any senators who wish to change his or her vote?

if not, on this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 45. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent that we go into a period of morning business until 6:30 tonight, that senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to address the house for up to five minutes as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i -- i just stand here amazed at what just happened in the united states senate, although i probably shouldn't be. i stand here amazed because in this economic times -- in these economic times when senior citizens from -- from ashtabula to middletown to toledo in my state and from the iron range to rochester, minnesota, the presiding officer's state and all across this country, senior citizens who didn't get a cost of living adjustment this year, who are victims of inflation, medical inflation especially, but the cost of the inflation rate is not very high in our society so they doesn't get a cost of living adjustment, even though their cost of living has gone up, that every single republican in this institution, every single republican voted no on a $250, one-time check to go to senior citizens. it would have meant the equivalent of about, i believe,

1.5%, a little less than that, cost of living adjustment. now, if they are so interested in balancing the budget that they don't want to do that, maybe that's one argument, although i don't think it's a very good one in these economic times, but when the same week they sign a letter saying we're not going to do anything, every single republican signed a letter saying we're not going to do anything in this -- in the senate, we're not voting yes on anything until we get the tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, that's pretty outrageous, and the tax cut they're asking for, somebody that makes $10 million a year gets a $40,000 tax cut. somebody making $1 million a year -- i'm sorry, gets a a $400,000 tax cut, i believe. somebody making $1 million gets a $40,000 tax cut. and we are -- they are saying they are willing to vote for that, but they're not willing to vote for $250 to every senior citizen in this country. the cost of that, if you want to get in the weeds and talk about budget issues, the cost of that

that $250 that senator sanders sponsored would be about about $13 billion. the cost of these tax cuts for the wealthy -- the cost of these tax cuts for the wealthy are about $700 billion over the next ten years. so basic what will we are doing, what they're doing for the tax cuts for the wealthy is borrowing -- in essence, borrowing $700 billion from china, putting it on our children's and grandchildren's credit card to pay off later, let them worry about it, and giving that money to millionaires and billionaires. they're willing to to that but they won't -- they won't vote $250, a total of $13 billion, one time, they're not willing for this year, they're not willing to help those seniors in youngstown and lima and zanesville in chillicothe and tip city, ohio. i just don't get it. maybe -- i know it's the christmas season. that's not a reason to do it but you'd think there would be a little more generosity in their

hearts during this most difficult time for seniors that are barely making it. the average senior citizen in this country gets about $14,000 social security a year. many seniors in my state, in places like columbus and places like dayton and places like portsmouth live on not much more than their social security check. and a $250 payment would have made a difference in maybe not having to split their medicine in two and taking half a dosage each time or maybe actually being able to heat their homes as the winter -- as it gets colder and colder as the winter comes upon us, that they would have a little opportunity to at least do that and live a little more comfortably. instead, this place again said yes to tax cuts for the rich, no to senior citizens. it wasn't a majority. a majority of people, all democrats, voted for this. but every single republican voted against it. i don't get it, mr. president. i don't mean to sound partisan here, but when it's like that, it's just -- it makes me -- it's

just unbelievable that -- that senators who, most of us are going to go home and enjoy our holidays, that we would put ou our -- our nation's seniors through something like that. mr. president, i -- i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i'd like unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for the time i may consume, probably not longer than 20 or 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i hope the american people are watching washington right now. we're really at a defining moment. there's not anybody in this body that doesn't recognize that our country is on an unsustainable course. they know it. we all know it. the world knows it. we can argue about how we are to close -- how close we are to a debt crisis and a liquidity

crisis, but no one disputes that one is coming. we just don't know when. yet in the next two weeks, congress is going to make that problem $1 trillion worse. and we can say that a lot of what we're doing is the right thing to do. but what we're not doing is addressing the real issues that need to be accompanied by grown-ups as we look at this. what should the american people make of this? it's kind of like we're on the titanic here in america and everybody says, the bar is open. we'll just have a party the next two weeks. we're going to spend another $900b or we're going to set it up so it can be spent.

i don't often agree with the columnist by the name of thomas friedman. but he has a column today that i think everyone in our collective body should read. it's aptly titled "still digging." here he writes, "given where we need to go, this tax deal" -- this tax deal, scholarship deal, unemployment deal, tax holiday deal -- "is just another shot of morphine to a country that needs to do things that are big and hard and still only wants to do things that are easy and small." he concludes, "economics is not war. it can be win-win. so it can be good for the world if china is doing better, but it can't be good for america if every time we come to a hard choice we borrow more money from

a country that is not just outsaving and outhustling out us but is also starting to outeducate us. we need a plan." i couldn't agree with him more. i was part of the deficit commission. have taken a lot of criticism for saying weengdzed to have that debate on the -- we needed to have that debate on the senate floor. still think we need to have that debate on the senate floor. but this body won't even agree about having a debate about having a plan. last week the members of the debt commission refused to even debate the plan -- the members refused to even debate the plan in congress. we didn't get 14 out of 18 votes. we only got 11. and i want to congratulate senator durbin and senator conrad and senator crapo and senator gregg for their efforts on that commission.

you see, they think we need a plan. senator conrad had a wonderful statement about it. and he said this: "the only things that's worse than being for this plan is being against it." because what he was really addressing the fact is that we're not willing to make the hard choices. we won't come together and do what's best for america. what we'll do is just take another shot of morphine, drink another drink on the titanic and hope that somehow it gets better. the fact is we already have a debt commission. it's called the united states congress. that's why i voted initially against the debt commission. i spent eight months, had a full-time staffer working on that commission for the last eight months.

we are the debt commission. we have to have a plan to avert the catastrophe that is in front of us. america needs to know it's you urgent. it is not segregation that -- it is not something that can wait a year. we are going to have a major liquidity crisis and we're also going to have a major interest rate crisis. the question is nobody knows when it comes. but the one thing we do know is that we don't have a plan, we will no longer control our ability to go to out of our problem. the people who own our debt will control how we get out of our problem. so if in fact we want to hand over our responsibility in the senate to the bondholders of the world, then we should continue not having a plan. but if in fact we want to embrace the oath that we were given, then we should have a plan, and as we debate over the

next two weeks coming up to christmas, part of that debate has to be whether or not we're grown up enough to recognize the party is over and that we better start bailing water, we better form the line, the bucket brigade. ," we're going to go down with the ship. and people can say, well, that's -- you're scaring people. that's realism. that's what's getting ready to happen to us. mr. bernanke cannot solve our problems in this regard. only we can solve these problems for the american people. cutting spending should be the easy part. -- the easy part of our solution. we can document hundreds of billions of dollars a year that

are either wasted, defrauded, or duplicative in the federal government. and i've given hundreds of speeches over the last six years outlining those things, whether it be the $5 billion the pentagon paid to contractors for performance bonuses when those contractors didn't meet the performance rirmtds to get the bonus -- requirements to get the bonus. or it is the $100 billion a year in medicaid and medicare fraud. those are facts. the fact that we pay three times as much for a motorized wheelchair than what it costs ... we haven't done anything to address those issues. it is not hard to cut spending. it is hard to get the will to have a plan that recognizes that we have to keep on keeping on until we get america out of this very dangerous time period that

we're experiencing. we just learned that we rank 25th in the world in math, 17th in science. yet we have 105 different separate government programs to incentivize excellence in science, technology, education, engining and math -- engineering and math. this is just a tiny little example of the work we need to do. we need to have one plan. it needs to have measurements on it. we need oversight and then we need to look the next year, is it working? is it effective? we have 105 sets of bureaucrats. administering -- and we haven't made the headway that we all know is required for us to be competitive in the global economy. yet not once this year, not once last year, not when republicans

