that is part of the discussion. i could be wrong. ok? so you have this give-and-take. the final part of this, this guy turned out to be a very good friend of mine that i have no for 35 years now. 32 years. is now the department of energy, the director of office and science. so he for gave me. [laughter] >> thank you, secretary chu, and thank you to the staff of the national press club. and they keep to the staff of the energy department that scrambled into the situation, and thank you all for coming here today. this meeting of the national press club is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> next, president obama announces a trade agreement with south korea and comments on the bush era tax cuts than a portion of today's debate on the senate tax cut amendments. after that, democrat and republican reaction to the votes. >> earlier today, president obama spoke about a free-trade agreement with south korea that would create 70,000 american jobs and increase exports by $11 billion. he also takes questions on the senate blocking two democratic measures. this is about 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. today i want to speak briefly about two issues that matter

most to me and matter most to the american people -- creating jobs and economic growth on which our country's prosperity depends. yesterday's job report showed that despite 11 consecutive months of private sector job growth, despite creating more than 1 million private sector jobs this year, it's not enough. we have to do more to accelerate the economic recovery and create jobs for the millions of americans who are still looking for work. and essential to that effort is opening new markets around the world to products that are "made in america." because we don't simply want to be an economy that consumes other countries' goods. we want to be building and exporting the goods that create jobs here in america and that keeps the united states competitive in the 21st century. that's why today i am very pleased that the united states and south korea have reached agreement on a landmark trade deal between our two countries. i'm joined this morning by my

outstanding u.s. trade representative, ambassador ron kirk, as well as michael froman, who was one of our lead negotiators. as you'll remember, we did not finalize this agreement on my recent visit to south korea. and i didn't agree to it then for a very simple reason: the deal wasn't good enough. it wasn't good enough for the american economy, and it wasn't good enough for american workers. as i said in seoul, i'm not interested in signing trade agreements for the sake of signing trade agreements. i'm interested in agreements that increase jobs and exports for the american people and that also help our partners grow their economies. so i told ron and our team to take the time to get this right and get the best deal for america. and that is what they have done. the agreement we're announcing today includes several important improvements and achieves what i believe trade deals must do -- it's a win-win

for both our countries. this deal is a win for american workers. for our farmers and ranchers, it will increase exports of american agricultural products. from aerospace to electronics, it will increase our manufacturing exports to korea, which already support some 200,000 american jobs and many small businesses. in particular, manufacturers of american cars and trucks will have much more access to the korean market, we'll encourage the development of electric cars and green technology in the united states, and we'll continue to ensure a level playing field for american automakers here at home. in short, the tariff reductions in this agreement alone are expected to boost annual exports of american goods by up to $11 billion. and all told, this agreement -- including the opening of the korean services market -- will

support at least 70,000 american jobs. it will contribute significantly to achieving my goal of doubling u.s. exports over the next five years. in fact, it's estimated that today's deal alone will increase american economic output by more than our last nine free trade agreements combined. this deal is also a win for our ally and friend south korea. they will gain greater access to our markets and make american products more affordable for korean households and businesses -- resulting in more choices for korean consumers and more jobs for americans. i would add that today is also a win for the strong alliance between the united states and south korea, which for decades has ensured that the security that has maintained stability on the peninsula continues. and it's also allowed south korea its extraordinary rise from poverty to prosperity.

at a time in which there are increasing tensions on the korean peninsula, following the north's unprovoked attack on the south korean people, today we are showing that the defense alliance and partnership of the united states and south korea is stronger than ever. i'm especially pleased that this agreement includes groundbreaking protections for workers' rights and for the environment. in this sense, it's an example of the kind of fair trade agreement that i will continue to work for as president, in asia and around the world. this agreement also shows that the united states of america is determined to lead and compete in our global economy. we're going to stand up for american companies and american workers, who are among the most productive and innovative in the world. and we're going to compete aggressively for the jobs and markets of the 21st century. reaching this agreement was not easy. but i want to give special thanks to my partner, south korean president lee, for his

commitment to a successful outcome. and, again, i want to thank ron and mike for their outstanding work, and their entire team for their tireless efforts. they were up late a lot of nights over the last several months. we're going to continue to work with our korean partners to fully implement this agreement and build on our progress in other areas, such as ensuring full access for u.s. beef to the korean market. and i look forward to working with congress and leaders in both parties to approve this pact. because if there's one thing democrats and republicans should be able to agree on, it should be creating jobs and opportunity for our people. which brings me to the other issue i want to address. earlier today, the senate voted on two provisions to extend tax cuts for the middle class. and i'll admit, i am very disappointed that the senate did not pass legislation that had already passed the house of representatives to make middle- class tax cuts permanent.

those provisions should have passed. i continue to believe that it makes no sense to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of americans -- especially when those high-income tax cuts would cost an additional $700 billion that we don't have and would add to our deficit. but with so much at stake, today's votes cannot be the end of the discussion. it is absolutely essential -- to our hardworking middle-class families and to our economy -- to make sure that their taxes don't go up on january 1st. i've spoken with the democratic leadership in congress, and i look forward to speaking with the republican leadership as well. and my message to them is going to be the same: we need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impasse -- in the next few days -- to give the american people the peace of mind that

their taxes will not go up on january 1st. it will require some compromise, but i'm confident that we can get it done. and the american people should expect no less. as we work our way through this issue, we must not forget that last week some 2 million americans who have lost their jobs also saw their unemployment insurance expire -- right in the middle of the holiday season. and that's not how we should do business here in america. i believe it is simply wrong to even consider giving permanent tax breaks to the wealthiest americans while denying relief to so many americans who desperately need it and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. so we are going to continue to work on this issue through the weekend, into early next week. and i'm going to be rolling up my sleeves, with the leaders of both parties in congress. we need to get this resolved, and i'm confident we can do it.

thank you very much, everybody. >> wish to accept a temporary extension of all the tax cuts? -- would you accept a temporary extension of all the tax cuts? >> next, a portion of today's debate on the senate's tax cut amendments. democratic and republican reactions to those votes and a real interview with vice president biden and senator marker. >> tomorrow, a political roundtable with mark mackoviak on the 112th congress. grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform talk about the deficit commission proposal and extending the bush era tax cuts. sharry is this is the

dream act to give opportunity for citizenship. washington journal, liven 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, see, it would be the peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, is alternately to be imposed once again with a hypocrisy. we just have to hope that if it does happen, the new dictator will be a lot more benign than saddam hussein. >> john burns on the future of iraq, sunday night on c-span's "q&a."

hi, i am the program specialist grid each year, we conduct our video documentary competition for the competition asks students through grades 6 through 12 to make a video on our nation. we chose this topic because we want to you explain how the federal government's affects an issue or alive in your community. select a topic that interests you. it wants to have your topic, you can begin your research. the goal is to fully develop and research your topic, provide different points of view and include c-span footage in a five-eight minute video. you can visit our web site for more information or e-mail us any questions you have at educate. c-span.org. >> the senate was in session today debating two amendments that would extend bush era tax

cuts. one amendment would extend tax cuts to the middle class and chuck schumer included tax cuts for those making up to $1 million. neither amendment gathered enough votes to move on. negotiations continue. we begin with senator schumer and orrin hatch. 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. we should not meddle with the great sovereign power of taxation. it is especially true in this

harsh economic debate. on april 19, 1774, sir edmund burke tried to persuade the british parliament to repeal the last of several controversial colonial taxes. his wisdom was instructive for today's vote. i quote -- -- and remember, ths sir edmund burke arguing for the colonists in america. quote -- "could anything be a subject to more just alarm of america than to see you go out of the plain highroad of finance and give up your most certain revenues and your clearest rests rely for the sake of insulting your colonies." burke's point was the parliament was acting unwising by maintaining a tea tax primarily despitprimarilyto spite the col. four years from day, we will support tax day 2011. it will impose a punitive tax hike on virtually every american

taxpayer. that day of reckoning has been clear since my friends took power almost four years ago in both houses of congress. my friends on the other side, with all due respect, your actions this morning amount to meddling. you possess part of the sovereign power to change the tax law to prevent this tax increase. instead you have forced this body into a political showdown. the proponents of the so-called millionaires tax say the reason to do is -- quote -- "fiscal discipline." this proposal preserves less than half of the revenue of the related provisions in the reid-baucus substitute. if that's the case and revenue is the goal of the proponents of the millionaires tax, they ought to stick with the reid-baucus substitute. but let's set aside the moment the fact that the revenue raised is a fraction that the broader tax hike on the reid-baucus substitute. does anyone take seriously the -- that the revenue raised will go to deficit reduction? does anybody really believe

that? you know they're going to spend every dime of it if there were any revenues. where is the mechanism in the amendment to assure taxpayers of that? more importantly what is the record of my friends on the other side on this point? you need to only look at the fine print. in the revenue and spending of the president's budget. as an aside the president's budget is the most transparent presentation of the fiscal features of the agenda of my friend on the other side. hiking marginal tax rates on singles making more than $200,000 and on families making over $250,000 translate to about .6% of 1% of gross domestic product, g.d.p., per year over 10 years. the new above baseline spending initiatives in the president's budget translate to .7500 of 1% of g.d.p. per year over 10 years. what does that mean? the revenue raised by the tax

hike in the reid-baucus substitute is less than the new spending in the president's budget. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. and as i've stated earlier the revenue raised from my friend from new york he's amendment is less than half of the reid-baucus substitute. does anybody really believe that lesser amount of revenue is less likely to be spent? so much for the fiscal discipline argument. there's some very disturbing points to ponder in this so-called millionaires tax. i'm going to alert my friends on the other side to them. the first point is that capital is the lifeblood of business. put more capital into business and it will respond. the business will gain economic energy. curtail the flow of capital to a business and it will -- and it will respond. the business will lose economic energy. and that's what's happening in america. according to the latest internal revenue service statistics of

inkol data a lot of capital gain income is earned by the taxpayers targeted by senator schumer's amendment. s.o.i., in other words, statistics of income data, states that 56.6% of the net long-term capital gain from traditional capital assets is reported by taxpayers with $1 million or more dollars in income. more importantly if capital gains from transactions involving partnerships and other flow-through entities are a concern, that percentage rises to 64.7%. there can be little doubt that we are talking about a large pool of capital. if my friends on the other side were to prevail it would a game changer for the tax treatment of a large pool of capital of in -- of income from capital. the change in the capital gain would surely be a negative one. i have chart that illustrates the change in the playing field

for capital transactions. it shows where we are today. that's 15% capital gains rate. if my friends on the other side are successful in a little over 27 days from now the marginal rate will rise to 20%. the health care reform bill has banked in another 3.9% rate hike and that kicks in a little over two years from now and that's this one right here, 23.9%. what does this chart show? it shows that the marginal rate on nearly two-thirds of taxable long-term capital gains transactions could be affected. it means investors who supply that capital, lifeblood of business, will see the marginal tax rate on capital gains rise by nearly 60% in a little over two years. everything else being equal, a rise in the marginal tax rate means a decline in the after-tax rate of return.

