mr. fix-it. >> yes. >> what do you think that means? >> i got that reputation and i'm not in the slightest bit ashamed of it. i got that reputation when i was chief whip and i spent a great deal of my time trying to reconcile the positions between different ministers in the government where they had a contrary view as to how to proceed. often the treasury with the spending department, you needed to find some common thing. as i used to try to negotiate agreements. all with the other parties, sometimes on management matters with the house. and why i'm not proud of it is this. because if you reckon you're going to be a successful mr. fix-it, people have to trust you. and if you do a dirty deal, that lives with you forever. you have to play the game straight. and i've always tried to. and that's why i'm not ashamed of being known as mr. fix-it. >> you've done a lot of things including house of commons, house of lords. i can jump all the way to i'm sure not too great a memory, being on the enrod board of directors. and the press you look on t

mr. fix-it. >> the mr. fix-it,s 15ds to $40.now removal person? >> snow removal. someone i like to tip at the end ftd season. usually the cost of one snow removal. >> let's talk about so many folks live in an apartment building, and especially true here in new york. what about people in the apartment building, like -- there's a lot. >> yes, there are. a superintendent, the doorman, elevator brat operator. on average, $15 to $80. give to each, not a whole group, and what you want to remember with them, too, is that you know, these are people who you work with, and live with regularly. you do want to make sure that that note is included. >> now, this really gets important. baby-sitter. especially if you have a consistent baby-sitter, who you use all through the year. what do you do for that person? >> for that person, you want to do one eve's pay along with a small gift from your child. a great time to teach your child about holiday thank yous. >> last, not least. if you're particularly unhappy with the service you're getting? >>

mr. fix- it of the venture capital world. mess and try to deliver it back to its shareholders or new shareholders in working shape. it's called a "work out", usually. it's very different from hedge funds or just venture capitalists who just want to sell out when something grows. it's kind of messy, isn't it? it's hard? - well, it's hard, but the reality is that i learned those skills by helping to build companies from the grassroots up, and so once you know what makes a good company, it's relatively straightforward to put it back on track once it gets off track. so we have a fairly disciplined approach, and we go into these situations. it's a kind of work that's in fairly high demand because almost every company goes off track at some point. we tend to think of it as a stigma, but the reality is, for small and medium enterprise, if you're working as aggressively as you can to build something from nothing, inevitably you are going to go off track--it's part of the process. so we're pretty proud of the fact that we've got a rep

mr. fix it. >> yes. >> what do you think that means? >> well, i got that reputation, and i am not in the slightest bit ashamed of it. i got it when i was chief whip. and i spent a great deal of my time trying to reconcile the positions between different ministers in the government where they had a contrary view as to how to proceed. after the treasure with a spending department you needed to find some common thing. and i used to try to negotiate agreements. all with the other parties sometimes on management matters of the house. and why i am not proud of it is this, because if you reckon you will be a successful mr. fix it, people have to trust you. if you do a dirty dealing that lives with you forever. you have to play the game straight. i have always tried to. that is why i am not ashamed to be known as a mr. fixit. >> you have been house of commons, house of lords. being on the enron board of directors. >> right. >> and the press, you look on it today and you can find all kinds of articles, they suggest you are hammered in this countr

mr. fix -it." >> the press suggest that you were hammered in this country because you were a member of a board. is that true? >> it was a bit difficult. i do not think many people in britain understood the issues. the truth of the matter was that the legal proceedings that followed, if i can summarize in this way -- in the united states when something goes wrong, everybody sues everybody. we, the directors, set out our position. those who were originally suing us realized that our position was the sensible position. it was the one they thought was right. our evidence was used against the other people. the plaintiffs said they do not need to sue the executives. they have done their hon. best to try to sort things out. the fact is, they were deceived by management, by some of the bankers, and by some of the professional advisers. the nonexecutive directors of enron was the finest board i have ever served on. but we were deceived. we have to be able to trust somebody. if you cannot trust management, you should not be on the board. you are entitled to trust your professional advisers. if they

it's the gentleman from california, mr. herger's party, in the house that refused to vote for a permanent fix when we passed it in the democrat majority over a year ago. as i said that day, only one person, dr. burgess, who is a physician on our committee, voted with the democrats for the permanent fix. and as a result of the inability and unwillingness of the republicans to do anything about this doctors cut or reimburse the cut, that we had to pass, i guess, five different short-term fixes. now, granted today we are going to have a year extension and i'm certainly happy the republicans have agreed to a year extension. but they still have not come along to a permanent fix and they have not helped us in our efforts to achieve a permanent fix. so for the gentleman to suggest that somehow the republicans have been helpful and they wanted to deal with this problem, in my opinion, is simply not accurate. let me spell another thing. there is nothing in this bill that would any way disrupt or repeal the health care reform, the land mark legislation that the democrats passed again this year without any support from the other side of