were in control, not when democrats are in control do we do the effective oversight that's necessary to get us out of the jam we're in. oversight is hard work. it's not easy. it requires that we actually have to know what's going on in the government, which is part of our oath to begin with. we have to do the work, we've to read it, we have to go to the aten dantsz, we have to interview the people, we have to no investigators so we know what's going on, and yet we do not do that. i often hear from my colleagues on the other side, we need to pay for the so-called bush tax cuts, which are really your tax cuts. the assumption is once the money comes from the government, it is not yours, it is the government's. let's grant that premise for a

minute. let's grant the premise that it's the government's money, not the individual's. i'd issue this challenge: anyone who thinks we ought to pay for tax cuts out to have to -- ought to put up a list of programs that we ought to eliminate in order to pay for them. i put up every time when people are wanting to spend money a list of options that we can do to make it where we don't increase the very problem hole that we keep digging in. the fact is the body isn't interested in cutting any spending. and the proof is what we did last year. the very same people that claim we need to pay for the tax cuts uniformly voted to override paygo to the tune of $266 billion last year. just in this last year. not in whole congress, just this last year.

so the claims were caused -- so what we need to do is move away from that rhetoric. the problem is too big for us to take potshots at each other on what we think is a political point. and we need to get down to the real business of having a plan that gets this country out of the very real difficulties that we face. and the very fact that we don't know when the problem is coming, the very fact that we can't control our own destiny unless we start take action now should give us all chills that we are about to be the senate, the congress of the united states that allowed this to happen. we can't let that happen. no matter what our positions r the only way we get out of the hole we're in is if we make

shared sacrifices. and that means political sacrifices, that means position sacrifices, that means monetary sacrifices, that means sacrifices against our wish list it means we all have to sacrifice. some people say it's suicide to tell the american people they have to sacrifice. i adamantly disagree with that. they're grown up. they get it way ahead of us. they've already seen what's happening to us. they're feeling it now. they have this sense that we're disconnected from the very real problems that we're they're seeing. they're ready to do their part. i'll borrow a line from someone far more he elegant, j.f.k. i remember. i was in high school. ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do

for your country. it was a great statement then. it is more appropriate now than ever. what is does the shared sacrifice money? it means if you live in this country and make a decent income, you need to be more responsible with your health care and retirement than you are today. if you game the system to get disability benefits or workmen's compensation, sorry, your free ride is over. if you are receiving a special tax deduction break because you have a good lobbyist, you're going to have to give that up. if you are a defense contractor, you might only go to a bonus for doing exceptional, not standard work. not for just showing up for work. and if you're a politician, it might mean you have to lose an election to do emphases best for this country. -- to do what's best for this country. if we think about what is required and how we would achieve real change, we have two truths of intention: one, we have the government we

tolerate. two, the american people have the power to change that government. we can solve all the difficult challenges before us, but we can't solve them if washington won't even debate the problem. and if we can't overcome our courage deficit, the american people have a responsibility to replace us all. to replace every one of us. you know, courage is having the fortitude to do the right thing for the right moral reason at the right time regardless of the consequences to you. and we lack that in our body politic today. i know a lot of people see this tax deal as a big political

victory. i don't see it as a victory at all for the country or for our side. actually, a former bush staffer said -- done bartlett says, "once you get it in law it becomes almost impossible to remove it. the fact that we were able to late trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth." this gentleman just ignored the magnitude, severity, and emergency of the problems that face america. and the political cynicism that is a-- that accompanies this should give us all pause to think for a minute on the games that are being played in washington. congratulations, somebody embarrassed somebody else. i'd ask how does making our entitlement dilemma worse when

we pass medicare part-d feel? it's now up to $13 trillion in unfunded liability. the richest get the same benefit as the poor. does that feel good? or how about doubling the size of the government since 1999? does that feel good, especially at the time when the fraud, waste and abuse doubled? does it feel good that we've done nothing to reform social security in the year since people applauded in the middle of the state of the union address, president bush's failed attempt to reform social security? how does that feel? is that good for our country? does that solve something or was that political showmanship? that belies the history of this body. our founders created the senate to try to force consensus. that's what the rules were all

about. and what we need to do, i believe, democrats and republicans and our independent colleagues, is i think we need to recognize the depth and magnitude of our problem right now, and i think there needs to be a great big time-out. who cares who's in charge if there's no country to run that can be salvaged? it doesn't matter if you talk to some of the economists that i talk to, both worldwide and some of the brightest people at harvard and m.i.t. and university of texas and pennsylvania, they don't sleep at night right now because they know we're on the razor-thin edge of falling over a cliff. the fact is both parties have laid a trap for future generations by our inaction, our

laziness, our arrogance, and the crass desire for power. we are waterboarding the next generation with debt. we are drowning them in obligations because we don't have the courage to come together and address or let, even less, even debate having a real solution. you know the real reason why i voted for the deficit commission report? it had a lot of stuff in it that i absolutely hate. it had one thing in it oklahoma can't tolerate that will have to be changed. but the fact is i believe the problem was so big and so urgent and so necessary that we ought to have that debate. and we ought to make sure the

american people know the significance of the problems that face us. and both senator conrad and senator durbin and -- have taken heat and the guys on our side have taken heat because we dare to talk about the real problems that face our country. the special interests immediately started to attack from both sides. you know what that tells me? it tells me we were doing some good. it tells me we were doing some good. i often hear my colleagues assert the power of the purse when it comes to earmarking, but i never hear the same thing, that power of the purse when we talk about trying to cut spending. the bias is to spend. the bias is not to cut spending. you know what? we're either going to do it or outside financial forces are going to force us into what we

do. if you think that isn't true, look what's happened so far this year with some other countries. in the first column, you see the debt in u.s. dollars in fixed terms. the second is what they've done in terms of government spending. in terms of debt, we of course lead the world, $13.8 trillion. you've got france at $2 trillion, germany at $1.46, spain at $6 billion and canada. every one of them freeze or reduce the pay of their federal employees. every one of them cut their federal workforce. every one of them cut federal spending. cut by significant amounts. what have we done? a big goose egg.

zero. zero. that's what we've done. so no wonder the world doesn't have confidence and no wonder our business investment isn't coming in, because we haven't created an environment where they would have confidence. there's no question when the tax bill goes through, we'll see a bump up in confidence. there's no question when people get 2% more on their paycheck we'll see bump up in confidence. but it's going to be very short-lived, very short-lived. the problem is not the tax deal but the fact that we aren't addressing our real problems. we're addressing the symptoms of our problem. there is a two-year extension give business small and large the confidence they need to plan for the future? i certainly hope so. but tax reform that had meaningful effect on future capital investment would do a whole lot more.