the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation always cautions us about this effect in their revenue estimates. here's what joint tax says and i quote -- "we anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased marginal rate by utilizing tax planning and tax avoid ant strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to taxation." unquote. my gosh, what more do you need to understand economics? capital is the lifeblood of business. raise the marginal rate on capital gains transactions, the result will be a decrease in the after-tax rate of return on capital investments. what will happen? capital will go out of taxable activities in many cases. capital, the lifeblood of business, will be constricted. with capital constricted, does anybody see business activity affected in any way that is positive? it would be hard to imagine that outcome.

when most folks hear about a so-called millionaires tax, they probably think it would have minimal impact on the business environment. that they -- the data i discussed shows the op sivment it also shows that any revenue raised will likely be spent. anybody who believes that by raising revenues, that we're going to pay off the national debt hasn't live in this country for the last 34 years that i've been in the senate. our friends on the other side will always spend that money. that's how they keep themselves in power. does it make sense to send a tax policy signal to investors to move their capital out of taxable business activity? in the worst economic environment in many years, now 9.8% unemployment, shouldn't we be going in the opposite direction? instead of finding way to kill jobs when our unemployment rate continues to stagnate at 10%,

let's find a bipartisan solution protect all americans, especially our job creators, from crushing tax hikes. it's time to put a stop to this nonsensical political theater and get down to the people's business. just one last thought. over the last summer president obama said, and i would -- quote -- "the last -- this is president obama now, and he said it just over the last summer -- quote -- "the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole." unquote. i think the president was right. and i think the economists think it was right in making that statement. and it should be the last thing we do is raising taxes in the middle of this downturn that now is even more down because the 9.8% unemployment rate. and, really, that only tells

part of the story. if you really talk about the underemployment rate, those who don't have jobs, can't find jobs, et cetera, are dependent on the federal government and those who have stopped looking for jobs, and there are a lot of people like that, you're talking 18% or better. we've got to wise up here. what -- the last thing on earth we need to do is increase taxes at this late date. mr. president, this is an important debate, but the democrats have had four years to change this where they controlled the houses of congress and in the last two years not only controlled both houses and the presidency, and now at this last minute to come in and say we've got to do something, it just shows a lack of -- well, you name it. speak. senator grassley, senator baucus, i appreciate this. i guess the first observation i would make is that we're here on a saturday morning and this is democracy in many ways i think at its best. people understand the two votes

are going to fail but it's good for americans to have genuine differences to be able to discuss what makes us tick, why we want to go one way versus the other. so the fact that america is divided on a lot of big issues is -- is just the result of living in a free country. now, what was the lessons of the last election? they are what you would like them t be but here's my observation, for what it's worth. our democratic friends really took a beating. as republicans, we have been there. in 2006 and 2008, we took a beating. 2006, the iraq war was going very bly and americans were very frustrated. president bush's popularity plummeted. in 2008, we had an economic meltdown that i thought was related to housing, that we lt money to people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages, the mortgages were repackaged and sold as all kind of exotic instruments throughout the world and it brought the whole world economy down.

and we've been trying to struggle ever since. we can talk about how much fannie mae and freddie mac were the cause of this problem, how much loose practices when it came to lending, but i think most people understand that our economic crisis was created by the -- the mortgage -- the housing market being overextended and people getting into that market in exotic ways without a whole lot of regulation. now, here we are a couple years later. i think the last election was a message to our democratic friends, for the last two years, you've been going down the wrong road. the health care bill, which about 80% of americans, if it ever becomes law, will become -- will be under government-controlled health care, was an overreach. the stimulus package was $780 billion-something that wass never do what it was billed to do. the democratic party has been engaged in what is way above what every american charged them

to do. this election was not pro-republicans but to our democratic colleagues, stop. and the way you get stopped around here is you get replaced. so the house had a dramatic election. we picked up seats in the senate and some of us thought maybe we could have picked up two or three more and made some pretty poor choices when it came to the candidates. but that's now behind us. and what i would like to tell my colleagues, that when i look at america, i don't see an undertaxed nation. i think our tax code is far too complicated. 35% is the rate now. how much is enough? is it 39.6%? is that the difference between, you know, a -- a socialustice country and -- and a land of the rich? i mean, if --re we going to increaseaxes for the upper incomes by 10% when we can't create enough jobs for americans who are unemployed? i do believe this idea that upper-income aricans are the ones who create most jobs for the middle class and people looking for work.

that's just a fact. here's how our tax code works today. 40% of americans pay no federal income tax. so 40% of us really don't pay any income tax at all. of those who do, 50% of those who pay federal income tax pay 3%. the other 50% pays 97%. the top 10% of wage earners in this country pays 70% of the taxes. now, i'm for a proessive tax system but that's just not right. that seems to me to be taking the country in the wrong direction. there's 750,000 sll businesses will get a tax increase if we do not extend the bush tax cuts for everybod i'll make a prediction. there's a lot of unsolved mysteries in this world, a lot of things that we'd like to know, we don't know the answer to. this is not one of them. what will happen, hopefully next week, is that all bush-era tax cuts will be extended because we have high unemployment and now is not the time to pass on to

business or upper-income amerans more taxes. and i hope we can extend some of the obama tax cuts. i don't want to raise taxes on anyone. if you don't pay taxes, then you shouldn't be getting a tax cut because you have no tax liability. but if you're in the eitc range where you have some tax liability, the obama tax cuts in the stimulus helped you, i'm one who considers that to be something we should be looking at, that no one's taxes should go up. bush-era tax cuts or obama tax cuts. when it comes to the unemployed and unemployment insurance, we're going to extend that but we have to have a package that makes sense. so once we get this vote hyped us and democrats on the other side will join with republicans on this side to say no to the class warfare approach here. now, one of my good friendsrom new jersey said something that got everybody stirred up, that negotiating with republicans is like negotiating with terrorists. well, i know bob menendez, he's a fine man, but these are heated

times and we say things that sometimes maybe sound good to our base but upon reflection we shouldn't say. and i would argue that nobody over here should be considered in that light. to our democratic friends, we have a genuine disagreement. that's all it is, a genuine disagreement. the one thing we have in common, when the terrorists, the real terrorists do come to visit america, they could care less how mu money you make. they will kill the janitor and the business owner just as quick because they don't see any difference based on income. the one thing that america has in common is that we do believe in free speech, open debate, religious diversity, and that's not something that you believe in based on your income. that's something you believe in based on just being an american. so i would ask my colleagues on both sides to understand tt not only are we in this war on terror together, we're in this economy together, and a lot of

americans are suffering, some more than others. and the ones that are struggling in the middle class and lower incomes are trying to do one thing that everybody agrees on: get a job. and ladies and gentlemen, i believe the best way for struggling americans to get a job is not to raise taxes but keep them low in weak economy, and that' what i genuinely believe. i have not come from a rich family. i'm the first person in my family to ever go to college. my mom and dad owned a liquor store and a restaurant. they worked long and hard to make sure that my sister and myself could go to college. when my parents died, i was 22, and my sister was 13. if it were not for social security survivorenefits, we would not have me it. she received pell grants to go to school when her college days were there and i was in the air force and helped where i could. so i get it. people are strugglg.

there is a role for the government, but this is not the time for our government to raise taxes on anybody because all of us aretruggling to try to find way out of this economic mess. and there are some stuff days ahead economically. there are some tough days ahead in the war on terror. let's have these votes, come back next week and see if we can lve some problems that all americans are dying for their congress to solve. get us back on sound economic footing, deal with debt, and to senator durbin, senator crapo, to senator coburn, hats off to your vote on the debt commission. you did some very hard thing, and that product is going to serve the country well. we're all in this together, and i wish everyone good holidays and maybe a time to reflect, that we do have more in comomomm the presiding officer: the

senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i think it's important just to lay a few facts on the table. the senator from oregon did a good job of making this point clear, but i think, frankly, very few people in the country understand this point, this debate. to be honest, i think there are a good number of members of the senate who do not understand this point. the point being that under my amendment, which makes the -- those who receive $200,000 and less in income, their tax is permanent. under that amendment, it's important to remind all of us that every individual will get a tax break. every, regardless of his income. that is every individual who has more than $200,000 of taxable income would receive a cut of at least $5,400. if you're above $200,000, you still get a tax cut. you get a tax cut as an individual about $5,400.

if you're a couple, it's probably close to double that. the same is probably true under the schumer amendment. under the schumer amendment, for those who make $1 million, their tax cut's going to be about $40,000. even though the cutoff is $1 million, those who earn more than $1 million will get a tax cut -- under our amendment. they'll get a tax cut under my amendment, a tax cut under the schumer amendment. under mine, about $5,400. under the schumer amendment, if you earn more than $1 million, you're going to get a tax cut of about $40,000. if you're a couple, it's almost close to double that, most likely. after that, in my amendment, and continuing's also in the schumer -- and i think it's also in the schumer amendment, dividend rates are lower. those folks who rely on dividends are going to get an additional tax break. the point i'm making very clearly is that everybody gets a

tax cut under our amendments. it's not fair for the other side to characterize only some people get a tax cut. it is true those under 200 will get a bigger break on a percentage basis, but dollar terms they're going to get less of a break than those who earn $200,000 and above or under the schumer amendment, $1 million or above. the second point i want to make is we have to make choices, madam president. we often hear the expression, there's no free lunch, nothing is free. life is choices. we make choices here in the senate. sometimes the choices we made are quite difficult, but they're also significant. i'm a little bit bemused -- i was bemused and still am bemused when i heard the senator from south carolina praise the president's deficit commission report which recommended cutting the national deficit through

various mechanisms, revenue increases and spending cuts. the senator was praising that. and i say bemused because the basic view of the senators on the other side is to increase the national debt by about $4 trillion. that is the amendment offered by the senator from kentucky will raise revenue in the next ten years by $4 trillion. that's adding $4 trillion to the deficit. not subtracting $4 trillion from the deficit, but adding $4 trillion to the deficit for a swing of about $8 trillion over eight, nine, ten years. that i think is fairly important. it's important because many commentators are concerned about the debt that we have as a country. they point out the problem that greece has, ireland, portugal

and spain, and even articles that maybe countries should break in europe away from the euro and have a separate currency. the main disappoint we live in somewhat precarious times and we have to not add to the deficit. the amendment i offered does add to the deficit, i might say, in all candor. it adds about $2 trillion over ten years, because we cut taxes in a manner which i explained. the schumer amendment cuts a little more -- that is adds a little bit more to the deficit. that's only about $2 trillion, $2.3 trillion, $2.4 trillion, whereas the other side would like to add $4 trillion. i'm just saying everybody gets a tax cut under the amendment that i'm offering. and those who make more than $200,000 get more in dollar terms than do people at $200,000 or below. that's just a statistical fact, a mathematical fact.

