vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 37. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president, the national is not in order. the senate is not in order, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, could you -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, according to the strange logic of democratic leaders in congress, the best way to show

middle-class americans that they care about creating jobs is to slam some of america's top job creators with a massive tax hike. today's votes were an affront to the millions of americans who are struggling to find work and a clear signal that democrats in congress still haven't gotten the message of the november elections. mr. president, the senate still is not in order. mr. baucus: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: senators, please, the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is still not in order, especially right down here in this part of the well. the presiding officer: would the senators please remove their conversations to the cloakroom. please remove your conversations to the cloakroom. senators ...

mr. mcconnell: i thank the chair. with unemployment over 9% for more than -- more scekive months than at any time since world war 2, the voters are looking for a different approach here in washington. two years of out-of-control spending and big-government policies have led to record deficits and debt, chronic unemployment and deep your honor certainty about our nation's fiscal future, meaningful show votes and antibusiness rhetoric won't do anything to make the situation better. this saturday's session is a total waste of the american people's time. one of the votes wheeled today was opposed by every single republican and many democrats. and the other vote we held was a poll-tested plan opposed by every single republican and the president of the united states. and as you can see, nothing wees did today stopped the tax hikes that are now less than a month away. as the majority leader said this morning, these thee attribution need to end. this is a strong, bipartisan --

there is strong bipartisan opposition to these attempts to raise taxes on small business across the country. americans don't want political posturing. they want jobs. today's votes were the clearest signal yet that the democrats in congress do not take our nation's job crisis seriously. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: will the majority leader yield for a a question? the presiding officer: will the majority leader yield? mr. baucus: he is not the majority leader, i might add. ms. landrieu: i'm sorry. would the minority leader yield for a question? the presiding officer: the republican leader? ms. landrieu: i guess that's a "no." mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president? ms. landrieu:? butmr. baucus: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: there are several senators prepared to speak this morning, who were unable to because of limited time. in order to accommodate them, i ask consent that the order of speakers on the democratic side be the following: senator dorgan, 20 minutes; senator boxer, 10 minutes; senator mccaskill, 10 minutes; and senator casey, 10 minutes. further, if there are republicans seeking recognition on the floor, they would alternate back and forth between the two sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. landrieu: mr. president, may i ask consent of the first member on that list to speak for 30 seconds? thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i was going to ask the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, who just insulted many of us by saying that we don't care about small business or the economy and as the chair of the small business committee, i was going to ask him this:

since president obama has been in such good faith in the last couple of days negotiating with him this package, my question was, does he regret saying on national television that his number-one primary goal is to unseat the president? i was going to ask him how he felt about that. that's a tough place to start a negotiation, which is why some of us are interested in how these negotiations might be going with that as a startingpoint. but he ran off the floor and didn't answer that question. i will going to i am going to continue to ask it. thank you. let me just add, i don't agree with every policy with the president. anymore a major fight over offshore oil and gas. but it is very interesting to some of us who have been in negotiations, how you start by saying my goal is to defeat you but here is the packages we want

you to accept. some of us are having a hard time with that kind of negotiation. thank you, mr. president. mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator in north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, what are the order? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized to speak for ten minutes. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i think i had requested 20 minutes. the presiding officer: i'm sorry. it's 20 minutes. i'm sorry, senator. mr. dorgan: mr. president, thank you. i was surprised to hear the minority leader suggest that today's session of the senate, a saturday session, which i suppose is inconvenient but nonetheless something we ought to do to work on things that are important for the american people -- i was surprised to hear him say it was a waste of the tax's money. i'll talk a little bit about what i think is a waste 69 taxpayers' money. but coming here, trying to reduce the federal budget deficit, trying to make important decisions about the tax issues is is not a waste of time or money, in my judgment. one of the things that i find

disheartening these days in the political debate about these issues is the increasing tendency for one side of a political debate to create their new set of realities. they just invent a new set of realities, and then from that invention they go ahead an make their arguments. and by the way, most of the reporting then is off of that invention. i mean, it would be nice if the reporting would say, well, that is not a reality. that's an invention. if, for example, we said the earth is round and there's substantial scientific evidence that the earth is round, and the other side said, no the earth is flat, tomorrow there'd be a story that said, opinions differ on shape of earth. well, of course, the facts don't differ. but that's the way these things exist these days, the creation of their own new reality.