mr. president. we have it within our power to fix the broken immigration system. last year approximately 600,000 people were arrested entering our country illegally. that's lower than it has been. but a determined leadership from the president, from the congress came within a matter of one or two years end this problem, and then we can begin to wrestle with the difficult question of those who have been in our country for some time. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, the time will be allocated as suggested. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, how much time has been used by senator sessions? the presiding officer: the senator used 14 minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutes and then i be recognized for 6 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks. mr. levin: mr. president, i would request that. the presiding o

it more than that, so we are saying that is a fixed rate. we are looking at our wholesale customers come in mr.rydstrom -- wholesale customers, and mr. rydstrom said -- we should consider that the sale of water or the purchase of water, the commodity portion of their budget is often only about one- third of their budget, so even if we are reducing the rate increase, it is one-third of their budget, so it includes all of the rest of the things, but we have already cut 4.6% acela rizzs, so we are already furloughing people. -- but we have already cut 4.6% in payroll. this is something we do not normally choose to do, and we will

it more than that, so we are saying that is a fixed rate. we are looking at our wholesale customers come in mr.rydstrom -- wholesale customers, and mr. rydstrom said -- we should consider that the sale of water or the purchase of water, the commodity portion of their budget is often only about one- third of their budget, so even if we are reducing the rate increase, it is one-third of their budget, so it includes all of the rest of the things, but we have already cut 4.6% acela rizzs, so we are already furloughing people. -- but we have already cut 4.6% in payroll. this is something we do not normally choose to do, and we will probably be coming back to you with additional cuts. they will try to stay within those parameters. you may have to decide in january whether the cuts will presented to you are more than you want to see and whether we want to revisit something else, like different things with the rates, because we are looking to be able to stay within the revenue side. the water budget will monday it to stay flat. just to present that out there. >> and we will roll that through the next tenure so you can see that. >> i think th

its natural state. that is not true. what i put on the overhead here is the proposal that was made on mr. brown's letter head, showing that what they propose to do was fix the road, but there were going to build themselves a better -- they were going to build themselves a better access to the garage on the open space. as soon as the planning department said no garafgge on the open space, all of their good talk was gone. there is something in the law. something is not telling you about -- if something -- if somebody is not telling you the truth about one thing, they are not telling you the truth about another thing. it would take an hour-and-a-half to go to every but misrepresentation, but that is the big one that hit us hard. to address president peterson and commissioner garcia's points about the lack of impact on the open space from the proposed development -- president peterson had concerns about pupother people building up to e same height as the same project. i just want to show you what that would look like. i have here the space as it is now. you can see that these buildings right here -- it is two stories in the back. they have maxed out their h

mr. johnson: we are digressing from the business at hand to something that's already happened and he needs to know that the people out there do understand the cost of living adjustment and it's fixed under social security rules and they don't need it this year. do you have any further speakers? mr. pomeroy: no further speakers. mr. johnson: you told me that last time too. mr. pomeroy: i yielded to my colleague from new york for purposes of closing, we did not have an additional speaker. mr. johnson: i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. it is good for america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: by way of close, let me say that the legislation before us is in important and reflects what has been a pattern of bipartisan work between the ranking member and myself as i have chaired the social security committee. i've enjoyed working with sam johnson. pretty thrilling thing for a kid from north dakota to get to work with an american hero and i have appreciated his conscientious service as ranking member of the social security subcommittee. i've also have deeply a

fix it. we need to actually eliminate that provision. and so, mr. president, when i have the opportunity, when we have republican colleagues joining us on the floor tomorrow, i will in fact offer a motion to move to my amendment and to get rid of this 1099 provision once and for all. and i would just say in conclusion that, for me, mr. president, as you know, everything is about jobs. my great state has lost more jobs -- our people have lost more jobs than any other state, over 800,000 in the last ten years. our people have been hit harder, longerrer, deeper than any place else in the country. we work hard. we're proud people. our people want to work. they know how to work. and they are doing everything possible to get back to work, to start their own business or to get back to work in some other fashion. i'm proud of what we're seeing happening with the support of the president and this congress, the ability for the auto industry in america to come back. the first time all three of our american companies will have a profit this year, first time i b

it's the gentleman from california, mr. herger's party, in the house that refused to vote for a permanent fix when we passed it in the democrat majority over a year ago. as i said that day, only one person, dr. burgess, who is a physician on our committee, voted with the democrats for the permanent fix. and as a result of t inability and unwillingness of the republicans to do anything about this doctors cut reimburse the cut, that we had to pass, i guess, five different short-term fixes. now, granted today we are going to have a yea extension and i'm certainly happy the republicans have agreed to a year extension. but they still have not come along to a permanent fix and they have not helped us in our efforts to achieve a permanent fix. so for the gentleman to suggest that somehow the republicans have been helpful and they wanted to deal with this problem, in my opinion, is simply not accurate. let me spell another thing. there is nothing in this bill that would any way disrupt or repeal the health care reform, the land mark legislation that the democrats passed again this year without any support from the other side of the a

it. i'm going reserve my time in hopes that before 12:00 we can get this fixed. the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has three minutes remaining. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i see the senator from montana, the finance chair on the floor, and also senator kyl, the senator from arizona who's been one of the chief negotiators on the package and the senator from louisiana, senator vitter. and i'd like to try before we get to the time allotted for voting say, again, how important it is to try to get this provision in the underlying bill corrected. it really is a technical correction that we're asking for here to allow a placed in service date to be extended from -- december -- jan 1, 2012, to jan 1 -- january 1, 2013, to finish the low-income housing projects under way in the gulf coast. i want to submit a "new york times" editorial, march 2, and i want to submit to the record a letter of support from secretary donvan and secretary geithner testify

it and getting a grip on, mr. president, where is your mind on this? i just wonder -- there is a tone here of optimism. that we can fix this, this is doable. we will shoot to 2014. you talk to people on the ground as i know you have, and there is not that level of confidence that this would be a straight shot to 2014. >> i disagree. this may be the culture of the u.s. military. you talk to soldiers and officers and noncommissioned officers, they are on it. their spirits are high ni some of it -- in some of the worst places in afghanistan i visited. >> in terms of optimistic about the ultimate mission and accomplishing the mission? is that new now? thwwo years ago? >> it depends. there are some units that went through a pretty towards a 2010 -- a pretty torrent in 2010. i commend "the last patrol." i spend a day with another company on the ground in the same river valley where there is a tremendous amount of optimism, because they have seen the changes. again, that is at the tactical level. there is more reason for strategic pessimism as you go up. >> i was there traveling all around and there was nothing like a sense

mr. defazio spoke about a momenting. >> okay, so will there be a vote tonight, and will it pass in your opinion? >> i believe that there will be a vote on it, on at least fixing the estate tax piece and by the way it's not gutting it by any means. it takes estates that are $5 million and take it down to $3.5 million. still, very few people will wienld wind up paying the estate tax. people who are concerned about ech ne this country it's probably the one of the few times that we say to people who are very well-to-do. the question is will it pass? i'm not a pundit. i will can tell you that a lot of people are concerned. >> finally, congressman, how anguished is the speaker over this, nancy pelosi? the rich people in this country are going to get out of back door with exactly with what they wanted. >> look, i know and i just spent an hour and a half with nancy pelosi. she believes very deeply in the idea that we should be a place that stands up for the middle class and those struggling to make it, i also think in fairness to her when a lot of this deal was put together, the house representatives weren't even in the room. it was mitch mcconnell, it was joed by pe

wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to defense states and i know he will work hard and i would ask the ministry of defense to work hard to get this fixed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. having had all that time key now update the house on his rethink of the school partnerships? >> i think it's quite a common position actually between -- i read the debate where the shadow sports minister said that clearly we couldn't afford the current level of commitment and also -- he also said that the current way of doing things wasn't particularly efficient. so we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from a center but we do it in a better way because frankly today there are too many children in too many schools that don't have access to sport after 13 years of a government that talked an awful lot about it? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the brown report states that only just over 1% of u.k. graduates made gifts to their former universities compared with at least 10% in the u.s. would the prime minister agree with me that those of us who receive free university edu

mr. reid: we're in a position now, we don't have the consent agreement completely fixed, but we know what we're going to do. we're going to have three votes, three different amendments. it will be a half-hour debate on each amendment. so we likely will have another series of votes at 8:15 or thereabouts tonight. we'll have -- senator kerry will offer a consent agreement to that effect very shortly. in the meantime, we can start debating one of the amendments. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i understand there will be three amendments that we'll proceed with. two will be by senator kyl and one by senator wicker. i believe senator wicker is prepared to call up his amendment at this point. i think we're going to proceed -- i would ask unanimous consent that on each amendment there be a half-hour equally divided -- no, hold it. okay. mr. president, we'll hold off on the unanimous consent agreement, but senator wicker, i believe, will start the debate on his amendment. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: i ask consent to call up amendment number 48

wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to defense states and i know he will work hard and i would ask the ministry of defense to work hard to get this fixed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. having had all that time key now update the house on his rethink of the school partnerships? >> i think it's quite a common position actually between -- i read the debate where the shadow sports minister said that clearly we couldn't afford the current level of commitment and also -- he also said that the current way of doing things wasn't particularly efficit. so we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from a center but we do it in a better way because frankly today there are too many children in too many schools that don't have access to sport after 13 years of a government that talked an awful lot about it? >> thankou, mr. speaker. the brown report states that only just over 1% of u.k. graduates made gifts to their former universities compared with at least 10% in the u.s. would the prime minister agree with me that those of us who receive free university educati

fixed number of only three possibilities after that. mr. kerry: madam president, could we then say for the record which amendment is being withdrawn at this point? mr. kyl: it would be the only kyl amendment remaining pending to the treaty. the presiding officer: if the senator would hold. there is no kyl amendment pending. mr. kerry: mr. president -- madam president, if i could say to my colleague, i -- the majority leader would like to work with us in this process. so i think what we should do, if i could ask my colleague to do this, and there's nothing -- there's no -- i'd like to take the moment if we can just to work through this with the majority leader and we could do it during the votes and then at the end of the votes, we can hopefully propound something that has his engagement. mr. kyl: madam president, i can tell my colleague that the amendment that i would be agreeing not to bring up is amendment number 4854. i misspoke when i said it's pending. it is filed. to the treaty itself. mr. kerry: i thank the senator. that helps us a lot. that clarifies it. what i'd like to do is work with the majority leader and the -- and the senator from arizona and

its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in a future treaty without extracting concessions from the united states when we could fix this issue now if we would simply adopt the risch amendment. well, mr. president, i would join my colleague in urging the adoption of the risch amendment and i would yield the floor. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i would ask if the senator from texas would yield for a question? mr. cornyn: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. dorgan: mr. president, the senator from texas mentioned a statement that i and some others had made with respect to the moscow treaty, and i simply wanted to observe that then and now, i wish we had included tactical nuclear weapons. but then i voted for the moscow treaty, and i will vote for this treaty. and the reason for that is making progress on strategic nuclear weapons, reducing the stock of nuclear weapons and reducing delivery vehicles, it seems to me is major progress. this administration has indicated that it intends to move forward on tactical weapons negotiations with the russians. but i did -- i didn't want it to stand that somehow my concern back in the discussion about the moscow treaty, the lack of -- the con

it take to generate a profit? what are the fixes variable costs that retailers operate under an packers pass those costs on down the marketing chain? >> i'm happy to addrs that, mr. attorney general. profit margins in the industry are very thin. we're talking a penny on the dollar, and i think there's a misconception to that meat is a profit center in the stores. i know when i joined the industry, i thought it was, but that's not the case. meat is frequently a loss leader and the margins are meat are considerably lower than the margin on the average product in the storement now, like other -- store. now, like other products competition is really fierce on meat. there's been discusses about the farm-to-retail spread determined by erf, d how the long term trend shows that spread widening, but i think it's far too simplistic to look at the spread between the farm price and retail price and assuming the retailer is making profit on the meat. it was cautioned about using the data in that way and state the retail value figure they figured overstates retail values and it's not a good measure of what consumers are paying in the store. one of the reasons is because it's

it take to generate a profit? what are the fixes variable costs that retailers operate under and packers pass those costs on down the marketing chain? >> i'm happy to address that, mr. attorney general. profit margins in the industry are very thin. we're talking a penny on the dollar, and i think there's a misconception to meat is of >> i think is a misconceptiontht the stores. w th iat k'snow when i joined industy thought it was assumed but it's not the case. it's frequently a loss leader. the margins on meetma are considerably lower than the margins on the average product in the store like other -- store. now, like other products, competition is really fierce on meat. there's been discusses about the farm-to-retail spread determined by erf, and how the long term trend shows that spread widening, but i think it's far too simplistic to look at the spread between the farm price and retail price and assuming the retailer is making profit on the meat. it was cautioned about using the data in that way and stated the retail value figure they figured overstates retail values and it's not a good measure of what consumers are paying in the store. one of the reasons is beca

it's both parties, mr. chairman. i rise to express my concerns about the way once again we are legislating outside of regular order. leaving undone significant fixes needed to correct known substantive problems with the bill. this all goes back with the way the g.i. bill came to us. it came to us as a political instrument, not properly vetted through the house. it came as a political instrument in a highly presidential election time. the house committee was doing its work on modernizing the montgomery g.i. bill. representatives herseth and boozman were doing great work and doing everything they were supposed to do to that bill. and sure enough, they took a bill that was drafted by one staffer who had not been properly vetted in the senate and sent that bill over to the house without even being vetted here by the house and speaker pelosi wanted to do that and it was all about at that time, jamming john mccain. i voted for that when it came to the house floor. the reason i did that is because i wanted a seat at the table and wanted to correct problems with the bill. we cited 10 or 11 problems we had with the bill, all of which were ignored. so what

it and getting a grip on, mr. president, where is your mind on this? i just wonder -- there is a tone here of optimism. that we can fix this, this is doable. we will shoot to 2014. you talk to people on the ground as i know you have, and there is not that level of confidence that this would be a straight shot to 2014. >> i disagree. this may be the culture of the u.s. military. you talk to soldiers and officers and noncommissioned officers, they are on it. their spirits are high ni some of it -- in some of the worst places in afghanistan i visited. >> in terms of optimistic about the ultimate mission and accomplishing the mission? is that new now? thwwo years ago? >> it depends. there are some units that went through a pretty towards a 2010 -- a pretty torrent in 2010. i commend "the last patrol." i spend a day with another company on the ground in the same river valley where there is a tremendous amount of optimism, because they have seen the changes. again, that is at the tactical level. there is more reason for strategic pessimism as you go up. >> i was there traveling all around and there was nothing like a sense

it take to generate a profit? what are the fixes variable costs that retailers operate under and packers pass those costs on down the marketing chain? >> i'm happy to address that, mr. attorney general. profit margins in the industry are very thin. we're talking a penny on the dollar, and i think there's a misconception to that meat is a profit center in the stores. i know when i joined the industry, i thought it was, but that's not the case. meat is frequently a loss leader and the margins are meat are considerably lower than the margin on the average product in the storement now, like other -- store. now, like other products, competition is really fierce on meat. there's been discusses about the farm-to-retail spread determined by erf, and how the long term trend shows that spread widening, but i think it's far too simplistic to look at the spread between the farm price and retail price and assuming the retailer is making profit on the meat. it was cautioned about using the data in that way and stated the retail value figure they figured overstates retail values and it's not a good measure of what consumers are paying in the store. one of the reasons is because i

it's worrisome as dr. rice pointed out. that's why she suggested to us that we fix that problem in the preamble in the ratification process of the treaty. mr. kerry: mr. president, let me ask my friend -- first of all, i just want to point out. i forgot, actually to include in my comments with what we included with the demint language in the resolution, which i think you twice ought to be jumping up and down about which is the following, "the united states is committed to improving united states stratigic defensive capabilities both quantitatively and qualitatively during the period that the new start treaty is in effect and such improvements are consistent with the treaty. now i -- i -- you know, that's -- that's about as bold face a statement as we could make about where we're heading here. now i'd ask the distinguished senator from arizona whether -- if the president clarified that in the next 48 hours or 72 hours and he were to, you know, make more clear to you to try to address that question particularly for you and senator mccain and others, would you vote for the treaty? mr. kyl: mr. president, that -- that is a good question, and i

it will require difficult decisions. there's no easy fix or no easy way out. but those of us who were hired by folks across the country should expect nothing less. mr. president, appreciate the chance to address this issue and i again want to compliment my good friend, the senator from illinois, for his courageous leadership on this issue, for his vote on what i know had to be a very, very difficult decision. but if he and, frankly, some other members on the other side of the aisle who kind of said, even though this was not a perfect plan, it was more important to bring this discussion forward, i compliment them on their actions, i compliment the presiding officer for joining with me and a number of other colleagues. we will be back on a regular basis to continue to bring this issue before our fellow colleagues and the people of the country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague from virginia, originally from illinois, for those kind words. and it was not an easy vote to vote in favor of the deficit commission report but i fel

it, i guarantee you republicans will say no deal. we're walking away from this. we'll fix this in january. you've made a deal, mr. president, now your democrats in the house are trying to change the deal and we're not going to try to negotiate under those conditions. >> tax rates for middle class americans will go up under that scenario? >> that's right. if the democrats blow up -- >> it's a political risk that you think the republicans should take? >> this is a risk -- look, this is a deal that 10 days ago the president sat down with the republican leadership and said here's what i want from you. i don't think this is the most wonderful deal in the world. there's a lot who object to this. i think the president has to understand and i think bill clinton made this point when he spoke at the white house a few days ago, you know, the conditions for the democrats are only going to be worse in january because the republicans take over the house. they'll be negotiating at that point from a much stronger hand. so i've talked to the republican leaders in the house and the senate. they've assured me they will not allow th