it's about $5,400 for those who receive $200,000 and above. under schumer it's about $40,000 for those who receive $1 million and above. whereas those below will also get a tax cut as well. just to remind everybody that we do have to make choices. we have to keep an eye on the debt. we should not increase the debt more. these various provisions do a bit to not increase the debt more than we have to. i might add to that too, it's something i think we should be concerned with. in the last quarter-century, the top 5% of wealthy americans received an after-tax break of about 150%. that is, their after-tax income of the top 5% american people the last quarter century fell by

150%. compare that with middle-income is americans. the last quarter century the after-tax break changed 20%. a huge difference. our policy caused the most wealthy to have much greater after-tax benefits than do -- than is in effect for middle-income americans. all together i think it makes sense. we balance, have to make choices. everybody gets a tax cut under our two amendments. and i strongly urge my colleagues to support the two amendments. i think it's not perfect but it's good, the final vote on the bottom and was 53 to 26. the amendments needed 60 votes to move on. after that vote, minority leader

mitch mcconnell from kentucky took the floor. th unemployment over 9% for more than -- more skive months than at any time sce 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 istron 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 republan 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 repuicans 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'tare 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 natial television that his number-one pmary goal is to unseat the president? i was going to ask him how he felt about that. that's a tough place to sta a negotiation, whichs 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. anyme 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 >> now, democratic and republican reaction to the senate vote. democratic senators spoke first after the amendments to extend the tax cut extension failed to advance. both news conferences are about 40 minutes. republicans are willing to hold hostage the middle class tax cuts to get tax cuts for thethe middle class needs the tax cuts. their incomes have declined. the highest income bracket have

have shown a deficit reduction. that is how we feel. the other party seems to feel that tax cuts for millionaires important thing this nation can do. we're going to continue this fight until we achieve our goal. permanent tax cut for the middle class but no tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires. we did not have anything against them. god bless them. they have made a lot of money, and that is great, but they do not stimulate the economy. only 30 cents of every $1 to the highest income people is spent. $1.52 is spent on unemployment benefits. we find it impossible to understand how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that if we can give tax cuts to the highest income people and not pay for it but we cannot do that for those who are unemployed. we have an order here depending

on who has to leave so we will go to senator lautenberg first. >> thank you, chuck. >> in order of the best orator. >> we will get down to serious business. i look at what is going on here, this tax relief for people who are fundamentally rich. i had a good business career. i would be entitled to a tax cut for those over the $1 million mark. i do not want it. i do not need it. but this is is a great american travesty. think about it. while america is fighting wars and over 150,000 of our people are off in afghanistan,

brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, face life and limb in the process. our country is facing a fiscal crisis. republicans are fighting to make sure we provide tax relief to the richest among cost. in a recent "the new york times" article, it showed eight faces of people made $1 billion per year, the richest among them $3.4 billion. they want to get more tax relief to those people. it is an outrage. this is a per-capita income in our country of about $60,000. we have over 15 million people

without jobs and now we hear from the republicans "too bad." but the richest, and thus need tax relief. when does conscious enter into the equation? when you say the extra money i get will not make a difference, but whether or not our country is stronger to provide a brighter future for those who need an education, for those who need jobs, for those in need some security? when will they say to hell with extra dollars on our tax report? when do we stand up for our country? they say stand down and it is

just too bad. >> i think today's vote points of a clear difference between the democrats and republicans on the tax issues. by 53 votes democrats have shown that not only the overwhelming majority of our caucus and the members of the united states senate, the majority of the members of the senate say that in these tough economic times we need to make sure that the tax relief is continued for middle- income families. republicans in a unified voice said, "we are prepared to filibuster that. we are prepared to filibuster the tax breaks remaining the same for middle-income families in order to protect the very wealthiest in america." it is a sad day for the republican party. it is critically important that we make sure the tax relief is given to middle-income families. >> a colleague of mine on monday when i was presiding said we had to do everything possible that we can to prevent the deficit from increasing. today he voted to increase the

deficit by $700 billion. that is a very impressive reversal in one week. i just heard the republican leaders say that we had not learned the lesson from the election. nowhere on the ballot, or on any ballot that i saw, was, "do you want to extend the tax cuts on incomes above $250,000"? exit polling from the organization edison research that would do this for all of the networks and for ap said 60% of the american people leaving the polling places did not want to extend these bush

era tax cuts for people making over $250,000. we campaigned on that. we took the first vote and we lost. $250,000 is where i would draw the line, but we could compromise. $1 million. they are saying that if you make $1 million, i do not know how you define "millionaire." i know farmers in minnesota who own farms that are worth $3 million or $4 million and they are barely scraping by. i do not know how to measure it, but they sure do not make $1 million in a year. $1 million. i have heard colleagues over and over again saying we need

to make hard choices. this is not really a hard choice. we had two wars. we are headed for a real, real, real crisis in terms of our long-term investment. this is a chance to address it. i want to return to what chuck was saying about unemployment insurance benefits. in minnesota, i met a guy at a building trade union hall. these are guys that work of their lives, and now this is essentially a depression in that industry. i met a carpenter there, on a big guy, calloused hands, he

had tears in his eyes and he had barely worked in the last 18 months just getting an odd job here and there. he told me that if it were not for his unemployment insurance, "i do not like taking it, but if it were not for it i would not be in my house." what are we doing here? they are saying that we have to pay for the unemployment insurance benefits, but we do not have to pay for tax cuts for people who make over $1 million per year? what are we doing? where are our values? we are all going to go back some point soon to have

christmas holidays with our families. we have jobs. we have jobs. and it is a great job. our job, as i see it, is it to improve the life of americans. we know it has created jobs. what we see today is an economic philosophy that was a procter it -- that was tried during the bush administration that created 1 million jobs as opposed to an economic philosophy decorated 22 million -- that great region that created 22 million -- that created jobs during the clinton administration. we want people working. i do not know when we are doing here. thank you. >> we have had 10 years of experience with the bush tax cuts. today, we have had the scene -- have seen the worst job

performance in the poster-war -- post-war era. we have seen the middle class incomes stagnate, barely grow, and in some places decline. as a matter of policy, as a matter of doing what the american people want to do, to create a growing economy that produces jobs for all citizens, these tax policies have not worked. we have that evidence. it is all around us, unfortunately. there is a need at this point to continue to give relief to middle-income families, to give them some relief as they struggle through this very difficult market. extending the middle-income tax cuts make sense economically and the governmentally. it makes no sense to extend the tax cuts for the very wealthiest americans. in the terms of growing jobs, the economy, the middle-class. then you turn around to the unemployment compensation issue, that, too, is a necessity because of the

policies of the bush should ministration, two -- bush and administration, two unfunded wars, the tax cuts for the wealthy, and we see people desperately looking for work. al franken's story can be replicated in every city of this nation. people have worked their whole lives, reached middle-age, not only do they not have a job but they're coming to the terrible realization that they may never get back to where they were. that is not a financial blow, but it is a huge blow to a sense of self, a sense of family, a sense of what your family is about. here the republicans say not only will we not approve a middle-income tax cut unless you tax cuts for the very wealthy, but we will force you to pay for unemployment compensation benefits. we have never done that before under republican and ministrations, a democratic -- republican administrations, democrat administrations. today the unemployment rate is

close to 10%. how they want pay for it? again, this goes back to the hard choices we have to make. and obligated funds, is that the -- unobligated funds, is that the border fence between texas and mexico? is that the border patrol station? i'm sure they would be the first to say it is not that. we need to make difficult choices. the obvious tourist today was to extend benefits to the middle class and come americans can help them to other provisions, and that was clearly rejected by the republicans. that is unfortunate. >> tuesday night at midnight, 85,000 people from ohio, 2 million americans saw their unemployment benefits end. think that means to a mother who says to their teenage daughter that we will lose our home and we do not know what school district will have to

move into. think about what it means. i was going to food pantries in columbus and akron. every food pantry i have visited, virtually everyone tells me that people who used to give food to the pantry are now coming in to receive food. yet because of republican opposition, 85,000 ohioans and 2 million americans saw their unemployment benefits and is. -- ends. -- benefits end. we tried to do something about that. i stood on the floor, my colleagues have gone to the floor, jack reed has led the effort on this time and time again just to maintain these unemployment insurance benefits. this is not a welfare program. is an insurance plan. people pay in the. -- pay in. if they lose their jobs, they collect. it is like fire insurance. you want to have a few needed,

-- have it if you need it, but you do not ever want to use it. is there if you need it. when people criticize congress, it is often that we do not listen enough. this is an example today that we've tried to do with the american people want. they think we should extend tax cuts for the broader middle- class and let them expire in four millionaires and billionaires, yet republicans, again, chose to side with the millionaires and billionaires against unemployed workers, low-income workers, the earned income tax credit, and every kind of benefit we wanted to give here. 10 years ago, in 2001-2003 it was the hallmark of the bush economic plan which was to give major tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 2001 and 2003. this is a 10 year experiment that ends on december 31st. that experiment clearly has not worked. during the eight years of george bush, there is a net increase of