the problem is we're not even willing to consider the hard choices. we won't even have an honest debate about a debate about hard choices. we just want to take our shot of morphine and go down the road, have another martini on the deck of the titanic. i think the history of our country, at least what i saw growing up from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, was that our nation thrived because we always embraced the heritage of service and sacrifice when our future was at stake. and we actually have seen some of that in the last ten years in our country. i challenge my colleagues to go to gettysburg or go to philadelphia or go visit ground zero and ask yourself what went through the minds of the brave young americans when the doors

of their landing craft opened on omaha beach? what motivated the heroes on flight 93 on 9/11 when they stormed a cockpit occupied by terrorists? and what did our founders think when they signed the declaration of independence knowing their lives and fortunes were on the line? they weren't thinking about then. they were thinking about the future. they were making that critical decision to have courage in face of adversity and take with it what may come. but they knew doing the correct and honorable and right thing was more important than the reputation or any other thing that they had. here's what one of our founders thought. almost 234 years ago thomas payne was contemplating the great and uncertain struggle

that lay ahead of this young country in our battle of independence and our battle for freedom. he said "if there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace." the time of christmas and hanukkah, isn't that really what we want for those that follow us, is peace, peace of mind, to not be threatened by what we have set up as an unsustainable debt dungeon? i would say i think we ought to have it in our day. let it be our day. let it be today. let it be started with this debate that we're going to have on the tax bill that's going to come before us. let's make the effort to come to consensus that we have to have a

plan. it doesn't have to be my plan. it doesn't have to be senator bennet or the president pro tempore's plan. but we've got to have a plan. we've got to signal to the rest of the world that we're willing to start making some of the appropriate sacrifices and generate the austerity that will allow us to continue this wonderful experiment. we are now facing the most predictable crisis in our history. we're doing nothing to avert the catastrophe. nothing. zero. in fact, we're still digging. it's time we stop digging. how will we be stphrerd as a generation -- remembered? as a generation of politicians who saw a gathering storm and took action? or a generation of politicians who put off the hard choices of

honor and dishonored the sacrifices of our past? the choice is ours. we do have a choice. we can choose to come together and work to solve this problem in the very short term that will have tremendous impact in the long term what we don't have is a lot of time. and as i heard somebody say today, time flitters away so fast up near washington, it just goes by so fast, we're all so busy. there is no problem in front of us in any committee on any issue that's greater than our problems that face this country. and we need to come together across the aisle to put a plan together that will give security to not only the generations that come and are here already, but the peace of mind to know that

we are listening, we understand and we're willing to make and lead by example in the sacrifices that have to come for us to solve that problem. mr. president, i thank you for your indulgence and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i wanted to talk a little bit about the proposed tax compromise, but before i do that, since the senator from oklahoma was on the floor, i wanted to say to him how grateful i am for your courage in supporting the bipartisan commission's report on the deficit and the debt. your vote for that, a vote of senator crapo and senator durbin, senator conrad, in 22 months in this place, it's the first time i've felt any confidence that we may actually be moving in the right direction. so i want to say thank you to you for casting that vote. no one that voted for that,

democratic senator or republican senator, agrees with everything that's in the package. but what you do agree with is we need a plan to get this righted. that's what we need to do. there's a lot of talk in this town about whose side are you on. i hear that all the time. are you on our side? are you on their stphaoeud whose side are you on? i'll tell you one quick story from the campaign trail. i've been on that trail for the last 22 months. every single town hall meeting i had, the issue of the deficit and the debt came up. profound anxiety among the people of my state that we're going to leave less opportunity, not more, to our kids and to our grandkids. by the way, i share your view as well that time is short on this. if we don't make these decisions, the capital markets are going to make them for us. it's not going to take, it's not going to be like that frog in the boiling water. this is something, one morning, one day somebody in the capital market is going to wake up and a

i'm not going to buy your paper anymore at that price and we're going to see our interest rates go through the roof and we're going to see economic turmoil far worse than what we're going through now, the worst recession since the great depression. i would talk about that in these meetings about how we need to come together as democrats and republicans to solve these problems. the frustrations people have and our inability to work together to create solutions. i say, look, we have a moral obligation to the next generation to get this straightened out so we don't constrain their choices. the problem is more urgent than for our kids and grandkids. i was lucky enough that my daughters came with me on a lot of these trips, and they sat through a lot of these town hall meetings. and i remember one night, or one morning, my daughter caroline followed me out. she's now 11 years old.

she had heard this about the constraints we were putting on the next generation of americans. she tugged at my sleeve on the sidewalk and she said daddy? i said what. she said just to be clear -- she was making fun of me because i overuse that suppression. "just -- overuse that expression. just to be clear, i'm not paying that back. if people ask me whose side i'm on, i'm on caroline's side, i'm on the side of kids that don't deserve to be left what we are leaving them. i want to you know, senator, i'll work with anybody, republican or democrat in this chamber over the time that i'm here to make sure we're not that generation that leaves less, not more, behind. i wanted to talk, mr. president, briefly about the discussions around taxes. i've been a strong supporter of the extension of the middle-class tax cuts that

supports our small businesses, farmers an ranchers and extension of unemployment insurance for coloradans struggling to find their way during this difficult economy. over the last year in -- in the very town hall meetings i was just talking about, coloradans over an over again have shared their frustration with me about washington's complete failure to come to an agreement and by both parties lack of willingness to even discuss a compromise and i couldn't agree with them more. the bottom line is simple and straightforward. these tax cuts will ex tire in less -- expire in less than four weeks if we do nothing. if we do nothing hundreds of thousands of coloradans will see a tax increase an thousands more will lose their unemployment benefits in the worst recession since the great depression. this is completely unacceptable to them and completely unacceptable to me. if i were writing this bill it would look different than the compromise that has been

reached. it would propose a one-year extension of all tax cuts. i said that during the campaign because i felt it was important for us to have the time to figure out how we were actually going to pay for these tax cuts. that would be one year and a longer term extension for the middle class. i would raise the exemption level of the estate tax but keep rates at the 2009 level. but, mr. president, i wanted to come down to the floor to say that at the end of the day while i'm going to look for opportunities to make improvements to this framework and listen to other people's ideas as well, i intend to support the compromise. i'm not convinced that delaying this legislation until next year will produce a better bill. i am convinced it will create huge uncertainty for people all over my state and all over the country at a time when the last thing we can afford is uncertain tivment and the reality is -- uncertainty. and the reality is the new congress might produce something far worse than the agreement

that's been reached. whenever i cast a vote i do so focused on the danger caused by our medium-term and long-term debt. it's why i supported multiple measures to get spending under control. in this case i think it would be far worse to further weaken a fragile economic recovery by letting the middle-class tax cuts expire and throwing thousands of coloradans off the unemployment roles. but simultaneously and moving forward we desperate lit need a more constructive and honest conversation about how we're going to turn our customer around for the long term and i will work with anyone, democrat or republican, to develop a tax code that actually encourages innovation, drives innovation here in the united states, builds back our middle class and brings jobs back to colorado and the rest of the country. up close, as i see the senator from tennessee is here, just by saying this, we face grave challenges, both economic and

fiscal at this moment in our country's history. and the message that i got loud and clear over the last 22 months is that people want to see us working together and solving problems. and that's what i intend to do. mr. president, thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from h.r. 4994, the taxpayers assistance act of 2010 and that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4994, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to reduce taxpayer

burdens and enhance taxpayer protections and foams. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. a senator: mr. president -- mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: there is a substitute amendment at the desk and i ask that the amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill be read a third time and the bill as amended be passed, the title amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, further any statements related to the measure appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will read the letter. the clerk: this is the statement of budgetary effects of paygo legislation for h.r. 4994 as amended, total budgetary effects of h.r. 4994 for the five-year

statutory paygo scorecard net increase in the deficit o of $2.278 billion. total budgetary effect of h.r. 9 -- 4994 for the 10-year statutory paygo scorecard net decrease in the deaf the sit o of $17.276 billion. also submitted for the record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the congressional budget office which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this act. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i was glad i had a chance to hear the senator from colorado and the senator from oklahoma congratulate the senator from colorado on his rer reelection. he mentioned working across party lines, one area where we can do that in this next year where he can make a significant

