talk about deficit reduction and don't spend money on this and don't spend money on that, that they were willing to increase the deficit $300 billion to give tax breaks to people who have over a million dollars.

with that, i'd yield the floor and turn it over. i see my colleague from utah's here and i kept him waiting yesterday. i'm not going to do that today. so i yield the floor. mr. hatch: i appreciate my colleague. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: this is a first for him to yield to me and appreciate me. that's not quite accurate because we're good friends. my friend, the senior senator from new york, has come forward with an amendment. now, the essence of the amendment is a marginal tax rate hike on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. it's been dubbed the -- quote -- "millionaire's tax." folks on the other side must know two things. one, this may be well-designed from the other side's political viewpoint. supporting the tax registers well with some of the democratic polling ma mavens. by the same token, those polling

mavens might be indicating to their patron patrons that this lame-duck session vote might supply some good campaign material. as the debate ensued this past week, you could almost see my friends on the other side giddily rubbing their hands today. maybe they view this vote as the equivalent of a hanukkah gift or a christmas present. but their holiday political joy stands in sharp contrast to the dreary situation facing america's unemployed. two years of wall-to-wall democratic rule has only made the situation worse. there is a second thing our friends on the other side must know. they know that senator schumer's amendment will surely fail. does anybody doubt that? 33 days ago, the american people sent a message -- work together, take care of the people's business. nothing is more fundamental to the people's business than how much they are taxed. and in this weak economy, they said keep taxes low. keep taxes low.