1 million private sector jobs contrast it with during the eight years of bill clinton we have 22 million of job increases. the whole idea of trickle-down economics the whole theory does not work. the whole tax cuts hostage. in essence, what the republicans want to do is bar $700 billion -- barrault's $700 billion -- borrow $700 billion from china, put this on our children and grandchildren credit-card, and then hand that to millionaires and billionaires. it is bad for our country, it is bad economic policy, it is bad for our future. >> yesterday, i was home in rhode island and i went to the cranstons senior center annual christmas party. it was at the west valley inn,

which is a nice dinner hall. there were a couple of people there, one nice elderly lady, she signaled me aside to speak to me privately. she said her son has worked for 28 years. i raised seven children, i am proud of the mall, they are all working. the sun was not out of work who -- the son was now out of w ork, who had worked for 20 years. for the first time he had taken a minimum wage job and was stocking shelves. people in rhode island and people across the country want to work. they will work. she said, "my son feels about this big, but he will take the job because people want to work." the theory that we have heard that you cannot extend unemployment insurance benefits because it contributes to lazy people who do not want to pick up the jobs is just plain wrong.

we of 65,000 people in rhode island without work. there are not 65,000 jobs, no matter how you divide them up. unemployment insurance is really an fortin to continue. -- important to continue. as a senator reed said we have never done this before to cut off unemployment insurance benefits yet that is what they have done. if the but these two things -- if you put these two things side-by-side, what if a family through no fault of their own has lost their income and is now down to their last fumes which is about to be cut off and they go down to zero? that is ok with the republicans. what is not ok is that someone who is making well over $1 million not get $100,000 or so in additional tax relief. it is economically wrong.

it is nonsense. from a human perspective, it is an unbelievably brutal theory. it is bad for america in two significant respects. one, it will cost $700 billion extra on to our debt and deficit, which they claim to be concerned about. two, it drives even further the divide that we have between regular, working americans and the super-wealthy. we are now at a discrepancy between regular people and the super-wealthy that has not been matched in income disparity since the 1920's. we are heading in the wrong direction. their protection of these additional tax benefits for our wealthiest people even at the expense of the deficit drives us even further in that direction.

it is simply bad for america to have that continue. >> my two years have been very interesting. i did not come from the house, the governor's office, or state legislator. i came in as a mayor. more importantly,i came as a small business person. i find it interesting and ironic when i hear the debate on the effective a have on small -- the effect it will have on small business from the other side, many of them who have never run a business, no experience struggling to make it through in the economy, gone to a bank and asked for loan to expand your business. we have done it. my wife runs four small retail stores. we see it in real life. i want to tell you this because sometimes when the press looks at us they see us as senators in our political lives, but there are many places we come from.

we still do in the sense of our work. i talked to my wife every day, as you can imagine. she owns four small businesses and here is what this debate is about. we started at $250,000 and we wanted to make sure that group of people enjoy continued tax relief but no, we could not get agreement. no, we want everybody. senator schirmer voted up to $1 -- senator schumer voted it up to $1 million. everyone under $1 million will continue to have tax relief. let me put this in perspective. and is not about how long the extensions are. there are 160 million tax filers in this country. 315,000 or above $1 million. that is what the debate is about. 315,000 people over here. it could be one year, two

years, but the debate is who benefits from the policies that we set? that is what it is about. then they talk about small business this and that, well, let me tell you. i'm not sure they understand these phrases, but the use the phrases, "llc, partnerships." i have done those. here is how it works. the many files down and your -- the money flows back down into your return. 96% of businesses in this country gross, and that means non-taxable, $1 million or less. we think of taxable income is less than $250,000. in fact, the compromise that we brought forward touched not only every american but almost every small business in this country. their arguments are false. that boils down to fiscal

responsibility. if there is one thing we heard in the election is to create better fiscal responsibility in the senate, take care of the middle class, and small- businessmen. we are doing all three. small business people are taking care of with the compromise. the community at large is taken care of. and we will not give millionaires and billionaires another $700 billion in a bonus check for them to stuff into the $2 trillion they have in the banks. we are right but that to the -- we will put that to the deficit. the american people said to do something about the deficit, so we are doing three things at once. it is a wide approach. on the other side, it is business as usual. as you heard from my colleagues before, the economy crashed. we think it is the right approach to help small businesses. 96% of small businesses will benefit from the plan we have put forward.

159.6 million taxpayers will benefit. that is the interesting part here. all the man said, when it is all done and said, 315,000 people is what it is about. they all still get some of the benefit. they'll get that level. $700 billion to make sure it goes toward the deficit. again, i find it ironic as a small-business person who lived and breathed that live who has been doing it since the age of 14, this is the reality. i have lived it, i have seen it. the policies we put forward are the right approach to deal with the deficit, the small business community, and all of the taxpayers in this country. questions? >> senator schumer, you said you guys will continue to fight for tax breaks for the middle- class but not tax breaks for the wealthy.

does that mean that as far as you are concerned a deal that would include a short-term extension for everyone is off of the table? >> the bottom line is our position has been enunciated clearly. the majority of democrats voted for both amendments. 53 votes on each. we will keep fighting for that. i cannot tell you what will happen in the next two or three weeks, but i can tell you this. we think this is right substantially, politically, and this will be one of the bigger issues going forward. we are not giving out. -- giving up in three days, one way, two months, six months, this will be a major issue for the next two years in this congress. i'm not going to get into what will happen next. i did not know. -- i don't know what will happen next. we have a very strong vote, a very united vote and both wings of our party for tax cuts for the middle-class but not

for millionaires. >> we think pressure will continue to build on the republican senators who voted no on extending unemployment benefits, voted twice no on a whole host of very popular tax cuts for working families. when 42 republicans signed a letter saying, "we will not do start or any other issues until we can get tax cuts for the wealthy," the public recognizes that more and more as people hear it and understand more and more how we expect two, three, four, five, 10 republicans to peel off because they do not want to be on the wrong side of history. >> the president was going to announce a caribbean trade deal today. -- a career in the trade deal today. >> i spoke with ron kirk yesterday. it is major progress on

automobiles. it is not strong enough in terms of non-terrace verio if -- non-tarriff bariers. i'm still concerned about cars coming from china into korea that will take the back door into the u.s. market. i am also concerned that the model of the trade agreement is not too different from the trilateral nafta on model. this is the largest trilateral -- bilateral trade agreement since the nafta deal. it does not work for america or middle-class policies. while our trade policy is significantly better under president obama, this does not move it forward for me. >> the president has made clear that he does not what the tax --

does not want the tax cuts to expire in a few weeks. are you saying today that democrats are willing to tell the white house that we are not going to do any kind of extension for the wealthiest? >> i will not get into what is going to happen over the next several days. we believe this is a fight worth making for a very long period of time. speaking for myself, i will keep that this. -- keep that this. -- keep at this. i believe this is correct substantially. it is the high ground politically. in the past, when we have had these types of cases, we have drawn up our hands. -- we have thrown up our hands. i cannot speak for every one of my colleagues. we did not know what kind of agreement the president will reach, if he reaches one at all. i will not speculate on that. the point we are making here today is that we think it is wrong for tax breaks to go to millionaires. we think it is correct that goes to the middle class. that will be one of our watchwords and you'll see us

continuing to work on this next year. >> do you or any of the other senators have the appetite to extend this into january? >> there are lots of people in our caucus who do have that appetite, some who did not. we will have to see what happens. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> really excited to be here on saturday, right? there is a lot of good football today, for any of you who have the same affliction for college football. i am not sure if it is an affliction.

we did not need the show votes today. this is a significant issue as to whether we will raise taxes in the middle of a recession. as you notice, 100% of republicans and four or five democrats also agreed that this is not the time to be raising taxes on anybody in the meantime, discussions continue. i'm hopeful we will be able to resolve this. i'm relatively confident that at the end of this process, we will go to a very sensible decision not to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. we will still discuss the length

of that decision to not raise taxes. i think that is the way -- i am not admonishing all of you. i find it tiring that everybody keeps talking about tax cuts. the decisions made it a decade ago were not given region giving people anything they don't already have. this is a debate about tax increases, whether it is a good idea to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. 100% of republicans think that is a bad idea. i hope at the end of the day, that is where we end up. i want to call on my friend and colleague for any observations he wants to make. >> the recent -- the reason uses the unemployment rate is now up to 9.8%. we need the jobs-creating sector of our country and our economy to have the proper incentives to go out and create jobs and make

the investments. they need certainty. the certainty is that we should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these. there is bipartisan agreement that we should not raise taxes on any wondering this sort of economic time. >> democrats are increasingly talking about tying an extension of the unemployment benefits to a new deal to continue the tax cut. what is your reaction to that? >> as you know, there are questions under way. we have discussed how to package all of this. i do not think no action on a collection of related issues is a likely outcome, but i could not tell you today what will be in your out of the package. >> speaking of a problem with the taxes in the long term recession [inaudible] >> i have many faults, but lack

of discipline is not one of them. i am not going to negotiate this deal with you this morning. >> the newest democratic message on this issue is that republicans are holding hostage tax cuts for the middle-class notwithstanding the expansion to protect millionaires. this new message of theirs, is it going to have any effect? should they think that they can get anywhere by actually allowing this thing to expire? >> i would say that the election was about a month ago. clear path the spinning stage. the american people would like us to do the things that need to be done. as we indicated this week, would need to be done, what must be done, decide the tax question, decide how we will fund the

government. our view is, once you get that out of the way, if there is any time left, senator reid makes a decision as to whatever else we will deal with. he indicated he will phial -- file cloture on a bunch of other matters. that is presumably to be voted on mid-week. i think it is time for the games to stop and progress to be made. today is december 4. christmas is just around the corner. it is time to wrap up the things that really must be done, should be done for the american people. >> to expect all senate republicans to vote against those measures? >> we will have the votes on wednesday. i'm optimistic we will stay on the things that we ought to be doing, which is the point of the letter we put out earlier this week. >> unemployment benefits will not be reauthorize that call? >> [laughter]

i don't mean to be rude. next question. >> you said you is still negotiating the length of that decision. do you mean the talks going on between you and the white house? >> there are lots of talks going on. i think it is a healthy sign now. there has probably been more conversations between the white house and senate house republicans in the last two weeks. -- last two weeks than the last two years. there's a growing awareness on both sides. there are lots of discussions going on. >> when you think a decision has to be reached? >> i don't think we have to go into the beginning of the year with people wondering if their taxes are going to go up.

we need to sit down as adults and resolve. i expect that to happen. >> there is a new theme. this was a 10-year experiment that failed. it really did not bring any benefits. the trickle-down theories did not come through. we have heard that michigan is still waiting for the trickle- down. were they effective? >> all i can say to that is 100% of senate republicans and four or five senate democrats felt we ought to continue with the current tax rate. there is bipartisan opposition to raising taxes. i think that speaks for itself. i would also remind you that they chose not to have this debate back in september. remember when they thought this would be a terrific debate to have right before the election? go out and debate about taxes. whatever happened to that debate?

i think there is a bipartisan feeling that the current tax rates are per. for the fort -- are appropriate for the foreseeable future, particularly with the kind of economic times we have now. >> is there enough time this year to get the start treaty done through the senate? >> i would love to be the majority leader sunday, but i don't set the schedule. all we advises that we think we ought to do the tax question, decide how we will fund the government, and then whatever time is left, the leader has an array of things that he would like to do. he will have to decide what to do next. we will see how much time is left. >> do you know what the holdup is right now on the tax field? >> well, -- reaching agreements requires a lot of communication, and a lot of communication has gone on. >> [inaudible]

>> it will be up to the majority. the house, we hear, will send over a continuing resolution. one of the things we will want to do is actually look at it. is it riddled with anomalies? is it riddled with the executive branch earmarks? is it clean? we are going to want to look at that. the majority leader has indicated he will try to substitute for that an omnibus to try and -- which i intend to oppose. either way, it will be a really large bill and need to be scrutinized thoroughly. it will come over from the house. thanks a lot, everybody.

