the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed, we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second probm weave is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record defit, we went from the inton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs createdto eight million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $ trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what this legisl

michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, a member of our committee, mr. pomeroy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pomeroy: madam speaker, for the last five sessions, i have worked to try to clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. i felt the right approach was ultimately to take the twine levels and make them permanent. the amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the twine levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the senate compromise. the rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. the estate tax in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years. my friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered in his family. he did not say it was at a level much lower -- a much higher rate of tax than was ultimately a cheeved in 2009. in fact the rate in 2009 means 99.8% of the families in this country have no estate tax. zero. it went gradually lower and lower and 2009

the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed, we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second problem we have is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we went from the clinton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs created to eight million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $14 trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what

mr. levin of michigan moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1745, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: colleagues, the time has come. this is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle income tax cuts. the republicans want to continue to keep middle income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper income tax cuts. it's in part because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy. but as i have said, the time has come, we must not

the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed, we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second problem we have is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we went from the clinton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs created to eight million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $14 trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what

mr. levin: i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert any extraneous material in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: i now yield such time as he shall consume to someone who has been working on this issue for i don't know how long, a long time, mr. neal of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, this legislation has already passed the house and it really was a bipartisan achievement this year, and much of the good work that went into this legislation has been years in coming. more than 100 years ago, the first mutual fund was started in boston, massachusetts, and mutual funds have been a way for the every man to invest in the market with benefits of pooling and diversification. today, more than 50 million households invest through mutual funds with a media

mr. levin: i reserve -- i yield 15 seconds to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this is the fact the tax policy center. only 3% of small businesses would be affected, and of that only a small get most of their income from small businesses. this isn't about politics, mr. camp. this is about people. i yield -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this legislation as the best way to move our economy forward. the middle class tax relief extends significant tax relief to every american. let me say that again. every american. under this legislation no matter how much you make, the first $250,000 will continue to benefit from today's lower rates. and given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are still struggling, that's the right thing to do.

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 officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. senators, let me thank all of you for your many kindnesses over the last 48 hours. when news about your prostate is ricocheting around the flog sphere, all the -- around the blogosphere, all the calls and notes and even offers to object on my behalf have meant a lot. and i only want to say that i just hope this encourages everybody to go out and get those physical

mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president -- the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3992 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 663, s. 3929 -- 3992, a bill to authorize the cancellation of certain alien students who are long-term united states senate and who entered the united states as children and for other purposes. mr. levin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to proceed as though in morning business for 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, we've enacted a national defense authorization act every year for the last 48 years and we need to do the same this year. this year's bill would conti

mr. levin: madam president? madam president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: withoutmt when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:00 a.m. on wednesday, december 22, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, that following any leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the new start treaty and, finally, i ask that the time during adjournment or a period of morning business count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, cloture was invoked on the new start treaty today and we hope to reach an agreement to yield back some of the postcloture debate time. we will also work on the 9/11 health legislation and a number of executive nominations. we -- madam president, we also would hope that we can complete

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the risch amendment states a concern which is a legitimate concern. i think probably everybody would agree to that. this concern has been there in the start i treaty. it was there in the moscow treaty just a few years ago. that we need to address the imbalance or the -- yeah, the imbalance, i guess is a good word, between the number of strategic nuclear weapons that exist on both sides and the nonstrategic nuclear weapons. but that was true during start i in 1991, when president bush negotiated it. there was no effort to, in effect, kill the treaty with an amendment stating that concern, although it was a concern then. during the moscow treaty debate here in 2002, i believe senator biden again raised the same concern about this imbalance. it is a legitimate concern, but you don't kill a treaty because there's some legitimate concerns about issues. the russians have concern about our large number of warehoused warheads. we have a big inventory of warheads compared to them. t

mr. levin: mr. president, i put most of my statement in the record since i only have 25 seconds. but general chilton, who's the comarntcommander of our strategc command, told the armed services committee on july 20, "as the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations and advocacy, i can say with confidence this treaty does not constrain current or future missile defense plans." and the balance of my statement i'll have to put in the record. the presiding officer: time has expired. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. to say that the treaty doesn't constrain the united states misses the point of the argument we've been trying to make here over the course of the last day and a half. what the russians have done is established a legal pretext for withdrawal from the treaty. they've been very clever about it. up to the time that we've been told the president has sent us a letter, there was no pushback from the united states. now, i haven't seen this letter on it's a little hard to comment

mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. rangel: tonight will be a rather historic vote. in the old day, the house would initiate tax bills and then we would send it to the senate. then the senate and the house would come together and have what was known as a conference. but it's clear to me that rules are changing fast and now that the house has spoken in terms of a tax bill, in terms of giving some comfort to those people who are unemployed, it seems to me now that it works -- the president works with a handful of republicans and tells us on the house side that if we change anything, this absolutely -- there's absolutely no deal. i think the president said that these people that were unemployed were being held as hostage. and we find that all the tax benefits seem to be centered among the people who are the richest we have in this country while we find more

mr. levin i reserve -- i yield 15 seconds to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this is the fact the tax policy center. only 3% of small businesses would be affected, and of that only a small get most of their income from small businesses. this i't about politics, mr. camp. this is about people. i yield -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thk you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this legislation as the best way to move our economy forward. the middle class tax relief extends significant tax relief to every american. let me say that again. every american. under this legislation no matter how much you make, the first $250,000 will continue t benefit from today's lower rates. and given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are still struggling, that's the right thing to do. but wh

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the risch amendment states a concern which is a legitimate concern. i think probably everybody would agree to that. this concern has been there in the start i treaty. it was there in the moscow treaty just a few years ago. that we need to address the imbalance or the -- yeah, the imbalance, i guess is a good word, between the number of strategic nuclear weapons that exist on both sides and the nonstrategic nuclear weapons. but that was true during start i in 1991, when president bush negotiated it. there was no effort to,n effect, kill the treaty with an amendment stating that concern, although it was a concern then. during the moscow treaty debate here in 2002, i believe senator biden again raised the same concern about this imbalance. it is a legitimate concern, but you don't kill a treaty because there's some legitimate concerns about issues. the russians have concern about our large number of warehoused warheads. we have a big inventory of warheads compared to them. the

mr. levin: mr.imous 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 officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don't ask don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-span 2 if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and everything, and

mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr. jeter that it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have -- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced children the same as opposite sex sexual relations do. then mr. olson would have

mr. levin: mr. president, in a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment number 4787 to the motion to concur to the house amendment. now, my amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top a estate tax rate to the 2009 levels of $3.9 million and 49% respectively. it would leave all the other modifications to the estate, gift, and so-called generation skipping transfer taxes the same. the same as they appear in the underlying amendment. raising the estate tax level to $5 million and lowering rate to 35% is just not the responsible thing to do given our current fiscal situation. and it only would exacerbate why wealth -- wealth and inequality in america. only three of every 1,000 decedents have estates in excess of $3.5 million. at a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting social security, which is relied upon by so many millions of americans, how can congress consider this action to benefit the top .3% of 1% of the population.

mr. levin: would the senator yield just for one question before he yields to the senator from oklahoma? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: if senator thune would yield for a question. is it not true that the section 1251 report says that the numbers which they talk about are up to numbers in the case of both icbms and the nuclear bombers? mr. thune: that is -- my understanding, madam president, through the chair, that is correct, it is up to -- it states the 240 slbms, up to 420 icbms and up to 60 bombers. mr. levin: so that the 720 number is not proscribed by the the1251 report. that's the total of the three numbers, two of which are up-to numbers; is that correct? mr. thune: that -- madam president, again, to answer the senator from michigan's question, i believe to be the case. that's what the 1251 -- it is not proceed scriptive. all i -- proscriptive. all i'm simply saying if you were to make an assumption, that you were going to take the additional vehicles out of

mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutesnd 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 officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don'tsk don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-spa if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. call: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and ev

it is my understanding, congressman schiff that you have decided not to call mr. levin and in the house case. >> that is correct, madam chair, not at this time. it's my understanding, turley that you want to call him as a witness in your case? >> we do not share. we are prepared now or we could be held over. >> i'm not -- i'm trying to let you all try your cases and i think it's not appropriate for us to interrupt the house's case with a witness for judge porteous, so i'm going to let the house finished their case and mr. levenson will just have to stay over. i would ask if possible -- unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously the government will pay for him to stay here until your piece begins, we would ask you put them on at the beginning of your case so that he is not held over to the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out the committee is previously instructed us there was other kids asians by government including judge green greendyke and we are on instructions also to put in four to 70 pretty disrupted in fact in our case because our bankruptc

mr. levin: our missle defense program is not covered or limited by the new start treaty. it's about as simple statement as i can make. there's been an awful lot of debate about the missle defense program and allegations that it's limited by this treaty. so let's listen to the experts. secretary of defense, first, testimony before the armed services committee on june 17 said the -- quote -- "the treaty will not constrain the united states from deploying the most effective missle defenses possible 0 nor have additional costs on those barriers. i remain confident that the missle defense program which has made considerable advancement including the sm-3 missle, which we will deploy in europe. secretary clinton on june 17 -- quote -- "the treaty does not constrain our missle defense efforts. i want to underscore this she said because i know there have been a lot of concerns about this and i anticipate a lot of questions. then she said about the preamble, it does include language acknowledging the stratigic offensive and defensive forces, but that's simply a statement of fact.

mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr. jeter that it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have -- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced children the same as opposite sex sexual relations do. then mr. olson would have

mr. levin: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house of representatives -- mr. berman i yield one toint to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker: thank you. i commend him and ranking member, soon-to-be chairwoman, ileana ros-lehtinen, for giving us this opportunity to address the resolution presented by our chairwoman, congresswoman nita lowey, who chairs the foreign ops subcommittee. all of you on foreign affairs and foreign ops and appropriations know full well the magnitude of the leader that richard holbrooke was. as i address some personal remarks about him, i want to say how significant it was that he understood the important role that congress plays in our foreign policy. whether it was as the ambassador to the united nations, whether it was in his work forging a peace agreement, the dayton accord, or in his role now special envoy to afghanistan and pakistan. i would come to capitol hill bringing his tremendous and brilliant mind, his great intellect, his boundless energy, and his sense of humor. he had a tenacity about him that was unsurpasse

mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr. jeter that it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have -- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced childrenhe same as opposite sex sexual relations do. en mr. olson would have a l

mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr.hat it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have -- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced children the same as opposite sex sexual relations do. then mr. olson would have a laydo

mr. levinthe amendment would amend the treaty by changing one of the elements of the treaty, which is the number of deployed strategic force forces that we . under the treaty the limit 1700 but the critically important part to our military is that each side would have the ability to change the mix to reach 700 as it suits our respective needs. the amendment of senator thune would alter the limit of 700 to 720 deployed slbms, heavy bombers equipped with nuclear arms and icbms. now, these limits, as the chairman of the foreign reels committee has just said, were agreed upon only after careful analysis by u.s. military leadership, particularly general chilton, who is the commander of our u.s. strategic command and the man responsible for these strategic systems. senator kerry has quoted general chilton, and i want to just add one additional quote of his which he testified to before the armed services committee on july 20 of this year. july chilton stated that the force levels in the treaty meet th

mr. levin: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house of representatives -- mr. berman i yield one toint to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker: thank you. i commend him and ranking member, soon-to-be chairwoman, ileana ros-lehtinen, for giving us this opportunity to address the resolution presented by our chairwoman, congresswoman nita lowey, who chairs the foreign ops subcommittee. all of you on foreign affairs and foreign ops and appropriations know full well the magnitude of the leader that richard holbrooke was. as i address some personal remarks about him, i want to say how significant it was that he understood the important role that congress plays in our foreign policy. whether it was as e ambassador to the united nations, whether it was in his work forging a peace agreement, the dayton accord, or in his role now special envoy to afghanistan and pakistan. i would come to capitol hill bringing his tremendous and brilliant mind, his great intellect, his boundless energy, and his sense of humor. he had a tenacity about him that was unsurpassed.

mr. chairman, chairman levin, senator mccain, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the comprehensive review working group in my perspective of the issues associated with the potential repeal of 10 u.s. code 654. i applaud the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the united states navy as they participated in an unprecedented survey of our armed forces. i'm satisfied with the methodology and execution of the service member and spouse surveys and the extent to which they engaged sailors and their family. i believe the appropriate issues have been researched, examined, and necessary courses of action have been considered. the responses help me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our navy. 76% of sailors believe that the impact on these force characteristics to be neutral or positive. there will be issues to be addressed. especially in a period immediately following repeal. there's a sizable minority of the navy, 24%,

mr. chairman, chairman levin, senator mccain, and distinguished members of the committee.or the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the comprehensive review working group in my perspective of the issues associa

mr. chairman, chairman levin, senator mccain, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the comprehensive review working group in my perspective of the issues associated with the potential repeal of 10 u.s. code 654. i applaud the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the united states navy as they participated in an unprecedented survey of our armed forces. i'm satisfied with the methodology and execution of the service member and spouse surveys and the extent to which they engaged sailors and their family. i believe the appropriate issues have been researched, examined, and necessary courses of action have been considered. the responses help me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our navy. 76% of sailors believe that the impact on these force characteristics to be neutral or positive. there will be issues to be addressed. especially in a period immediately following repeal. there's a sizable minority of the navy, 24%,

mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman levin, senator udall and senator webb for their informed and informative remarks in support of the motion to concur with the house in regard to repealing the policy that has come to be known as don't ask, don't tell. mr. president, i think that in considering this matter today, we have an opportunity not just to right a wrong, not just to honor the service of a group of american patriots who happen to be gay and lesbian, not just to make our military more effective, but to advance the values that the founders of our country articulated in our original american documents. and i just want to talk very briefly about that because it's important to set what we're doing here in the context of history. from the beginning, america has been a different nation. we did not define ourselves based on our borders. our founders defined america based on our values, and none stated more powerfully than those words in the opening paragraph of the declaring of independence, that there are self-evident truths. it is really -- this is a political statement, constitutional stat

. -- let me recognize senator levin. >> mr. peterffy, you describe your worst nightmare.he panel heard the description of your nightmare. i wonder if the rest of the panel believes that the nightmare is plausible. >> it definitely could happen. our market is complex. there are things that can go wrong. murphy's law will strike. there will come a time when a day of heavy volume comes. something is going to go haywire. we need to have good safeguards in place to protect us the next time it happens. >> this was an intentional effort on the part of somebody who had as little as $50 million and a few computers and a couple of programmers. in any event, you would agree that that nightmare scenario is possible. mr. narang, do you believe it is plausible? >> i think it is extraordinarily plausible. a large trader could impact the market. that nightmare scenario with a high frequency trader that controls $50 million is utterly preposterous on its face. you can do the math. the trade by waddell and reed on may 6 very likely have a price impact of 2.9%. if you extrapolate from that

and the time has gone, as senator levin has said, to stop playing around with t so, mr. president, i would simply make the following request: that if upon reconsideration cloture is invoked -- and i reason i do this, we can get to where i want to go. it takes three votes. we can do it with three votes or one vote. upon reconsideration, if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed, then the senate can proceed to the bill. we would be able to enter into an orderly process for consideration of the bill, allowing different amendments that we've already been through that. there's no need to go through that number but we talked about 15, five from us, the democrats. so i make my request. i ask consent that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to s. 3454, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider agreed to and the senate now vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 3454 upon reconsideration. note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will

mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman levin, senator udall and senator webb for their informed and informative remarks in support of the motion to concur with the house in regard to repealing the policy that has come to be known as don't ask, don't tell. mr. president, i think that i considering this matter today, we have an opportunity not just to right a wrong, not just to honor the service of a group of american patriots who happen to be gay and lesbian, not just to make our military more effective, but to advance the values that the founders of our country articulated in our original american documents. and i just want to talk very briefly about that because it's important to set what we're doing here in the context of history. from the beginning, america has been a different nation. we did not define ourselves based on our borders. our founders defined america based on our values, and none stated more powerfully than those words in the opening paragraph of the declaring of indendence, that there are self-evident truths. it is really -- this is a political statement, constitutional stateme

mr. speaker, to hear the chairman of the ways and means subcommittee, my very good friend, sandy levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income americans is something we can all agree on. and yes, mr. speaker, we can agree on that. but i think it's very evident that this house could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times. so i would argue that i think it's very important for us as an institution to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us tragically, during a time when the american people are hurting, i have an unemployment rate in part of the area i'm privileged to represent in southern california, mr. speaker, that is in excess of 15%. we have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest state in the union, largest most important state in the union, state of california, we have a 12.5% unemployment rate. people are hurting. so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow americans

mr. poe: s. 1421, the asian carp prevention and control act amends the lacy act to designate the bighead species of asian carp as injurous fish. this was introduced by senator levin of michigan and recently passed the senate by unanimous consent. my colleague, mrs. biggert from illinois, sponsored the house companion to this bill, h.r. 3137, and has been a tireless champion of this legislation. according to the environmental protection agency, asian carp imported by catfish farmers in the 1970's to remove algae from their commercial ponds. during large floods in the early 1990's, many of the catfish farm ponds overflowed their banks and the asian carp were released into local waterways in the mississippi river basin. the carp has steadily made their way north up the mississippi river becoming the most abundant species in some areas of the river. dubbed the underwater lawnmower, these enormous fish have become a menace to native species and their habitats. asian carp can grow up to four feet to six feet long and over 100 pounds in weight. these fish can consume nearly three times their body weight in food each day. as a result, asian carp leave little food or no f