contribution is in the area of fixing "no child left behind", the elementary and education act. he has lots of experience earned the hard way on the ground in that area and he's on the relevant committees and i look forward to working with him. second, i join the senator from colorado in support for the tax plan agreed upon by the president and democratic and republican leaders. i've noticed that over the last couple of days a large number of the news stories is about who wins. you know, who gets political points for this tax agreement. i think the story is the american people win. i mean, the focus of this congress should be, number one, how can we make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs? virtually every economist who's come before us called by democratic senators or republican senators has said that raising taxes on anybody in the middle of an economic

downturn makes it harder to create private-sector jobs. and then in addition to -- so -- so this legislation which would stop the automatic increase of taxes for tens of millions of americans, some since the largest tax increase in history, makes it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. so does the provision to provide 100% expensing for businesses. what that means is that companies can -- who buy equipment in the next year can immediately deduct that. so does the provision for giving working people in this country a reduction by one-third during the next year in what they pay on the payroll tax. that will mean they have more money in their pockets and perhaps they'll spend it and perhaps that will help the

economy grow as well. and in addition there's the provision to give some certainty to the estate tax. some want zero. some want 100%. this comes to a common, reasonable decision for two years. now, no one on the republican side of the aisle is completely happy with this agreement. we want the tax rates permanently where they are or at least not higher. we believe that short-term decisions about taxes don't create the kind of certainty that does the best job of helping to create private-sector jobs. but we welcome the fact that the president of the united states has accepted this as a part of an agreement and at the same time he has gotten the priority that he put a high goal on which was the extension of unemployment compensation. we don't like to see that passed

in a way that adds to the debt. so we have some democrats who don't like everything in the bill and some republicans who don't like everything in the bill. what we have is something we haven't seen very much for the last two years. instead of we won the election, we'll write the bill, we have a different attitude. let's sit down and talk and we what we -- see what we can do for the good the country. i think this will not only result in the bill being passed, i think it will result in it being accepted by the people of this country. i think it will help to build confidence in our economic growth. i think it will help build confidence in the ability of our government to function and deal with big problems, and i congratulate the democratic and republican leaders of the senate and the house. and i congratulate the president for bringing it this far. now we have a ways to go. it's not decided yet, but it's a good step in the right direction. instead of scoring political points, i think we're trying to score some points for the

american people. and when they get their paychecks in the middle of january and see the lower withholding and see the amount of taxes that they're not going to have to pay in a tax increase, i think they'll -- a small business person in tennessee looking at this might say they're not going to raise taxes and take money that my company earned and take it to the government, so maybe i'll take some of that money and i'll spend it to hire somebody the or they're going to let me deduct everything i spend for new equipment so maybe i'll go ahead and do that this year instead of over the next two, three, or five years -- or four or five years and -- and maybe that will help my business grow and maybe i'll hire somebody. and maybe it will say to the people who work that the company -- at that company, i'm going to have a little more money in my pocket, i'll spend it and maybe they'll buy some of the goods made at that small business or some of the other

small businesses and the economy will grow. there's no doubt that this adds to the deficit. but there are two ways to reduce the deficit. one is to reduce spending, which we must do and we have an opportunity to deal with that that the senator from oklahoma talked about. the other way is to create new revenues and the way you do that is economic growth. this bill will help make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, that's economic growth, that helps reduce the deficit. i also want to congratulate senator coburn who spoke before the senator from colorado. senator coburn, senator crapo, senator conrad, senator durbin, the majority whip, all voted for the debt commission report. that was a courageous act on behalf of all five of them. it's one thing to go around the country saying we need to reduce the debt. it's another thing to take on a wide-ranging proposal that

actually does that. because it's very, very painful. you can't just say we're going to get rid of earmarks which don't save a penny. you can't just say we're going to focus on discretionary spending that doesn't affect defense, which is 15% of the budget. you've got to deal with the whole picture. you've got to deal with national defense. you've got to deal with social security. you've got to deal with medicare and medicaid. and it's true that the report didn't do as much on entitlements as i would like for it to have done, but i'm very proud of the members of the commission. they've given us a serious proposal and i as one senator intend to take it seriously and do my best to support as many of its provisions as possible so we can take a step forward not just in creating private-sector jobs, but in attacking our other major goal which is reducing spending so we can reduce the debt. mr. president, i have one other comment i'd like to make as i'm here this afternoon. it involves the abuse of leaders

in iran. i rise today, mr. president, i'm here on the floor to discuss an issue that some constituents of mine brought to my attention when i was in nashville this summer. we met to discuss the plight of the bahi in iran. the bahi faith was founded in persia in 1844 and is one of the fastest growing religions in the world with more than five million followers an -- in more than 200 countries an territories it is the largest nonmuslim religious community in iran today. the high followers have been persecuted for their faith by the iranian government since their religion was established. but the frequency and severity of the persecutions has increased under the presidency of ahmadinejad. more than two years ago a group of seven of the high leaders offense referred to as the uron or friends were arrested. they were charged with pursuing

propaganda activities against islam and for spying on behalf of israel. after more than two years of temporary confinement, the seven were tried in a closed court proceeding that did not meet even the minimum international standards for proper criminal procedures and protection of civil rights. the six men and one women were each sentenced to 20 years in prison august the 8. this is yet another example of the iranian government striking out against its own people. we saw violent examples of this when iranian citizens protested the unfair elections. those who dared to -- faced baseless charges, closed court proceedings, extremely harsh sentences, possibly even death. the international community has expressed its outrage about the sentencing of this group, and

secretary of state clinton has issued a statement on august 12 that reaffirms our country's commitment to protecting religious freedom around the world, including that of the baha'i in iran. this is more than a story from the other side of the world. there are more thoon -- than 168,000 baha'i in the united states. there are more than 2,000 in my home state of tennessee. the men and women with whom i met in august have family members, fathers, mothers, sons, brothers, in-laws who have been arrested and imprisoned in iran simply because of their faith. their only request was that we as members of the united states senate continue to do all that we can to keep the spotlight on iran and its persecution of peaceful citizens. that is why i wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the senate today. the united states has already imposed sanctions on iran by

enacting the iran sanctions act, but i hope that by shining a spotlight on this extreme and continued abuse of peaceful adherence of the baha'i faith by the iranian government, that we can, one, reaffirm our commitment to religious freedom around the world, and, two, make a little more comfortable -- make a little more uncomfortable the regime in iran which perpetrates these crimes against its own people. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i understand we're in morning business. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. in june of this year, i joined my friend and colleague, senator ben car dirntion here on the senate floor to discuss an issue of great concern to both of us, and tomorrow americans, and to

-- and to many americans, and to many advocates of freedom and the rule of law internationally and that issue is the ongoing trial in russia of mick coal gourd cough ski and his business pattern. this trial or what gare garry kasparov called the latest judicial travesty came to a close november 2, a decision by the court is expected on december 15. khordokovsky was first arrested in 2003 and arrested arrested i. this trial was unfair and politically motivated, according to western human rights groups, western immediate yargs and many other independent observers. there's broad opinion that this second trial has been staged, has not provided the opportunity to judge facts in a clear and partial manner, and in general has not honored the rule of law.