>> it failed to move forward this weekend. we're joined by steven with " congressional quarterly." what happened in this session? >> this morning, the senate rejected two proposals to move forward on separate tax proposals. these are democratic tax proposals. one would have continued the bush that jarrett tax cuts for individuals making less than $250,000. the second proposal would have extended all the tax cuts for anyone making under $1 million. this is a democratic effort to dry line in the sand between what they're calling the middle class and the wealthy.

they're trying to figure out -- trying to stake their ground on who should actually have their tax-cut continued. >> why did the majority leader want to go forward with these votes? did he not know that they would fail? >> it was pretty clear from the beginning they would fail. there was no surprise. this is really an effort to paint republicans as doing the bidding of wealthy -- of the wealthiest among us. so, they had wanted to make sure that the vote was out there and that people could look back and see who voted for extending tax cut for people making less than 250 about -- to letters to the thousand dollars. >> mcconnell has two proposals he wants considered. when do you think the senate might take votes on those? >> well, the idea what to do this on friday, to include the proposals this morning, and to the two republican proposals

friday. there was a republican objection to going forward with that. it is not clear whether those republican proposals will get on the floor. you could do something like that next week. the next stage is moving forward with the negotiations. these vote today in the senate and the votes last week in the house or kind of cathartic for democrats to stake their ground, but now, you know, everyone is going to move forward and actually get to the serious part of the negotiations. >> what does it mean for negotiations with the white house? >> well, this is where it gets a little dicey. there seems to be some democratic -- there seems to be some frustration among the democrats that the white house is talking with republicans, talking with congressional leaders. they have made it very clear that they are willing to go beyond $250,000 and extend the higher-income bracket or maybe

two years. this means that that is certainly going to play out this week, and you will hear the rhetoric from both parties. that will continue and intensify. you will still have the white house negotiations appeared >> stephen as a reporter with " congressional quarterly." we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> this week's review addresses focus on the soon-to expire bush era tax cuts with president obama flying back from his visits to afghanistan. vice president biden delivered the address and called for spending tax cuts for the middle-class and unemployment and effort -- benefit. mark kirk calls for the tax cuts to be extended for all americans to allow small businesses to create jobs. he also criticizes democrats for rejecting a ban on earmark spending. >> hi, this is joe biden.

i'm filling in for president obama this weekend because he's on his way back from afghanistan, where he was spending some time with the brave men and women of our armed forces. you all know it is tough. it's tough to be far from home during the holidays, especially in a warzone, so he wanted to be there in person to thank them on behalf of all americans for their service and the sacrifice each one of them are making. and here at home, the first lady and my wife jill have made supporting military families a priority. these families are also making difficult sacrifices for our country, and they deserve our admiration and gratitude as well. our service members and their families are always on our mind, even as the president and i are working on other issues that all american families are deeply concerned about: accelerating our recovery, growing our economy, strengthening our middle class, and getting our friends and neighbors back to work. in recent months, we've seen encouraging signs on that front. after shrinking for four

straight quarters, our economy has now grown five straight quarters. after nearly two years of job loss, our economy has created more than one million private sector jobs just this year. and after teetering on the brink of liquidation last year, our auto industry is posting healthy gains, assembly lines are running again, and american manufacturing is getting up off the mat and fighting its way back. still, friday's jobs report was a sobering reminder of that. while we saw another month of job growth in november, it just wasn't enough. that underscores why it's so important to get going without delay on two things that will have the most impact in growing the economy. one -- we've got to extend the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire at the end of the month. if we don't, millions of middle-class families will see a big bite out of their paychecks

starting january 1. and that's the last thing we should let happen. after a decade in which they lost ground, middle class families can ill-afford a tax hike -- and our economy can't afford the hit it will take if middle class families have less money to spend. and the second thing we've got to do is extend unemployment insurance for americans who have lost their jobs in a tough economy. without unemployment benefits, families can't spend on basic necessities that are grown, made, and sold by other americans. together, the economic hit caused by raising taxes on the middle class, and denying two million americans unemployment insurance, will wind up costing us hundreds of thousands of more jobs. it just isn't smart. and, cutting unemployment insurance is not only not smart, it's not right either. it would mean telling millions of our neighbors who are out of work today through no fault of their own, that they're on their own.

that's no message to send in the season of hope. we all know someone who's hit a rough patch. when that happens in america, we help him get back up on his feet. that's who we are. that's the american way. so i just don't agree with the folks who've said we can't afford a lifeline for americans who lost their jobs during the worst recession in generations, but we can afford to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of americans. that's bad economic policy, and it's also just simply wrong. congress must extend these needed unemployment benefits before it goes home for the year. and it must bolster economic growth by preserving tax cuts for our middle class. i'm glad that the house of representatives voted to do that this week, and i call on the united states senate to do the same. look, there's no doubt these are tough times. but we are slowly but surely fighting our way back, moving forward. and we're going to keep fighting -- to grow this

economy, to strengthen our middle class, and to restore the american dream. that's my pledge to you. and hey, one last thing -- since the president will be back to record this message next week, let me take this chance to say from my family to yours: merry christmas, happy hanukkah, have a great holiday season and an even better new year. thanks, and enjoy the weekend. >> hello, i'm senator mark kirk of illinois. last month, the american people sent a clear message to washington: spend less, borrow less and tax less to put america back to work. unfortunately, too many in washington want to continue the reckless tax-and-spend policies of the past. they ignore the warning signs of more debt, taxes and inflation. they embrace wasteful government spending and pork- barrel earmarks. and they think a new massive tax hike on the u.s. economy is exactly what the

american people need.the current leaders of congress should not move forward with plans that were just rejected by the american people. these leaders should not raise taxes and risk another recession. instead, congress should reduce spending and prevent another tax hike on american taxpayers. americans already pay some of the highest taxes in the world. by raising taxes in order to fuel higher spending, we threaten to restart the recession, pushing millions of americans out of work. right now, families and small business owners are scratching their heads asking one simple question: what will my tax rate be next month? taxpayers don't know what their personal income tax rates will be come january 1st. family business employers don't know what the death tax will be. investors and small businesses don't know what the capital gains rate will be. their uncertainty hurts our

economy. it's unfair and short-sighted. congress should set its highest priority on preventing the massive tax hike currently scheduled to hit our economy on january 1st. meanwhile, our mounting debts pose a clear and present danger to our future. it's time to cast aside our partisan differences and work across the aisle to solve this problem. congress should set an example by ending pork-barrel earmarks and cutting its own budget. this week, senate democrats rejected a proposal to end wasteful earmark spending. their decision was disappointing and disconnected from the american people. in the weeks ahead, republicans and democrats should enact bipartisan solutions to cut federal spending like a presidential line-item veto, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and a new procedure to ensure spending

reductions actually happen. in the 1980s, president reagan's bipartisan grace commission set the standard for serious oversight by identifying federal spending that would add little to our nation's growth but much to its debt. marrying a new grace commission with the authority to submit a proposal to congress for a straight up or down vote would lead to actual spending reductions. this proposal is in my first senate bill - the spending control act. harvard economic historian niall ferguson warned that the decline of a great power is clear when a country pays more to its money lenders than its army. we face that year when interest payments on our debt tops our defense budget as soon as 2016. it's clear, we need to cut spending to avoid a bankrupt future for our kids and our country.

i believe that america's best days still lie ahead of us. if we correct our economic policy by focusing on growth and spending discipline, the sky will once again be the limit for young americans. spend less, borrow less and tax less to put america back to work. that's what we heard from the american people last month and that's what we should expect from our leaders today. may god bless you, your families during this holiday season, and may god bless the united states of america. >> next, remarks by chris christie. then, a white house ceremony marking the observance of hanukkah. after that, a report on the personal finances of members of congress. on "newsmakers," jane ford, president -- james bullard,

president of the federal reserve, talks about taxpayers. >> without the new start treaty ratified by the senate, we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the russians are doing and they don't know what we're doing. when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that is a much more dangerous world to live in the. >> find out more about the expired start nuclear arms treaty with russia, what it might accomplish, where it stands now, as well as its history, online at the c-span video library. search, watch, and share, all free. it is washington your way. now, new jersey governor chris christie and education reform. he talked about negotiating teacher pay and health care. he made the remarks monday at the foundation for excellence and education national summit meeting in washington, d.c.

this is about 55 minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you for inviting me tonight. thank you to governor bush. he has provided an extraordinary example, not just for me, but for governors all across the country, current governors, and most importantly, governors-to- be. they understand that because of his example, not only what is possible, but what is still to

be done. he has continued leadership through this foundation and this effort. it provides not only enormous intellectual resources to governors who need that support to fight this fight, but also can point to a model of success from his eight years of governor of florida. i am honored for -- i was honored when this invitation came in. thank you. all of you in this room know that you are the ones helping us chart a course for real reform. state by state, across the entire country. we know that this issue is far from easy. it is not easy at all. i really believe that if there is ever a time where we can transform the system of public education in this country, the

time is right now. we cannot wait. we cannot afford to wait. i am often called impatient by folks in my state. i plead guilty. i plead guilty to impatience. i will explain that in a moment. the attention and focus that developed has really create the perfect storm, whether you are talking about the things that president obama has tried to do and articulate regarding education reform, the things that michelle was able to accomplish in the city during her tenure, and the idea that conservative republicans like myself, like governor bush, like my senate republican leader who is here tonight and is a sponsor of the opportunity scholarship back in new jersey, which we are

going to pass before the end of this term -- [applause] the idea that people have that much of a divergence on theological spectrum can come together on this issue is what helps to create this moment. i have said over and over again that this is not a democratic or republican issue. it simply isn't. in fact, i said to those folks in the democratic party, who represent some of the most ill- served children in our state, in their districts, with parents who vote for them, that they're ignoring this issue is unacceptable.