now, let me talk about what has happened with respect to the tax cuts. and let me give just a bit of history because ity it is important -- i think it is important. 2001 taxes were cuvment i didn't vote for it. i voted against it. let me tell you why. i don't want to just revisit that at great length, but the proposal to cut taxes in 2001 came on the heels of the year 2000 when for the first time in 30 years this country had a budget surplus. a budget surplus, mind you. and the economists and others expected and they projected that the surpluses would exist way into the future. for the next ten years we would have budget surpluses, they predicted. well, i didn't believe that. but nonetheless, president george w. bush, new to the office, said, well, if we're going to have budget surpluses going forward, let's make sure we give them back to the american people in the form of tax cuts. i said, what if we don't have these surpluses. they're only projections, after

all. the we don't have them. they are just projections. by economists who in many cases can't remember their home phone number. let's be a little conservative. no, let's do these tax cuts, the bulk of way will go to the wealthiest because those who constructed these tax cuts always believe that there is a trickle-down effect in this country. so if you give money at the top, it'll trickle down and help everybody. so, the tax cuts were passed. i voted against them. and immediately we discovered we were in a recession. then we were hit with a terrorist attack on 9/11. then we were in a war in afghanistan. then a war in iraq. and those wars have lasted for most of a decade. and not only were there no surpluses at all, no budget surpluses at all, in fact, there were giant budget deficits. none of the expenditures of these wars were paid for. all was added to the debt. the debt has ballooned to $13

trillion with a yearly budget deficit of $1.3 trillion, having now just gotten to the other side -- the other plateau on the deepest recession since the great depression. here's where we find ourselves. that's of history of it. tax cuts that were voted for by the congress, proposed by george w. bush, then president bush, in order to give back surpluses for the next ten years. no surpluses ever existed. then we went to war and never paid for a penney of the war. and now we end up with a deficit of $1.3 trillion a year and a federal budget debt of $13 trillion. now, the question is, what do we do about all that? clearly, these deficits and debt threaten the country. they threaten our financial stability and solvency. i worry very much that one day the bond traders and the currency traders might get an urge to say, you know what? we don't think that economy is

very stable and we're going to make a run on that economy, as they have done. nothing has changed in spain from now versus six months ago, and yet once they run against that economy, there are profound consequences and could be for this country as well. i worry a great deal about that. we have got to get our house in order. now, let me talk about the debate this morning, because i think most people don't understand what the debate is. it's not reported very well and not even described very well here. the proposition is to extend the tax cuts. so the question is, well, for whom? one proposal we voted on this morning was for single people earning up to $200,000 and married couples earning $250,000. but what is important to understand is the proposal to extend the tax cuts extends to income earned by everybody.

the first $250,000 earned by bill gates and warren buffett and donald trump. they would get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income. a lot of people don't understand that. they think the proposal is if you have over $250,000 of this can, you don't get a tax cut. that's not true. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, would the senator yield for just one question? mr. dorgan: i would be happy to yield. mrs. mccaskill: i think the point you're making here is real important and i want to ask a question through the chair. so what we just voted on basically that 53 members of the senate, which used to be a winning number around the united states senate until this new era of we've got to have 60 votes for motherhood and apple pie, 53 members of the senate voted to make sure that everyone in america had no tax increase on their first million dollars of income; is that correct? mr. dorgan: correct. mrs. mccaskill: so it's not that we're not passing a tax cut for everyone. we're passing a tax cut for

every person in america. we're just saying, maybe on that second million, we might ought to take that $0 $300 billion is put it in deficit reduction? so it's not the first million, it's the second million and the third million and the fourth million and the fifth million that you would have to go back to a rate that we had in the days when we had massive job creation and these guys did really, really well? mr. dorgan: that's correct. and i mean, i voted for the million dollars, although i thought it's probably good politics, i didn't think that was good policy either but just to demonstrate that there's no level that the minority here will support except all the income for the wealthiest americans. i want to show my colleagues what we proposed and that is these lines show the amount of tax cuts that will go to all americans under the proposal that we offered this morning. everyone would get a tax cut up to that $250,000 of income because the rates were changed so they would all be changed