mr. camp, from michigan was supporting it. the ways and means outgoing chairman, also from michigan, congressman levin, supported this. the afl-cio supports it, the national retail federation, the chamber of commerce. they all recognize this is a good thing for the country, and that's why i am so hopeful that my colleagues will -- will not block this one person standing up in this chamber and blocking legislation because it's late in the year and i don't know if they are trying to cut some deal or what reason they would use for blocking it. but forget the politics of the support around the country, but look what it does that's so important. trade adjustment assistance -- since 2009, trade adjustment assistance is certified -- more than 357,000 workers were certified eligible for -- for t.a.a. since 2009, trade adjustment assistance. these workers use t.a.a. to acquire new skills. when a worker is laid off in erie or right across the state line in ashtabula, ohio, you want to encourage them to go back to school and become a nurse if they were working in a plant and they're 45 years old, or you want to go back to school

levin. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. last night the house finally passed on a bipartisan basis and sent to the president a middle-class tax relief package which also included extending unemployment insurance. for the middle class it provides tax relief of $1,500 for income up to $75,000, $1,000 for income at $50,000 and $500 for income of $25,000. it also includes extended unemployment insurance, a 13-month extension of federal support for 99 weeks of unemployment insurance for laid off workers. the package includes child tax credit, extends the child tax credit for two years. it's worth about $1,000, doubled from $500 for qualifying children under the age of 17. and a payroll tax cut. creates a $120 billion payroll tax cut that's worth about $1,400 for the average new jersey household of $71,000 in average income. alternative minimum tax

mr. levin: mr. president snr. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: every one of our military leaders has said to the armed services comeetd and i believe they've reiterated to the foreign reamses committee, there are no constraints in this treaty on missile defense. period, end of quote. these are our top military leaders. they are in charge of missile defense. and they say there are no constraints. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered. is there further debate? hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the ayes are 37, the nays are 59. the mccain amendment number 4814 to the treaty document 111-5 is not adopted. without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, is amendment 4839 at the desk? the presiding officer: it is. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from idaho, mr. risch, proposes amendment numbered 4839 to treaty document 111-5. in the preamble to the new start treaty, insert after strate

mr. levin: i thank my good friends from massachusetts. there's reference made to a side agreement entered into at the time of start i. that's major difference between what happened then and what is proposed by senator kyl now. that side agreement, first of all, was in front of the senate but there was no effort at that time to do what senator kyl's amendment does, which is to say prior to the entry into force of that treaty the president shall certify to the president that there was a legally binding side agreement. that was minority of start i and it would seem to me would absolutely derail this new start agreement. secondly, that agreement was a political agreement that was entered into, that side agreement, which would last as long as the two -- the presidents of both countries who were in office, but would not necessarily last beyond that because it was not a legally binding agreement in that sense. so there are two major differences between what happened at the time of start i and what is

mr. levin: mr. president, in a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment number 4787 to the motion to concur to the house amendment. now, my amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top a estate tax rate to the 2009 levels of $3.9 million and 49% respectively. it would leave all the other modifications to the estate, gift, and so-called generation skipping transfer taxes the same. the same as they appear in the underlying amendment. raising the estate tax level to $5 million and lowering rate to 35% is just not the responsible thing to do given our current fiscal situation. and it only would exacerbate why wealth -- wealth and inequality in america. only three of every 1,000 decedents have estates in excess of $3.5 million. at a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting social security, which is relied upon by so many millions of americans, how can congress consider this action to benefit the top .3% of 1% of the population.

mr. president, i'm going to speak just briefly on don't ask, don't tell. but to suggest that there hasn't been hearings, adequate hearings on this is just simply nonsensical. senator levin has held two days of hearings in the last 30 days. there have been hearings held, reports done by the military. my republican friends have said this is something we probably should do, but when we have a study by the military and see what the pentagon thinks; they did that. more than 70% of the people who served in the armed forces believe it doesn't matter at all. and this is really exemplified, mr. president, in a story that appears in the "las vegas sun" newspaper today. i will read two paragraphs from this story. the pentagon's report is done, and it conclude thad revealing the law would do little to affect troop readiness. in fact, most of the troops interviewed for the report indicate they didn't think it would be a problem. a majority of them said they had served with someone who is believed to be gay or lesbian and it doesn't bother them or affect their unit's effectiveness. now, mr. president, listen to this. for example, the report quotes a special operation soldier who said