for folks like tom kean and i to come from suburbs, where there is good public education, this is not a vote-getter for us. it is not about politics. it is about caring for those people who will never vote for you. i got about 12 votes in newark last year. [laughter] i drive the political consultants crazy. i say, i want to go back and talk about education. they say, do you want to win? do you want to do something about it? it is about a commitment to public education. i know i would not be standing here if it were not for the fact that my parents borrowed money from both of their mothers to put a downpayment on a house in livingston, where tom and i both

grew up, to move me in 1967 out of the city of newark and to a place where i could get a great public education. i would not be standing here if not for that. my parents can tell me, and my mother told me all the time, christopher, if you work hard enough, you can be anything you want to be. she could say that with a clear conscience and with conviction because she knew i was getting a great education. she knew that i had certain got- given talents that each and everyone of us have. she could say with conviction, for those reasons, that it was now up to me. children in patterson, in

trenton, can those parents say that? that is that the court of our failure -- that is at the core of our failure. those were the same things my parents' dream for me. because of the system that does not nurture those children, does not educate those children, does not -- does not draw out their potential for it to be exploited, for it to be developed, it is simply a system that is there to serve the adults. it is not to serve the children. each and every day in those cities in my state, and others, the worst schools are continuing

to be allowed to operate without any effort, systemically, to fix them. it is time for us to stand up and demand that the teachers, the principles, and administrators truly do what the teachers union say they do every day, putting the children first. it is for the kids, you understand. it is time for us to hold them to that test. if we do not do it, if we do not change what is happening in our mediocre and poor-performing schools, we fail those children. we continue to play the blame game and make excuses that make this adults feel better. it does nothing for the children. it is a civil rights issue as well. it is the seminal civil rights issue of our time. voting is no longer these seminal civil-rights issue.

access to public accommodations is no longer the seminal civil rights issue. go to the cities of our country. go to the cities of newark jersey. what you will see is it is our minority children who are being denied opportunity. they are being denied opportunity by the very people who claim politically, hypocritically, to be championing them and their cause. what is happening in new jersey? we spend on average $18,000 per pupil per year. it is the highest per capita in america. in the city of newark, we spend nearly $25,000 per pupil per year. yet, yet, 104,000 students are

trapped in new jersey today in 205 chronically failing schools. in 2009, 40% of the african- american students and 32% of our hispanic students were not able to meet any basic standard on the national test. 40% of african-americans, 32% of hispanics. in 2009, nearly 30% of all eighth graders in new jersey, not just our urban, challenged children, but of all eight grade students in new jersey, 30% lacked the -- basic math skills in 2009. the achievement gap between wealthy and low-income eighth graders in math is nearly the same today as it was 19 years ago.

the gap between at-risk fourth graders and those not at risk has remained unchange for 14 years, this despite a supreme court-ordered a spending spree in new jersey that has focused nearly 2/3 of all of our state resources on 30 at-risk district. the fallacy of money equals quality education -- if you need to refer anybody to the example of the fallacy of that notion, come to new jersey. no one spends more -- [applause] and no one is getting less. we have to be honest about these shortcomings and our own failures. both parties, over the course of the last 30 years -- we have to work together to fix it.

now, what are the impediments to getting this done? let me tell you a story about when i was a united states attorney. i went to visit the highest- achieving public elementary school in new jersey. it is a charter school. it is in newark. the founder was proudly showing me around his school. for any of you who have visited, it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. he is proud, and he should be. i met a mother of a third grade boy. she told me her son had gotten in the lottery in kindergarten. there are 4000 children on the waiting list. 4000 children on the waiting list for this elementary school.

i asked her what it felt like the night she was sitting in that gymnasium, waiting for the decision on whether her son would get in or not. she said to me, chris, i knew that whether his number was going to be picked or not with the difference between my son going to college or going to jail. in kindergarten, at five years old, a mother sitting there, knowing in her heart and in her head that that decision was the difference between her son having a chance to achieve each one of his dreams and the dreams she has for him, and going to jail, in a school district that had $980 million in state aid last year for 40,000 students.

it is not acceptable any longer. we need to say these things out loud. it is not acceptable any longer to let a teacher who cannot teach stay in the classroom. [applause] wouldn't you just love it if, in these 205 chronically failing schools in new jersey, that when they have back-to-school night, they actually tell you the truth? right? you have all gone to back-to- school night. i have children. we had back-to-school night. of course, our children are in three different schools. they all schedule the back-to- school night on the same night. this is something we really have to fix. it reeks -- it wreaks havoc on

my schedule. our youngest is 7 years old. imagine if this was one of the chronically failing schools and they told you the truth. someone would walk in and say, good evening. i welcome you to back-to-school night. your teacher this year is mrs. smith. mrs. smith is an awful teacher. seriously, by any measure, she is not good. her students under-achieve consistently on testing. they don't like coming to her class. she doesn't really care. she is using the same lessons. -- lesson plans she used 15 years ago. no matter what we have tried to do to encourage her to get more training, to change your attitude, she simply refuses to do it. because of this union contract we have in our district, we cannot fire or do anything to

her. so, as much as we have tried, we just have concluded that we are not going to change her. have a great year. [laughter] [applause] now, of course, they never say that. they never say that. it does not mean it is not happening. it is happening in classrooms all across new jersey and across america. they call me impatient. here is why i am impatient. my daughter has one year in the second grade. if she does not learn what she needs to, she is behind in the third grade, and the fourth grade, and the fifth grade, unless i send her for private tutoring or get lucky and get an extraordinary teacher willing to spend the time that is necessary to bring her back up to speed. this not only damages her chances to achieve what you want to achieve, but it kills herself the scene today.

-- kills her self-esteem today. every child knows it. they are smart. the teacher asks the questions. they cannot raise their hands. they're petrified. they feel stupid. other kids mock them. this is what happens. it not only kills educational opportunity, it kills self- esteem. when we kill self-esteem in a second grade little girl, it is no laughing matter. that leads to a myriad of other social problems that we are living with in this country. when that little girl books in the mirror and she does not see a smart little girl, when she does not see a little girl who can achieve her values, who can achieve her aspirations, who can be brought -- be proud to bring that great report card home to her mother or father, that is

the little girl who is more apt to turn to drugs. that is the little girl who is more apt to turn to premarital sex. that is the little girl who is tending to be a mother while she is still a child. that is the little girl who is more prone to being involved in violence. she does not respect herself. .

>> chart other schools were to be laboratories for experiment takes and -- excerpttation and engaging success. and then taking that model and applying it to the broader school system. that's what charter schools were to be. we done some of the first part and not the last part. what is happening in new jersey,

for instance, 0e% of new jersey's charter schools are -- or charter high schools had a higher congratulations rate than the local district average. this is not argument for more charter schools. it is an argument for applying the lessons that those schools are learning to get that achievement to the broader school system that of course meaning tearing up the union contracts. that's what it means. 11,000 students on the waiting list for charter high schools in new jersey. 11,000. you know all the issues. i'm not going to bore you of going through a litany of them. merit and tenure reform and accountability in the class roome. shared sacrifice by everybody to remake the system. we're doing these things in new jersey. we're fighting to do them in new

jersey. and whether it is expanding parental choice trying to make sure you reform the leaders of our educational system, superintendents and principals who seem at times to care more about how much they're making than how much they're achieving. in new jersey pin ball from district to district to get higher and higher salaries. crazy school districts in new jersey, especially suburban ones who believe the more they pay their superintendent, the more valuable their district must be. this conspiracy among the superintendents is extraordinary. and you're watching it play out in new jersey right now because we have imposed a cap on superintendent pay. now being a superintendent of schools is a hard job. when it is done well, it is

particularly hard. i'll tell you this, no harter than my job. i make $175,000 a year. i say, you don't make anymore than me. if you want to make more than me, here's how you do it. you're eligible up to a 20% bonus on top of that for objectively measured accomplishment by the students in your district. you achieve, i'll pay you. showing up for work is not a good enough excuse to get more and more money. think about this, 70% of the superintendents in new jersey make more money than the governor. 70%. now, imagine this. in the conspiracy of superintendents and elected school boards, the cap goes into

effect on february 7th. any contract that expires after february 7th, the new contract must conform with the cap. what is happening across new jersey right now? folks in the middle of their contract getting five-year contract stenn -- ex-extensions. students writing on sed pieces as if they're disinterested observers. for the first time in their live upset about the onerous arm of government coming in to interfere with the free market. imagine this. i'm being sued today by a school board who wants to give their superintendent a salary higher than the cap and is spending taxpayer money to sue the

governor and the commissioner of education, to get the higher salary for their superintendent. despite the fact that dozens of citizens showed up at the school board meeting to protest it. this is doctor leroy sites in new jersey, who i have now crowned the new poster boy of greed and arrogance in public education in new jersey. as there fight goes on, let me explain to you, dr. sites is getting company. people are competing in new jersey for me to give them a new title. why is this important? why is this fight important? shared sacrifice will be required of everybody to fix the system. it is not that we have enough money. we have more than enough money.

it is being spent infectively and inefficiently, again with the focus on the adults and not the children. we have to fight it at every level. if you talk about the teacher's union and i know what you're here for, so i'll get to it. you talk about the teacher's union, you got to talk about administrators also, who are failing in leadership and overpaid for the failure and who need now to have the good ones stand up and say i'll be part of the sacrifice in order to repair the system and make it better for the children who were supposed to be serving -- we're supposed to be serving and the family that is are paying the bills. now of all the different things that have gone on in my first 10 months as governor, i was

walking out of the state house on wednesday, the day before thanksgiving with my wife. we had just gone to a soup kitchen in trenton together with three of our children to serve some prethanksgiving meals to some of the least fortunate in the capital city. we went back to the state house. we were walking out tao to leave the state house and they walked me out through a side door and a basement and walked along a long ramp to get to the bottom. i was walking down and my wife said to me, this is the way you go every day? i said yeah. and she said, this is the ramp you told me like some mornings you feel you can't get up the ramp. i said yeah, this is the ramp. i said it has been 10 months, it feels like three years. and i think it is the nature of the governorship of new jersey, great authority and great responsibility but as i was walking out with her, we had tacked about some of the kids we had met that day in the soup kitchen. kids who were public school kids

in trenton who were being grossly failed by that educational system. it made mow think on wait home about all of the things you're thankful for on life on the day before thanksgiving and how much of a responsibility we have to fight this fight that i can't afford to be tired, i can't afford to be discouraged. the people didn't hire me because of my charm and good looks. they hired me because they -- they know our state is a mess and they hired somebody they hoped, thought, trusted would have the backbone to actually do something about it. when you become governor of new jersey, you go to the state house for the first time as governor. you drive down state street in trenton. some of you have been there. state street in trenton is a historic old street, lined with cobblestone and small little

brick front and stone front old homes. that now been converted into lobbyist offices. not exactly zhang a law. but what strikes you when you go down state street, is there's all small buildings, except for two. the state house. the second oldest continuously operating state house in america. right across the street the palace built by the new jersey education association. and i mean a palace. five story brick and glass palace. builds with $130 million in deuce that they collect a year.