back for everyone, and that includes bill gates, donald trump, warren buff felt and every -- warren buff set and everyone. now, the average tax cut for the average american would be about $900. the tax cut for this proposal for those earning over a million dollars or more will be over $6,000. so the wealthiest americans will get six times the tax cut that the average american will get. that was our proposal. the minority party said, well, that's not right. you can't do six times more. we want to you do a thousand times more for the wealthiest. so let me show a chart that describes what the minority is insisting upon. all of this yellow, which i just showed, would be tax cuts for every income group and the red are the proposed increases in tax cuts by the minority. what they have said is for those with a million dollars or more, we insist that they get a tax cut that is 1,000 times the size

of the tax cut for the average american. average american gets a tax cut of about $600 -- about $900. about $900. and a person making a million dollars under the republican plan will get a tax cut of $104,000, a year. a year. they're demanding that the wealthiest americans get a tax cut that is 1,000 times the size of the average american. why? because we believe tax cuts should go all the way across the board on the first $250,000 for everybody, all the way across, on all income, for everybody up to $250,000. the my mortgage says -- the minority says that's not enough. we want the tax cut to go all the way up to every dollar of income to the wealthiest americans. that's unbelievable to me. we're $13 tril glo trillion in . we're at war. we have a $1.3 trillion annual budget deficit, and they're demanding that we give $104,000

a year in tax breaks to people that make a million dollars a year? it's unbelievable. and they say, by the way, well, it's -- this is all about small business. again, that's creating a new reality that's simply not accurate. now, i want to show you what has happened to the federal debt. this line looks like the upslope on a roller coaster, a very steep one, by the way. $13 trillion in debt. this shows 1995 to today. most people think this is urge urgent. this is a real serious problem. if that's the case, what are we doing talking about giving tax cuts of $100,000 apiece to people that make a million dollars a year? now, the other point about this is all of the tax cuts that would be offered come from money that is borrowed. by the way, the projections by

the office of management and budget and the congressional budget office about what the deficits are going to be? those projections assume that there are no extensions of any tax cuts. none. zero. so anything that is extended increases the federal budget deficit and debt. so the proposition is, if we're going to provide tax cuts, as the minority insists, for all the income of the wealthiest americans, what they are saying is let's borrow another $1 trillion, put it on top of the debt in order for to us provide tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. again, it's preposterous. let me just use this chart to see if maybe common sense travels over the decades. will rogers once said, during a significant economic downturn, he said, "the unemployment here ain't eating regular, but we'll get around to them as soon as

everybody else gets fixed up okay." "the unemployed around here ain't eating regular," will rogers said. "but we'll get around to them as soon as everybody else gets fixed up. "woil, youp." well, you know, there were 2 million people the other day that lost their unemployment benefits, 2 million people of the other day i came to the floor and talked about smith barney versus barney smith. there's a barney smith from indiana who talked about losing his job because his plant closed and his job went to china. not unusual. five million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. and barney smith asked the question about this congress: does the congress -- or is the congress willing to care as much about barney smith as it is about smith barney? barney smith from indiana or smith barney from wall street? the answer's pretty evident

around here these days. this fight today is really about that kind of distinction. who do you stand for? who do you -- who are you fighting for? who are you standing with? is it because you believe this country only works if you put a lot of money in at the top and it will trickle down to everybody? i mean, i've never believed that worked. i believe if you give the american working family something to work with, the percolate-up theory, give the american family something to work with and that american engine will do just fine. let me just make the case that the -- and i don't mean this in a partisan way but i think it's important to say that these tax cuts, since they were proposed in 2001 and the run-up in the deficit that came with it and the creation of a sick economy, it is the lowest average annual

percentage increase in job creation of any president since the 1940's. i'm talking about the bush presidency. he proposed very large tax cuts, the bulk of which goes to the wealthiest americans, and the result is the lowest average annual percentage increase in job creation of any president since the 1940's. now, i -- i did vote in 1993 -- that's a long time ago -- for the economic policy changes proposed in the clinton administration, and those were tough votes and controversial votes, and, yes, they increased some taxes and cuts in spending. but you know what? in the coming years and during that -- the eight years of that administration, as a result, in my judgment, of a change in economic policy, we had 23.1 million new jobs created. 23.1 million new jobs. real median household income grew 14%. g.d.p. growth averaged 3.5%.