i would note this is not a jury trial. the finder of fact is a single judge. many have claimed that this judge has come under both direct and indirect pressure in this case. in addition, the prosecution has used language in closing arguments as if a guilty verdict had already been rendered. sadly, there seems to be little hope in a just verdict from this second trial, and now khodorkovskype and lebedev face the prospect of many more years in jail. these men served seven years in prison pained an unjust price for a campaign against them. they have sacrificed many of their hraoeufrbgs their freedoms and their -- their freedom and their lives. it is time for both men to be set free and justice to be served in russia. this case is broader than

khodorkov? sky and lebedev as individuals. it raises the question about whether or not there are truly functioning institutions in russia. a guilty verdict would show that when russian authorities want to, they can act above the law, as they did in the first trial. it would also underscore that property rights in russia are meaningless, sending a chilling message to investors and businesses alike. both domestically in russia and internationally. i fear we will see more case where rights are violated and the legal process undermined. thankfully, it is becoming increasingly difficult for russian authorities to hide the illegitimacy of the charges and the process. government officials, human rights activists, journalists and others continue to raise questions about the legitimacy of this trial.

some might suggest that we in the congress and that we in america should refrain from commenting on cases in a sovereign nation's court system. i disagree. i do not think this is true when a nation's court system is clearly not independent and is being used to undermine the rule of law and fundamental democratic principles. i have led efforts to support congressional resolutions and hearings to draw attention to specific issues about this case because i believe they are symbolic of broader and disturbing trends in russia. aeupbd and other colleagues -- and i and other colleagues in the senate will continue to do so. as i said in june of this year, the united states stands behind those that call for freedom from tyranny and justice around the world. we must continue to stand with

khodorkovsky and le pw*e de -- and lebedev. the international community will be closely watching the outcome of this case and i urge my colleagues, i urge president obama and the administration to do the same. i hope russia will choose the right path and somehow that justice will prevail in this infamous case. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor to the distinguished majority leader.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to calendar number 663 p-rbgs s. 3992 occur at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, december 9, that the time following the leader time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, that following any leader statement senator durbin be recognized for up to ten minutes. the senate then resume the motion to proceed s. 3992. during thursday's session senator tpwh*epbt be recognized to -- bennet be recognized to give his farewell speech and senator dorgan be recognized for his farewell and senator bunning be recognized at 1:00 p.m. for up to 20 minutes -- senator bunning wants 30 minutes, so that's fine. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that we discharge the finance committee from further consideration of h.r. 4337 and that we move to it right now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4337, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to regulated investment companies and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the bingaman substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to. the bill as amended be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we proceed to calendar number 647, s. 3167. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 647, s. 3167, a bill to amend

title 13 united states ko*et code to provide for a five-year term of office for the director of the census and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be considered, the carper amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendments, plural, be agreed to, and the bill as amended be read a third taoeurpblgs passed, the motion to reconsider -- third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate -- as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 67 5, s. 3076, an office to establish the national alzheimer's project. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the committee reported title amendments be agreed to, there

be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask we proceed to s. res. 697. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 697 recognizing the 15th anniversary of the dayton peace accords. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements rethraoeugt this matter be -- relating to this matter be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid:. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that members have until thursday, december 16 to submit tributes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointments which are at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, december 9. following the prayer and pledge -- the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the deem act as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at 11:00 a.m. the senate will proceed to up to three roll call votes. if cloture vote is not invoked the senate will proceed to the vote to h.r. 847, the 9/11 health compensation. if cloture is not invoked, i may reconsider the failed cloture vote and the motion to proceed to the department of defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the

the presiding officer: the

>> middle and high school students as you work on your documentary for c-span student cam competition, here are a few tips from our judges. >> one of the things i look for when watches the video is you. i want to see you and your personality. it helps make your video stand out from all of the rest. >> what i like to see most in the student cam entries are a real investment in care in the topic that you'll be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you are telling us. if you are not interested in

what you are presenting, chances are we probably won't be either. >> untie breaker for me last year was the requirement on using c-span video. i'm looking for videos that people have looked at the c-span content and said what elements of c-span video makes the most sense for telling the compelling stories i'm trying to tell. >> for all of the rules, including deadlines, prize information, and how to upload your video, go to studentcam.org. >> state department spokesman p.j. crowley took questions on president obama's decision to stop pushing for settle in the middle east. this is about 50 minutes. >> good morning.

welcome to the department of state. several things to mention. the secretary gave a visit to the global conference, called t. e.d. women, technology, entertainment, and design. leading women around the world who are leaders in their particular field of emphasis. once again, you know, talking about the vitally important role of women and girls and the future of communities and broader societies. i think she is just finished also making some remarks to the business roundtable ceo, you know, quarterly meeting here in washington. you know, talking and discussing the presence national export initiative. you know, today in the ivory

coast, w.j. choi made a authoritative statement in which he explained now the recent election was certified and made clear the will of the people points to one conclusion. people have chosen one person, not two. the orient people have chosen alassane ouattara. it was a clear statement recognized president ouattara, and 11 heads called on the president to abide by the election results and allow ouattara to take the seat as the head of government. we continue to watch the situation closely and continue to call on the existing

government to do the right thing. begin the process of a peaceful transition of power and lead to a, you know, peaceful stable solution for the future of cote d 'lvoire. last week there was a let encouraging him to respect the results. special envoy scott gration is in khartoum to discuss the sudan referendum and agreement to reach the cpa on the parties the way ahead. and he met today with sudanese minister of defense, general

abdel rahim mohammed hussein and also special envoy mikhail margelov. and the visit in darfur. we also continue to monitor very closely the situation in haightly. -- haiti. we stand ready to support efforts to thoughly review so it's consistent with the haitian people, as expressed by the votes. we remain with the council's results that are inconsistent with the cno results which had more than 5,500 observers and observed the count in 1600, voting centers nationwide. and as haiti goes through this

process of review and designated period for electoral complaints leading to the runoff election on january 16, we urge all political actors and their supporters to remain calm and work peacefully through the period, provide an electoral process to resolve any claims of irregularities. here at the department today, we are hosting for a series of meetings, at the secretary general of italy, he is the equivalent of the deputy foreign minister, and a series of meeting with the undersecretary, assistant secretary ether brimmer. those meetings will happen today reflecting the wide ring of interest and cooperation that we have with the government of

italy. and finally, just to kind of review where we were yesterday, i know we had a briefing here and then we had a briefing in new york. but as we did acknowledge yesterday regarding the middle east, we have determined that the moratorium extension will not at this time provide the best basis for resuming direct negotiations. in the coming cays and weeks, we will engage with both sides on the core substantive issues at stake in this conflict and with the arab states and other international partners on creating a firm basis to work toward our shared goal of a framework agreement on all permanent status issues. a goal to which we and the parties remain committed. we will consult with the parties in the coming days as we move forward. and as we proceed, our position on settlements has not, and will not change. the united states does not accept the legitimacy of continued israeli settlements,

and we will continue to, you know, express that position. we indicated that we will be having meetings and contacts with both the israelis and the palestinians in the coming day -- days. senator mitchell will travel back to the region next week to consult both with the parties and also with other regional leaders. >> so there are meetings both here at state and in the region next week? >> yeah, we are and will remain in contact with the israelis and palestinians through this week, george mitchell will be in the region next week. i don't have particular days yet, anticipating your question when we have more clarity on the exactly where he'll go, when, we'll let you know. >> this looks like a major step back from september 1st. it looks as if now everything is going back into indirect talks, no more face-to-face talks between the israelis and the palestinians. some are even suggesting that

this is a major failure for the obama administration. what's your response? >> not at all. let me work from back to front. we continue to pursue a framework agreement on the permanent status issues. we continue to believe that in order to resolve those core issues, direct negotiations will be required. and we will be consulting with the parties on the best way to achieve that shared goal. i would describe this as a change in tactics, not a change in strategy. it's not a change in our objectives at all. to some extent in our view after intensive discussions with the israelis over a couple of weeks at the request of the palestinians, we thought that this had, in a sense, become an end in itself rather than than a

means to an end. we are, you know, shifting to a different path and we'll be consulting with the parties in the coming days on how to move forward. >> what is the different path? >> well, we're going to focus on the substance. and try to begin to make process on the core issues themselves. and we think that will create the kind of momentum that we need to see -- to get to sustained and meaningful negotiations. >> so basically, you are going to ask the palestinians next week to give up their own demands for freezing settlements and say, let's go directly to the core issues. >> well, again again, we've hada clear position all along. direct negotiations with the parties. the real issue is how to both achieve that and then make progress. so we are just, you know, we are simply acknowledging that after intensive effort, the moratorium

was not the best basis to move forward, and in essence, we are shifting gears. >> so are you looking for other confidence-building measures other than freezing settlements? is that what you are looking for next week? >> no, we're looking to find a way to make progress on the core issues, to move towards the framework agreement, and to move toward the point where we end the conflict once and for all. so, in other words, we are talking about how do we get from here to there. we had pursued the concept of a renewal of a moratorium. we have come to the conclusion at this time, that's not the best way to proceed. >> next week will there be three-way talks, u.s., palestinians, and israelis? >> again, george will be in the

region next week. i'll be able to describe where he'll go, who he'll see, in that form later. >> will there be meetings in washington? >> right now, i'm not anticipating that we will have israelis and palestinians in the same room. >> if you are saying the moratorium is not the best way, isn't that contradictory in terms? i mean, simply this position? >> we have supported direct negotiations as the only means to reach the agreement. that remains or view. there was considerable thought given to a moratorium being a mechanism by which we could make the kind of progress we're looking for, and at this point, after an intensive effort, we've concluded that that particular

course is just simply not going to bear fruit at this time. and we're going to move in a different direction. >> so can you give us an idea of what the other alternatives? if this part has been blocked and it's not working, what's kind of thinking and new ideas, and alternatives -- how can you move the palestinians from a position that we are not going to negotiate unless you freeze the settlements, now you have to over look that because we are looking at different way. >> we're not looking at -- we're not overlooking anything. in other words, the core issues remain at the heart of the effort. we are going to shift the discussion and begin to focus intensive i i -- intensively on the core issues and try to make progress on the substance itself. we'll be looking to see if these discussions and this effort creates the momentum that we

would expect and have to move back into direct negotiations at some point. >> do you give the package to the incentives still on the payable for the israelis to take? the same package that you gave? >> that is not under discussion at this time. >> it's not under discussion at this time? >> has it been withdrawn? >> well, i mean, we are no longer -- at this time we are not pursuing a settlement moratorium, a renewal of the settlement moratorium. we are moving in a different direction. the package is not currently under discussion. >> the idea about getting the 20 fighter jets? >> well, we remain committed to it real's security. but those discussions will occur in a different context. >> did you rule out giving the israelis the f-35 fighter jets because -- >> well, i will rule in we

almost continue to work with israel as a friend and ally on it's, you know, security requirements. we have done that over decades, and that's not going to change. >> can i ask you, does the u.s. know yet how it plans to get the israelis -- i'm sorry, not the israelis, the palestinians to any future talkings. they've been pretty firm on seeing the settlement freeze before resuming any sort of negotiations. >> well, we had dan rubinstein in jerusalem who had two meetings yet with president abbas. we will continue our discussions with the palestinians. as we said, george mitchell will be in the region next week. >> as a result of the two meetings, did you get any sense that the palestinians are willing to move forward without the settlement freeze? >> again, you know, we are explaining, you know, where we are and explaining -- and also

seeking palestinian views on the best path forward. >> i mean -- take us to the next step. are the palestinians willing to move forward? based on your conversation. >> well, we are having discussions with both sides. and we'll gist -- we'll just leave it there. >> i understand you clearly. you are saying the package was contingent on the israelis agreeing to a settlement freeze. that did not happen. so the package is no longer there. >> we are at this time not pursuing a settlement moratorium and that kind of discussion with the israelis. >> okay. the spokesperson for the european union yesterday said the settlements were illegitimate and obstacle to peace. would you say the same thing? >> i mean -- this is a concern, obviously for both the israelis and the palestinians.

as we've made clear, both parties have responsibilities here. both parties need to avoid unlateral action that undermine trust and do impede the process. our position on settlements is clear. i just reiterated it again. we'll continue to express that view, but we are focused here on how can we get the parties to begin to work on the substance? and through that move this effort forward? >> okay. yesterday, just to follow up. quick follow up. yesterday, you said or someone said that we will look for different ways to reignite, basically, i mean i'm paraphrasing here. can you explain?

>> well, that's the fundamental purpose of the contacts that we've had in the past few days and what we will have. what is the best path forward? how can we begin to actually address, you know, the substance and the core issues inside, you know, this process. and, you know, we're looking for ways to create, you know, forward movement and momentum. you know, we had viewed the moratorium as one way to achieve that. we don't think that's going to be our fruit at this time. we're moving in a different direction to achieve the same objective. >> one last thing, you would not endorse palestinian effort to renew the state? >> our view has not changed on that. all matily, -- ultimately, to end the conflict, you need to get negotiations. to get to negotiations, you need

direct negotiations. that's the only way in which we can achieve success. we believe that bringing these issues to an international forum will be a distraction. and it will just add complexity to an already difficult, you know, circumstances. >> how do you purr saw president abbas to stop his efforts to get countries in latin america, possibly in europe as well from not recognizing a palestinian state? >> i can tell you president abbas is very familiar with our position? >> are you going to take any measures against countries that recognized a palestinian state in a unilateral way? >> you know, again, countries have the right to set their own policies. you know, we believe strongly that as this moves forward we are going to need international support. you know, for this effort. and that's why we've worked effectively with the quartet and

others to support the process. why, in addition to george mitchell talking to the parties, he'll be talking to others in the region. so we want to have as much international support for this process as possible. and we, you know, continue to believe that international support for other avenues is ultimately a distraction. >> have you looked in this direction? >> there's a clear plan for the direction. >> tough a plan? >> no, i mean we think we have the right plan. we think we have the right, you know, strategy. we are just adapting the tactics in support of that strategy. >> all right. what's the plan again? >> well -- >> well, you've described the plan. >> thanks, lach. >> and now we're saying you're talking to the others about

consulting with the parties. >> again, i mean, i can't be more clear in seeing that our -- it is our belief at some point in the process the parties will have to return to direct negotiations. we don't see an alternative to be able to resolve the core issues, get to a framework agreement, and ultimately get to the final agreement that ends the conflict once and for all. so at some point in time, we want to see direct negotiations. what we are talking about no. what's the means to get to that point? we are trying one avenue. that has not borne fruit. >> you seem to be leaveing the gap. how do you get from here to there? >> that's what we are trying to figure out. >> what is -- you don't know what the avenue is?

>> you're not having -- >> no, no, no. i mean we -- put it this way. there is a path forward. the real question is can the parties summon the political will to move down the road. and we understand that there are different political channels on both sides. at the heart of this, this is not a substantive challenge. it is a political challenge. and for a combination of regions -- reasons, the politics on both sides did not exactly enable us to move forward along a path through a settlement moratorium. so we are adapting our approach, but we are not adapting the strategy. we have to sit down together and work through the core issues, the core issues are very well known. the potential solutions are already, you know, outlined through, you know, previous efforts. we just have to figure out what combination, you know, works most effectively to get to the kind of sustained, meaningful

dialogue that's required to get to a framework agreement and ultimately to achieve peace in the region. >> the moratorium extension failed. do you believe that netanyahu and his team were negotiating in good faith the last three weeks? >> yes. we believe that both sides, you know, are committed to the process. they want the united states to continue our involvement in this process. and, you know, we've reached an impasse, you know, through the mechanism of settlement moratorium. and we are simply trying to see if there's another way to advance this effort. >> on the political will though -- >> p.j. -- >> settler groups were arguing -- >> one at a time. >> settler groups were arguing today that this is a victory over the americans and ther rational pie-in-the-sky --

>> it is not a victory for anyone. it's an intensive effort of achieving a settlement moratorium as one mechanism to advance the process. you know, it did not bear fruit. we are now going to look at other vehicles, one more more vehicles through which we can, you know, make the kind of progress that we are looking for? >> is it a victory for the settlers to continue at will to build where ever they want. >> it's not a victory in the sense that both israelis and palestinians have significant interest in crossing, you know, this finish line, you know, on the palestinian side, a viable state. and on the israeli side, you know, the recognition and stability and peace that it has long sought. so, you know, the real question is choose for the yard line that you are on. just what is the means through

which you can get from here to there. and there's no one, you know, way to achieve that. we've tried one way. and it didn't enable the progress that we are looking for. and so we are moving in a different direction. >> p.j., can you ask you, given that you are changing the tactic now midstream, does the administration believe they can achieve the framework deal in a year? >> yeah. >> what do you base the optimism on? you seem to be the only one. >> well, our objective is the same as it was in august. >> the circumstances are not improving. >> that's -- you were, we were clear when we entered in august, we are clear-eyed today as we recognize that our efforts of the last four months have not given us the forward momentum that we were looking for. and so, you know, we are shifting our approach. but we are still focused on the goal of the framework agreement

within a year. we believe that's achievable. a lot of hard work is going to have to be gone. it's not going to be easy. >> can you say whether the ball has moved forward at all since early september. are you now starting again and the then trying to achieve this now? >> you know, we are not starting again. we've -- you know, because both sides remain committed to this we've reaffirmed that in our recent conversations. we are just moving, you know, we are trying a different avenue to get to the same ultimate destination. >> can you say how the ball has moved forward in three months now? >> i think there is a commitment to the process. we have had conversations that touch on substantive issues. we want to find the right mechanism to get into the discussion of the core issues.

to some extent, as i mentioned a minute ago, it's almost like the moratorium had become an end in itself rather than a means to move the process forward. we are just, you know, shifting our approach. >> could you say the right mechanism is to include other states and have a comprehensive peace deal? >> the other states in the region are already involved. >> in the conference? >> no, the other states have been supporting the process. they've had have their own conversations, you know, the parties. and they remain as determined as we are to continue to find ways to move forward. >> can i just -- >> i cannot understand the optimism. i mean, talking about a few months from now, end of the year, everything failed so far. >> again, we are clear-eyed and realistic about this.

we knew going in this was going to be hard. it has proven to be as hard as we anticipated. it is difficult, emotional, it's complex. it requires the leaders to summon the political support to advance this process. and we're committed to that and we're -- we'll be sending george back to the region next week to see how to -- what's the best route forward. >> will the secretary talk about new ideas on friday night at saban center? >> >> the secretary will have a speech on friday night. it will touch extensively on these issues, and i'll not step on the news that she'll make. hey, laura, go ahead. >> you talk about how this was announced yesterday, the administration abandoning the moratorium idea, sort of. i know you were asked about the briefing yesterday. on the record, you didn't speak to it.

then it was announced on background in jerusalem, and then confirmed by the u.s. officials on background yesterday. i'm curious. >> you know, the only point yesterday was that we were timing our announcements to meetings that were being held in the region where we were, you know, keeping both sides informed of our thinking. >> you didn't want to wait until you had the secretary to say what the positive new policy would be? i mean it seems like all of the headlines today worldwide are u.s. middle east -- >> as you know very well, holding information in the context of middle east peace is a very difficult thing for -- you know, for the parties to do. >> on the -- you said that mr. netanyahu negotiated in good faith. when he told you, what did he tell you? i'm sorry, i cannot convince x number of my cabinet, i'm awfully sorry.

how did he say it? wherefores the stone wall? >> we do not have any quarrel with how either side has approached us. and we stand -- we are convinced that both sides remain as committed to this process today as they were back in august. again, there's -- there are substantive challenges to this and political challenges. and the political challenges are, you know, showing themselves to be complex, difficult, and we are looking for, you know, the right combination that allows us to develop the political support necessary for leaders, you know, to make the hard decision that is they will have to make. >> wait, you don't have any quarrel with how either side approached this? or do you have a problem with the way both sides approached this? >> there's no good in pointing

fingers. we are committed to this process. we believe they are committed to the process. we're trying to find the right mechanism, you know, to make -- to move the party -- to move forward and get the kind of sustained and meaningful dialogue and negotiation that is is necessary to achieve success. >> some will say that you brought this upon yourself. the u.s. brought it upon itself by making that such a huge issue. and then when it fell apart, it looks as if your strategy failed. what do you say? >> jill, settlements is a big issue on both sides. that's obvious by the politics of both -- on the palestinian side and the israeli side. this is not something that we brought up ourselves. this is a reflection of a reality that still exists, and the real issue is how to move forward and be able to address

the core issues in the current environment. we tried one tactic, and now we're shifting to a different tactic. >> can i change the subject? >> i thought i understand that the palestinians and israelis were going to come next week to washington to discuss this. you said george mitchell is going over there. >> we are having and will be having meetings on both sides here prior to george's travel. >> on both sides? >> yeah. >> say it again. >> again, we are -- we expect to have, you know, discussions with senior representatives on both sides. we are still working to set those up. >> could be in washington? >> it could be in washington, or it could be both, you know, in washington and in the region. >> is it your understanding that the overwhelming majority of mr. netanyahu's cabinet will opposed

to the deal? >> that's a better question for the israeli government. >> but -- >> i can't. we understand the political challenge that the prime minister has faced and is facing. we'll leave it to the israelis. >> i guess my question is it your feeling with the current composition of the cabinet -- >> if we thought it was imsurmountable, we wouldn't be doing what we are doing. >> i have a question about viktor bout. he would be lured to the united states to testify before the helsinki commission. did the thai discussion say anything about viktor bout?

>> let me take one thing first. viktor bout is here in the united states and he is faceing prosecution for a variety of charges. i'll defer to the justice system for those challenges. as to any other visit, on the other hand, you know, visa applications are confidential. on the other hand, extradition matters are confidential. i wouldn't connect the two. >> can you say explicitly, did you make an agreement or not with the thai government to lure the former prime minister here just to extradite him back to thailand? >> the -- well, first of all, the thai government with the support of the united states arrested mr. bout. there was a legal process, and he was extradited to the united states consistent with the extradition treaty that exists

between the united states and thailand. let me -- you know, for any individual who may or may not be in the united states, there has to be a basis for an arrest. and then there has to be a basis for extradition. so i can't -- i don't -- i would not make a connection between the case of mr. bout, which we think we have a very strong case, and other issues. >> different topic? can i ask about -- on wikileaks actually. the secretary's office put out a statement yesterday about her conversation with foreign minister rudd of australia. there was one short line saying they discussed wikileaks. can you tell us what they talked about specifically, did they talk about any u.s. efforts to press charges against julian assange who's an australian

citizen? the reason that i ask says that rudd has been saying he doesn't feel that assange should be prosecuted. >> you know, the secretary has had a range of conversations with world leaders. i am not aware that any of those conversations, whether with foreign minister rudd, or any other leader, focused on prosecution. you know, she had has a consistent message to the world leaders -- some on the phone, some in person -- demonstrating our commitment to continue to work on on -- work with countris on our mutual interests. it would be -- you know, there is an ongoing conversation within the united states government on this case. and we have reached no conclusions as to who beyond one individual has been -- is responsible. >> can you say whether you disagree with foreign minister rudd's and actually i think a

few other australian's officials assessment that mr. assange's ability in the next few weeks? >> well, let's be clear. he's connect that the primary responsibility for the leak existed within the united states government. we have acknowledged that. it was somebody within our government, you know, sworn under oath to protection the constitution who violated that oath. and we are -- we have an individual under arrest and that person will be held accountable, you know, for what we consider as a crime under u.s. law. >> will he be charged? >> again, that's a matter for the justice department and defense department. certainly we believe what mr. assange has done in the aftermath of that leak as put the interests of our country and

others at risk. and put the lives of people who are reflected in these documents at risk. we haven't changed our view. >> take you back to haiti when you made opening remarks about haiti. mr. preval is acuring the united states of being responsible, at least partly responsible, for the rioting, saying because of the criticism of the election. do you have any response to that? >> i haven't seen those comments. we have and continue to support the government of haiti. we have been a leading supporter of this election process. we've been a leading supporter of the government of haiti led by president preval. we will be a leading supporter in the reconstruction of the country and the government that is going to be -- put in place next year that will be leading

that effort. the united states is in no way responsible for the actions of any individual. what we are determined to help haiti achieve is a credible election and a result not one that the united states will impose, but one that the people of haiti can participate in fully and that the government that emerges reflects the will of the haitian people and will have the legitimacy and support necessary to move the country forward. >> have these events set back the reconstruction effort? >> that's hard to say. obviously, the situation on the ground is very tense. at the present time, you know, many employees of ours at the embassy found it difficult to get to work. the airport has been closed because of the difficulties in personnel getting to that location. we certainly would hope that

calm will prevail, and the efforts on reconstruction, as well as, you know, day-to-day life in haiti, you know, can continue, you know, while there's a designated process to work through the complaints that have and will be filed. >> the referendum in abyei in january -- why does the u.s. government believe it's not going to happen after all? >> well, there's a referendum called for under the cpa. it is up to the parties to move forward. we've had intense discussions going back months with the parties on this issue. while they have been able to agree on and are supporting the effort on the referendum on south sudan, they have not been able to agree on a basis for the referendum to move forward with respect to abyei. it is a very complex situation.

we remain engaged with the parties. they ultimately have to determine how to resolve the status of abyei. there is a set requirement under the cpa. it is -- the parties have the authority if they want to by mutual agreement resolve abyei through a different route. this is up to them. but they have to agree. we are less than 30 days, you know, from the designated date january 9, and at this point, the reality is it is, from where we stand, virtually impossible to have a referendum on abyei at this point, you know, based on the work that has not been done and the progress that has not been made. >> would you encourage the north and south to negotiate an agreement on abyei? >> again, this is up to them. there is a set requirement to have a referendum on abyei. and that is what exists in the

agreement and the parties today are duty bound, you know, to carry that out. but the parties themselves could agree on an alternative. but again, that is up to them. >> p.j., on china, china is organizing a boycott of friday's noble ceremony. they are encouraging country not to send their diplomats, and a good handful has said they don't. is the u.s. reaching out to the countries who said they won't attend? >> well, nicole, all i can say is barry white, our ambassador in norway, he will be on there friday. >> different topic? are you done? >> no. that's it. really? that's all you can say? >> well, i mean we obviously strongly support the statement that was made by the noble committee in selecting liu

xiaobo to achieve the noble peace prize. we think it's well deserved. we think there absolutely should be a ceremony. we think there absolutely should be recognition. we think that mr. liu and his wife should be there to receive the award. all we can say is we will be there on friday to observe the recognition, and we know that we will not be alone. >> you are not saying anything to someone like president karzai, who's country will not be attending? >> you know, different countries will make up their own minds. we think whereby you -- we thin, you know, the noble committee has made a strong statement. we will associate ourselves with that statement and this event. it sends a strong statement about what all countries should strive to achieve, which is, you know, full human rights for all of their citizens, the ability

to express their views, participate in the political process, and enjoy, you know, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the opportunity to play a role in the future of any country. those are universal human rights. we embrace them, we encourage other countries to embrace them. as to, you know, the decision whether an ambassador or representative will attend the ceremony on friday, every country will make up his own mind. we will be pleased to be there. >> congresswoman ileana ros-lehitnen has now been chosen as the next chairwoman of the house foreign affairs committee. are you concerned about her planned cuts? >> well, we're in process,

obviously, we're watching closely in terms of the decision that the congress will be making a funding for fiscal year 2011. we've been under the continuing resolution for the first three months of the fiscal year. we hope that congress will provide, you know, full funding for the state department for the rest of this fiscal year. we are are -- the administratios putting the finishing touches on the president's budget for, you know, for 2012. you know, we understand that this is a very difficult economic environment. the secretary has instructed all of us to work hard to achieve economies where we can. we think we've made a strong budget proposal, still working it's way through the internal system in the united states government. we were reluctant to see jack lew leave and go to omb.

we understand that he's overseeing a process and understands the importance of the funding that we are putting forward as part of the 2012 budget. a great deal of our funding is focused on front line states, you know, such as afghanistan, pakistan, iraq. it's critically important that we continue to fund civilian operations in iraq as we make the transition, you know, from a military-led strategy to a civilian-led strategy. having spent, you know, something like, you know, 3/4 of a trillion dollars, fighting two wars,up in iraq, one in afghanistan, we need to have proper civilian funding to finish the job in both countries. we think we have the right strategies. we think we have compelling programs in terms of supporting agricultural-led development

through the feed the future program. we believe that we can maim -- make a compelling case to continue to support efforts on global health. we look forward to engaging the new chairwoman of the committee. we think we have a strong case to make. >> are you worried that you might cut your budget? >> well, again, we recognize that as we go forward budgets are going to be tighter and tighter. we recognize that over time as the president has said and others have said, we have to attack the deficit. and government funding, in every cabinet agency, you know, we'll be open to scrutiny. we will look forward to that engagement, that debate, but we believe that there are compelling reasons to support the civilian component of a balanced national security strategy that we think is in the

national interest. yes? >> somebody says the new mexico governor richardson, new mexico governor richardson. >> richardson, governor. >> okay. yeah. >> i'm sorry. will travel to north korea next week. is this true? >> well, i'll defer to the governor's office. we understand that he has confirmed that he is going to north korea. it's a private visit. he will be not carrying any particular message from the united states government. >> and that's all. has he contacted you directly? >> normally before governor richardson goes he checks in with us. whether that has happened or not, i don't know. i suspect we would have some contact to bring him up to speed before he goes. >> what about afterwards? >> it's not unusual that when we have these kinds of high level

visitors he'll let us know afterwards. you know, president carter did come by and he debeliefed the secretary in the aftermath of his visit. i would expect governor richardson to report back. just to emphasize, this is a private visit. he will not be carrying a message from the united states government. >> just about the iran meetings yesterday, can you say more than you said yesterday? did they raise the hikers? and if you can't say that, why not? >> again, there were informal encounters. we raised a number of issues, including human rights. but i'm not going to go into particulars. >> follow up? can i follow up? >> sure. >> you know that turkey's hosting next rounds, are we expecting any other contribution from turkey, besides hosting the talks as a country? >> we will be settling the