$$130 million in deuce a year. and you collect $10 million in dues a year, they must contribute to their members salaries. no. they must be contributing to their member's pensions. no. $130 million a year, all right, they're kicking in for their members' health benefits. no. what do they do with $130 million a year? how do you get to that number, first of all. $731 million -- $731 dollars in dues per year, deducted from their pay checks by state of new jersey and free of charge and wire transferred directory to them because we want to make this as convenient as possible in new jersey. 200,000 members. so you all could do the math. now also by statute in new

jersey, do you have to be a member of the teacher's union if you're a public school employee? that's incorrect. i'm sorry. i'm sorry to call you out here in the speech. but that's incorrect answer. you do not have to be. you can opt out. but, if you opt out, outmust pay 85% of $731 to be out. by statute, 85% of the dues must be paid by someone who wants out. now for people of my generation, governor bush's generation, this is like the hotel california. you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave. so what do they ko -- do with the money? well they have an executive

director. he makes $2550,000 a year. -- $550,000. they have a army of in-house lob counteryist, who every time the word education is mentioned in a bill or a discussion inside the state house, there are three or four n.g.a. lobbyists sitting in the front row, staring at every one of the legislatures to remind him or her that we're here and we're watching. they make lavish campaign contributions to those members of the legislature who tow the line and against those legislatures who dare to speak out. and, since marv, they have spent $8 million on attack television and radio ads in new york and philadelphia against me. now -- some people may say that

is a pretty big expenditure of money. but i think they need to get a refund because in that time from march today, my approval ratings have gone from 42% to 55%. today the disapproval rating of the teacher's union in new jersey is 59%. fifth approval. how does this happen? it happens because of what we need to do. it happens because we're shining a bright light on who the union is and what they stand for. this is no longer the time to

believe that we can play by some delicate rules. they don't. now when i came to trenton, i was new to the schoolyard. so, i walked out on to the schoolyard like any new kid and made my observations. there were a bunch of elected officials bureaucrats, laying on the ground bleeding, cowhering, crying. there was one person standing up. that was the bully. that's the bully in the schoolyard. every governor for the last 30 years has walked on to the same schoolyard. you got a choice. you go up and you try to sidle up to the bully and make friends with them.

you try to get them not to dislike you too much so they don't punch you. that's the path chosen by many of our governors, of both parties over that period of time. or you walk out on the schoolyard, and say, you punch them, i punch you. you come in. you come in and say, you protect lousy teachers, i'm going to tell the public about it. you come in and you say, you're getting four and five -- four and 25% salary increases in a world like this. and they demand free health benefits from the day a teacher is hired for her or him and their family until the day they die. and they get it.

that's at the expense of the state of new jersey. you tell people about it. because as i've traveled around my state over the last 10 months, you would be amazed how many people don't know. they want to know why does it cost this much money, governor? for this education. i say i have one answer for you, n. -- njea. that's why. they will tell you it is for the kids. it is for the kids. that's share slogan. it is for the kids. let's go back to bridge et, my second grader. let's say she comes home from that first marking period and hands me her report card. it is a little sheet. i open it up, it is not good. i said what happened here.

you're smarter than this. what happened? i can't concentrate or focus. >> why not? >> i heard that you're not giving mrs. smith her 5% raise this year. you're not giving her her free health benefits. dad, i can't focus. if you would just give her her 5% raise and the free health benefits for lower whole life, i swrire -- i swear i would get all a's. dad, stop the madness. stop the madness. this is the crap i listen to in new jersey. every time i ask them at the time of fiscal crisis to take a

pay freeze and contribute 1% of their salary, that would mean $750 per year, for full family medical coverage, the njea called that the greatest assault on public education in the history of new jersey. i tell you these stories for two reasons. iowa don't illicit your sympathy. first. first be clear about that. i want to illicit your sympathy. secondly i tell you that because you understand we're -- what we're up against. -- we're up against people that are playing out of yesterday's play book. we're up against people that believe this garbage. we're up against people that if i say it is for the kids and i have put nice tv commercials on showing lovely and wonderful teachers, that parents will be the dopes that we are and just

say, all right, for the kids. let's pay it. i don't want to anger the teacher. i got to go in for the conference. i don't want them to be mad at me. when we fout against the school budgets and we vote on every one district by district, the passing rate is 74%. the new jerseyians are generous. 74% average pass rate. this year we said, you don't take the pay freeze, you don't take the contribution to your health benefits, we're going to urge the people in your town to vote no on the budget. di this the way i normally do. if they don't take the pay freeze and benefits, what did you expect the voters to do? this is two weeks before school board elections. i said i don't know, i would ask

them to look at the budget. i went back, and when your chief of staff is waiting for you in your office, this is never good. i have a reserved and bright and soft-spoken chief of staff. and i walked in, so how did the bress conference go? he said, it went great. so i hear we're against the school budgets. and i said, yes. he said, you know that the last 10 years they passed 74% rate. i said i'm aware. he said maybe this is something we should have batted around a bit before we started to do this. i said, it just made sense to me. so sympathy for me and empathy for him. i said we better go out and win.

so we went out and told people these facts. we said to the unploimed employed car pent herb and electrician and -- pipe fitter. those that lost their job, to the folks who had had their hours cut back at the business, to the folks who had not gotten a raise in five years, we said, listen, we value teachers. the great ones should be carried on our shoulders every day to school. we should pay them what they deserve armour because they care about our kids and they're doing a great job. we're tired of paying for immediate okay ratty and we're tired of paying because somebody fogs up the mirror every year. we're tired of paying for that. sheers what we have to do. if they're not willing to be part of the shared sacrifice, vote no on the school budget. that night of the the school elections, they don't cover these babies on tv. so my wife and i are sitting in

our living room with the laptop and she looks at me as the returns start to come in and she says, you know what? this could be the shortest tenure as governor in a long time. three months in, you couldent up being dead meat in an hour. we watched as county by county and district by district, the results rolled in. people are getting it. 59% of the school budgets were defeated in new jersey that night. the highest number in the history of the state. we are right. and the public knows it. it is time for -- time for us to not worry about how clever our arguments need to be. of course we need to be smart but we should never forget the fact that we are right and the

power of this issue is that we're right to the subboushin mother like my mom who wanted their child to be everything they could be and said, you just have to work hard. we're right to the single african-american mother in newark who was afraid that her child would go to jail if he didn't get into the charter school. we're right to the hiss -- hispanic immigrant that comes to the country looking for something better for his children and believes that america's education system is going to provide it. we're right for the teachers who know lousy teachers when they see them, who break their backs every day to be good and better and who watch in silence silence enforced by a union that cares only about political muscle and influence and discipline of

their members, watch in silence as they get paid the same amount as the housey failing teacher down the hall. we're right for those people too and they know it. they may not put a bumper sticker if -- in their car. you -- they come up to me at the supermarket and the shoe store and deli and come up to me close and whisper. i'm a teacher. i'm with you. that kind on coalition ladies and gentlemen creates a moment. he can't let that moment pass by. we continue let the intensity

that our leaders have been discussing this issue diminish in any way. our children need us to remember that they are the future of our public and they need us to remember that the media's attention which is on this issue right now can be fleeting. our children need us to remember, the generosity of folks like mark zuckerburg of facebook who in my state at 26 years old decided he wanted to help transform the school system for the future of the kids in newark and by dozens of other people, many of whom are in the room. who believe that their lives and their fortunes are worth investing in this issue. we have to remind our children that those folks are with them. our children need us to remember

that bipartisan can work. when it is focused on results for them. and not for us. our children need us to remember that those of us in charge can't back down from the status quose -- status kuo because its roots are deep and the special interests are entrenched. and backing down only emboldens them. the old way no longer works. and every day that passes, has a real and unacceptable consequence for not only our kids but for future generations of children. and now we have to engage in the fight. each of us has to take up our individual role. whatever it is. because failure cannot be an option here. simply can't. i rather lose an election -- i rather lose my career than look back and realize that i didn't

do enough for the future of -- future lives of the children in my state. now, listen -- this is -- >> [applause] i tell people this all the time. i'm getting the oil portrait in the state house. that's done, i won once. i'm getting the big oil painting. i -- when i walk out to do my press conference, i see tom's father all the time. he's got the oil painting. i see the other recent governors, they got the oil paintings. all we're arguing over is the brass plack at the bomb. right? >> does -- doesn't say four years or eight years. that's all that is left. here's the thing, when i bring my grandchildren back to the state house and i show them that painting because i want to prove to them, crazy grandfather really was governor. they're not going to believe it, you know that.

my own children don't believe it at the moment. when i show them that painting they're going to ask me, i hope, what did you do? what did you do? >> i don't want to say, well respect first, let me direct your attention to the little brass plack at the bottom of the painting. -- painting. eight years, not a minor accomplishment for a republican in new jersey. let's start this. they say, what did you do? i said well, i got the eight years and to get the eight years, i have to compromise my principles, i had to get in bed with special interests that i didn't really approve of. i had to incrementalize andly to suppress my own personality but eight years on the plack, kids, eight years on the mac. i don't want to say that. i want to say whatever that plack says. i want to be able to say to them, every day i was in this job, i was thinking about whether you could live here or whether you would want to live

here, whether the same way my parents got to get in the car and drive 25 minutes to watch my kids play baseball. the same way they got to get in the car and drive 25 minutes to go to that christmas concert or that spring play. the same way they got to get in the car and drive 25 minutes to go to the birthday party that you have around the kitchen table. they got to take the dozen pictures of the kids blowing out the candles. that's what i want. my parents had it, i want it. i don't want to get on an airplane to see my grand children. i want them to be in new jersey. i am one of the most blessed people in the world because i get a chance to make that happen . i don't have to leave it to fate or chance. i get a chance to make it happen.