so it doesn't wash to say that we have to follow the same economic policy that was followed in the last decade, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest and then just praying that somehow it will all trickle down to help everybody. this country's in some significant trouble. and this country and the people in this country deserve and expect thoughtful, serious, tough decisions by this congress. david stockman, former director of o.m.b. in the reagan administration, was on television awhile back. and he said, "if there were such a thing as chapter 11 for politicians, the republican push to extend the unaffordable bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing." well, let me say again, i'm not someone who comes here talking about republicans and democrats very often because i don't think either political party is a great bargain for the american people, at least in recent times. we need to understand that it's important to get the best of what both parties have to offer rather than the worst of each. we need come together to decide we serve --

we need to come together to decide we serve the interests, that is the best long-term interests of country to put the country back on track. but i can't any longer watch people invent a reality in order to support a kind of proposal that is going to weag enthis country -- weaken this country and increase the federal indebtedness of this country. it simply makes no sense. i had originally tried to see if i could -- because there needs to be some reality, i tried to put a chart together and the problem is it was too tall so i taped it. but this chart shows in reality the 1,000 times tax cut for millionaires and above versus the average tax cut for the american people. this shows the tax cut that goes to everybody under the plan that we offered this morning. everybody, including the wealthiest americans, will get a tax cut on their income up to $250,000 if they're married. the republicans have said, which represents these red lines, that's not enough. we want this not to just go all the way across.

we demand that it goes all the way up. we're lucky it doesn't reach the ceiling because we're talking about massive amounts of money to be borrowed in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. i wish this would fit on a smaller chart, but the absurdity of it is demonstrated by the kind of tax cuts they are demanding for the wealthiest americans. now, mr. president, finally let me say i know other want tos wao speak but let me say this. historians are going to look back at this time, this moment, this congress and in a hundred years we're all dead and historians evaluate what did we do here. what did we do? and they're going to be very and very, very concerned to try to figure out what on earth were they thinking. at war, deep in debt and doing tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. they're going to wonder, what on

earth were they thinking? a friend of mine once asked the question, if you were to be given an assignment to write an obituary for someone you had never met and the only information you had about this person now deceased was a check register and from that you needed to write an obituary, what would you write? that question could be asked about this country. what would historians write about this country having only the federal budget to evaluate about our value system? who do we stand for? did we stand for 2 million people who are out of work? 2 million times someone came home and had to say to their loved one, "honey, i've lost my job." no, it wasn't because i did a bad job. my job's gone to china. i was told that the company's contracting and i've lost my job. 2 million times.

out of jobs, out of work, out of hope, out of the home. and then we're told, well, that's not the priority. let's not help them. let's not extend unemployment benefits, which we have always done during a significant economic downturn. instead, let's see if we can provide more comfort to those that are the wealthiest americans by providing them tax cuts that are 1,000 times the size of the tax cut that the average family will get when they open their mail and finally get their tax break. i mean, i don't understand that at all. that's not in keeping with what i understand our obligations to be to this country, number one, to borrow a trillion dollars at $750 billion plus interest, borrow it, principally from china, increase the debt and then say, well, how are we going to use it? well, what we're going to do is we're going to use it to give it to the wealthiest americans. and by the way, this altered state of reality which the other side uses in every debate these

days, this altered state of reality is to say this is about small business. that is fundamentally untrue and they know it. but it doesn't matter to them. because they know it will get reported as they're helping small business. they're not. they're not helping this count country. they're not helping small business. and in my judgment, i wish they would understand the need to work with us for the common destiny and common purpose of this country's long-term economic health. i was -- if i can conclude by saying i was disappointed this morning to see what happened but i knew it was going to happen because there's precious little opportunity in this chamber for people to take a serious, sober look at these issues and decide what's best for the country. i think the american people deserve better, expect better and i hope they get better in the coming days. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. i just want to say to senator dorgan before he leaves the floor how much i appreciated his

few minutes this morning and how he brings us back to the central question of why we're here. and who we fight for. and i just want him to know how much i'm going to miss him and how much i wish him well. because he's a person who gets to the heart of it. and i -- i think it's key that the american people who are watching this debate today understand one basic fact, mr. president, that because of their concern for 1/10th of 1% of those americans earning over $1 million a year, the republicans stopped a tax cut for everyone else. i need to repeat that. because of their concern for those 315,000 out of 307 million

americans who earn over $1 million a year, the republicans, to a person, stopped a tax cut for 99.9% of the american people. i cannot tell you how bizarre that seems to me. and not only did they block tax cuts for everyone in this country, except for that 1/10th of 1%, they also turned their backs on the unemployed, two million of whom have lost their benefits or are about to lose their unemployment benefits. in my state of california 400,000 people are losing those benefits. and they blocked out important

tax cut extensions, which i don't have time to go into. i have to say that when you block unemployment insurance extension, which gives people about $300 a week to survive and keep their homes together, if they are actively looking for work, if they paid into the unemployment insurance, those are the people we are helping, when you block that, you hurt not only their families, but you hurt this economy because it is very clear from respected economists on both sides of the aisle that unemployment benefits are a big fiscal stimulus and, in fact, for every dollar that we give someone, it turns int into $1.61 into the economy

because, why? people spend those moneys in those communities and the trickle-down effect works. when you give a tax break to the top people who are earning $10 million a year, let me assure you they don't run down to the corner store with it, okay. they put it in their trust fund for their kids. so very clearly either the republicans don't understand what an economic stimulus is or they don't really care. they certainly say they care about the deficit, but i have to tell you from the bottom of my heart how could they care about the deficit when they say they want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and not pay for them? and so those tax break breaks gn the back of our kids and grandkids. it's unbelievable.

the republicans in this body "today showtoday show whose side on. one said your first $250,000 of income, you're going to get your tax break continued on that. we got 53 votes. by the way as senator mccaskill so noted, it used to be the majority ruled around here, they filibustered, they said you guys have to get 60 votes for that, we got 53. we got a majority. not enough. that went down. we said, ok. we know there was an election, we'll go up to $1 million. we'll meet you. we'll meet you at the corner. let's shakehands. that wasn't enough. they want it for people who earn over $1 million a year. listen, mr. president, if you earn -- i do wish you this and i wish all of you this, we all want to be very successful in

life. if you earn $10 million a year, the blawnts to give you an additional -- the republicans want to give you an additiona additional $450,000 every year in a tax break. okay. and they don't want to pay for it. now, what's really interesting, mr. president, is that last month 9 90 millionaires wrote ua letter and they talked about how they felt about giving these tax breaks to people over $1 million a year. here's what they said and i'm quoting them -- 90 millionaires, "are for the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1 million to expire. they say, "we make this request as loyal citizens or in the past earned an income of ove over $1 million.

we have done very well over the last several years. now during our nation's moment of need we are eager to do our fair share. we don't need more tax cuts, they write. they understand cutting our taxes will increase the burden. the country needs to meet the fiscal object ghaition a just and responsible way. letting tax cuts for incomes over $1 million expire is an important step in this direction. and i would ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record so that anyone who wants to read it can. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the letter hits on a key point. if you're serious about deficit reduction, then don't come here to the floor and fight for the wealthiest americans who -- many of whom say they're doing just fine. and if you are going to do it, tell us how you're going to pay for it. oh, no. oh, no. and the rhetoric is we're

hurting the economy when we're helping 99.9% of americans. we're hurting the economy when we talk about fiscal responsibility. we're hurting the economy -- oh, we're hurting small business. let's be clear, mr. president, as far as we can tell not one small business would be impacted over $1 million. and i know my friend in the chair is very concerned about small business because we talked about it and he studied this and he says if you go up to $1 million, you're covered. so all their rhetoric is nonsense. and we couldn't get one vote. not one. they -- they voted not to reduce the deficit. they voted not to help 99.9% of the american people because of their deep, deep, deep worry and concern about people who earn over $1 million a year. so they couldn't care about

deficits and they don't care about most of the people. i don't know what else to say. that's the vote we had. now they say oh, we're going to come up with some grand compromise. blah, blah, blah. maybe. you know what? i've lived for quite a while and i can tell you -- and i do this whenever i travel when i go to the airport if i have a flight but another flight in front of me's leaving, i jun o jump on tt first plane because you don't know how long you're going to be stuck. we have this, tax cuts for 99.9% of the people. they say we'll negotiate something. maybe they will. maybe they won't. all i know is the record will reflect they voted no today when they could have helped all those people. now i'm going to close by talking about juxtaposing who they fight for versus who needs us to fight for them and i'm going to read to you a couple of

stories if i have the time from people in my state. yesterday i read a -- was it yesterday i read about laura from long beach. and today i'm going to read some other stories. and i -- i'm not using last names. this is p.j. from palm springs. "my husband suffered a brain injury two years ago. he's on permanent disability. i lost my job as a para legal in january. my benefits end this month. i have no way to pay our medical insurance. i'm going to lose my house. i'm trying to find a way to keep from becoming homeless with a disabled husband who is in constant need of medical care and 24/7 personal care. please extend unemployment insurance." adam from santa rosa. "i'm a 25-year-old life long california resident, graduated from california state university. i found a good job in the science field. i was laid off two years later

due to the poor climate and forced to get unemployment insurance. i have been desperately seeking work, but to no avail and my benefits have run out. i'm currently the sole survivor for my wife, two children and myself. and despite all of my efforts to find work no opportunities presented themselves. i have not been sleeping as we do not have much savings and rent and living is expensive. i fear other citizens are in the same boat so i'm writing on my family's behalf as well as theirs in the hopes that some further u.i. benefits could be made available for those families who are sill suffering from -- still suffering from unemployment and need the assistance. tammy, "my husband worked nonstop for 33 years. in 2009 his job was outsourced to singapore -- to singapore. and by the way, while we're

talking about tax breaks, our side wants to end tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. that side, my republican friends, and this was a big issue in my campaign, want to keep those breaks going. so listen to tammy from lass banos. her husband worked nonstop for 33 years. his job was outsourced to singapore. he hasn't had any luck finding a job in california. since his layoff, she writes, we have lost our home, we have sold off almost everything of value we worked so hard for in your 32 years of marriage. now he's on extended unemployment and that may be discontinued in december. right now it has been discontinued because our friends don't care about it one whip. we tried three, four, five, six, seven times to try to get them to go along with this on continuing this unemployment. by the way, not beyond 99 weeks, no. up to 99 weeks and we can't get their support.

so she writes he's on extended unemployment during the holidays when this country needs to strengthen the economy, not destroy it. we will nowhere to live. i will lose my car that takes me 200 miles per day to my job. please don't let this happen. and this goes on and on. how many minutes do i have left? the presiding officer: your time is expiring. mrs. boxer: i would ask for two more minutes and finish up so my friend can speak. tracy from fresno. in july i lost my job. i'm a single parent for two children. at first i made cuts by not eating out and not spending on things we didn't need. i had to give up my car. now we take the city bus to school in the morning and back home in the afternoon. i look for work daily. i'm a college graduate and i worked for 20 years. i need the unemployment extension to keep a roof over our heads and feed my children. it is a scary situation to not know if your life will be tossed

upside down by people who do not even know who you are. well, tracy, we know who you are. and i am painfully aware of who you are. and painfully aware that my colleagues on the other side for their reasons they say they care. but they don't vote to help you, tracy. so, again, i would just say if ever there was a time to focus on the differences between the parties, it's now. who are we fighting for? today it is clear, mr. president, our republican friends, to a person, it pains me to say, stop a tax cut for 99.9% of the american people. and they stopped the extension of unemployment benefits for people like tracy, good, hard-working, patriotic americans, many of whom, by the way, their families served in military. and with that, i say, i hope for

better days in this holiday season. we're not going to give up. we're going to stand here and fight. we're going to stay here. but today was not a good day for 99.9% of the american people. and i just want them to know why and i hope in this little time i've had i've explained it so that they do get. thank you very much. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: mr. president, i must compliment my colleague -- both my colleagues, senator dorgan and senator boxer for calmly laying out -- mrs. mccaskill: frankly i feel like i'm in the twilight zone. and i certainly paid attention to the results in november. anybody who's in this building paid attention to the results in november. and somehow the republican party thinks that and what the first da