so whatever that plaque says underneath t i want them to say that was what i was focused on every day, not just for me, but for them and their friends and the other children in new jersey who wanted the same thing themselves. they wanted to achieve every one of the dreams and aspirations that they had and wanted to believe that when their parents said to them, you could be anything you want to be, so long as you work hard enough that it came true. so that's not only up to me, it is up to all of us. we have to stand together. this is the fight worth having. we just have to have the courage to do it -- we have to have the courage to care more about children than adults. we have to have the courage to stand up to the people that say it is not possible.

we have to have the courage to not care or -- about how we'll be judged in the short-term but to care only about how our children will judge us. because they will. every generation judges their parents. governor bush's father was a member of the generation we call the greatest generation. he got to make a judgment of what his father was willing to do at a moment when was at grave risk. it set up for him, i suspect, an extraordinarily high standard. of what was expected of us because of the example they set because of the covenant they kept. to leave his -- this place better for their children than it was left for them.

we will be judged too. kwla will they say of us? will they say at this moment of maximum crisis in america's educational system that we buried our heads in the sand, that we kept our creature comforts, that we said the problems are too big and too complex, i cannot make a difference, someone else will have to solve it. or will our children say of us, they stood up. they took risks. they were counted. they put their money and their effort and their heart where their mouth was. they kept that -- that greatest american covenant to leave this place better for our children than it was left for us. if that does not motivate us, then we have failed as americans and we have failed as human

beings. we complain accept that failure. i will not accept that failure for me, and i will challenge every one of you and every one i can speak to not to accept that failure either. this is our moment. it is time to seize it so we can keep that covenant. thank you all very much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

0es [applause]

>> the president of the united states and michelle obama. [cheering] [applause] >> oh, this is a good looking group right here. good evening, everybody. >> good evening. >> welcome to the white house. i want to thank all of you for joining us in celebrating the

second night of hanukkah. happy hanukkah, everybody. we are joined tonight by ambassador michael oren, of israel. wheres michael? hes way back there. and so i want to begin by offering our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all of those whove died as a result of the terrible forest fire in northern israel. as rescuers and firefighters continue in their work, the united states is acting to help our israeli friends respond to the disaster. a short while ago, our ambassador in tel aviv, jim cunningham, issued a disaster declaration, which has launched an effort across the u.s. government to identify the firefighting assistance we have available and provide it to israel as quickly as possible. of course, that's what friends do for each other.

and, mr. ambassador, our thoughts and prayers are with everybody in israel who is affected by this tragedy and the family and loved ones of those in harms way. tonight, its an honor to welcome so many friends and leaders from the jewish community and beyond. and i want to start by recognizing my special envoy for middle east peace, george mitchell, who is here. please give him a round of applause. and all the other outstanding members of the diplomatic corps who are here. one third of the supreme court is here. one of my favorites, justice ginsburg, is hiding out here in the front. she really is here. its hard to see. justice breyer is here. and -- wheres justice

breyer? there he is -- right here. and our newest addition and former colleague of mine when we were teaching together, elena kagan is in the house. i want to also acknowledge somebody who i rely on day in, day out, who is not only a great vice president, but is also -- one of my dearest friends; joe biden is in the house. and to all the members of the administration, and members of congress, and all the state and local leaders who are with us today, welcome. i want to thank joshua redman

for gracing us with his talent and helping us with the music. and finally, i want to thank the rabbis and lay leaders who have traveled from all over the country to be here. yes, you can give yourselves a round of applause. now, tonight, we gather to celebrate a story as simple as it is timeless. its a story of ancient israel, suffering under the yoke of empire, where jews were forbidden to practice their religion openly, and the holy temple -- including the holy of holies -- had been desecrated. it was then that a small band of believers, led by judah maccabee, rose up to take back their city and free their people. and when the maccabees entered the temple, the oil that should have lasted for a single night ended up burning for eight. that miracle gave hope to all

those who had been struggling in despair. and in the 2,000 years since, in every corner of the world, the tiny candles of hanukkah have reminded us of the importance of faith and perseverance. they have illuminated a path for us when the way forward was shrouded in darkness. and as we prepare to light another candle on the menorah, let us remember the sacrifices that others have made so that we may all be free. let us pray for the members of our military who guard that freedom every day, and who may be spending this holiday far away from home. let us also think of those for whom these candles represent not just a triumph of the past, but also hope for the future -- the men, women and children of all faiths who still suffer under tyranny and oppression. thats why families everywhere are taught to place the menorah in public view, so the entire world can see its light.

because, as the talmud teaches us, so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. now, the menorah were using tonight, and the family who -- who is going to help us light it, both stand as powerful symbols of that faith. this beautiful menorah has been generously loaned to us by congregation beth israel in new orleans. five years ago, when hurricane katrina hit, the synagogue was covered in eight feet of water. later, as the cleanup crew dug through the rubble, they discovered this menorah, caked in dirt and mold. and today it stands as a reminder of the tragedy and a source of inspiration for the future. and that feeling is shared by susan retik. its a feeling they know all too well. after her husband, david, was

killed on september 11th, susan could have easily lost herself in feelings of hopelessness and grief. but instead, she turned her personal loss into a humanitarian mission -- co-founding beyond the 11th, a group that reaches out to afghan widows facing their own struggles. so on this second night of hanukkah, let us give thanks to the blessings that all of us enjoy. let us be mindful of those who need our prayers. and let us draw strength from the words of a great philosopher, who said that a miracle is a confirmation of what is possible. and now id like to turn it over to susan, who by the way has been on this stage before, receiving a presidential award for her outstanding work. but she happens to be joined by a beautiful family -- donald, ben, molly, dina and rebecca. rebecca is down here.

so i want to turn -- there she is. yes, she is adorable. as michelle -- as michelle said as we were getting on stage, she will be stealing the show. so were going to turn it over to susan and her family for the blessings.

sflotes ♪ >> blessd are you. ruler of our union strers who has commanded us -- universe. blessed are you our god ruler of the universe who performed miracles with our forefathers. ♪

[applause] >> so happy hanukkah to all of you.

we're going to see most of you downstairs. be patient in the line. i just want to let everybody know, yes, they will be able to photo shop my lip for the picture. happy hanukkah, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

>> we want to welcome the editor of the open secrets blog. thank you so much for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> money and politician. how much members of congress are without. i will get to that. "the washington post," 72, so called super packs spending in the election. can you explain. th aftermath of a few key

>> you have other organizes that are not supposed to be the primary purpose of playing politician, but at a high level in the election process and don't disclose their donors. we don't know who is behind the efforts on the left and ride. >> as you look ahead to 2012 and we have seen kathleen kennedy

townsend who is heading up what she hopes is a crossroads and crossroads g.p.s. is den in this election for the republicans, what will we see in 2012? >> conservative organizations definitely were on the uptick. they used the new tools that had been given to them by the federal government, by -- by the supreme court of course and ran with it. they did a fantastic job in being able to affect congressional races all across the country. the democrats -- democrats were sort of having a little remorse on some part because they didn't play the game quite as well as conservative organizations did. e

>> you pent time going through the numbers and determining how much members of congress are worth. why should it matter? why shoe care how much a member of congress is worth? 1% of americans are millionaires. and 40% of them don't worry about what we face. >> you have a congress that represents the people who have elected the members to go to washington d.c. and represent them but they're not necessarily representative of the wealth of americans. they're not necessarily representative of the painful reality that is many americans are now facing, whether it be joblessness, whether it be trying to make ends meet, and -- you have a situation there where -- you have many members of congress, in fact, almost half of them who have an estimated average wealth of about one

million dollars. a lot of americans would like to have $10,000. so there's a disconnect in people's minds as to the wealth of congress and the wealth and prosperity of average american. >> leading the list in the house of representatives, the top two from california, republican daryl i sa whose worth, in seconders -- excess of $303 million. representative harman. list is repres ta >> people don't realize the members of congress are that wealthy. this is the political voyeurism,

they're disinterested. how rich, what are they invested in? why are they so wealthy? what does that mean to me? then you have the other end, a practical end. what are they invested in? what is the personal wealth actually -- what constitutes this personal wealth? you have many situation with respect members of congress are invested in -- in the very companies that are number one coming before congress to ask for favorable legislation or to beat back other types of legislation. that lobby, the federal government to the tune of millions, if not 10s of millions of dollars on an annual basis. in some cases, i think gold han sacks, a good one and b.p. would be a good one and you have companies that dozens of lawmakers have investments in, who are coming before complaining and they're truly in the cross hairs of congress. certainly in the cross hairs of the public consciousness.

companies that have done wrong in the opinions of many americans. here as we sit next to the capital here, they're coming to washington d.c. and -- lobbying or otherwise trying to ask the federal government to get out of a sticky situation. you could talk about all of the different banks. bank of america. various others. citigroup who certainly were very mch in the mix when tarp was in play in 2008 and 2009. there's sort of this -- this interconnection, there's sort of a, a -- a -- a very nebulous type of a world here where you have people who are -- who are making laws, you have companies who are trying to get favorable legislation and yet you have the very lawmakers who are responsible for crafting the legislation, investing in the companies that are coming before them. >> among the wealthiest members of the senate, these figures from 2009, senator john kerry of massachusetts who is married to

theresa heinz kerry from the heinz fortune. mark warner, number two, he's worth. $174 million 12k34r50 kohl's >> that speaks to the diversity of their invessments. you have everything from basketball teams to retail stores to real estate holt holdings and stocks and more run of the mill pedestrian bonds and mutual funds and other cash investments. so it definitely does sort of range from -- from a to zoo zorkse what it comes to what lawmakers are invested this. we see stocks and blue chip

companies. stocks in companies that do have names that everyone would recognize, whether it be coca-cola or pepsi or apple or microsoft and all the way down the list, definitely appearing on the most popular investment list that we created for -- for lawmakers investments. >> and the immediate cra jane harman's husband, sidney harman, "newsweek magazine," took in $30 million in debt. let's look at the poorest members of the house, beginning with steven joseph scalise. and others. . . . there areeptions to the rule. as millionaires and there are a few that are not doing well. host: these are all in the negative. they have no net worth? guest: