there is no longer an issue. democracy, individual liberty, and markets, the whole world was moving that direction. century, and we are challenged again -- challenged again. this time the challenge is different, substantive, significant, maybe not at the same level that the soviet union represented a challenge because they had the capacity to destroy us, maybe not even at the same level that the fights against japan -- fascist japan and fascist germany, but the challenges are huge and they will determine our future as a country, and they basically in my opinion break into two primary areas. the first is, of course, the

threat of a terrorist group using a weapon of mass destruction against us. and we must acknowledge that 9/11 fundamentally changed our culture. it changed our personality as a nation and caused us to realize our vulnerability. that threat of terrorism is driven by a fanatical belief in a religious philosophy. and we shouldn't deny that. we should acknowledge that because in order to defeat that threat, we have to understand that. the second major thrust that i see as our concern as we go forward is clearly of our own making, and it is a positive making, but it is still an issue, and that is that we have a nation which has always been extraordinarily prosperous where one generation has always passed on to the next generation a better, more prosperous, more secure country. and yet today we're on the cusp

of not being able to do that again. because we have this population of which i am a member, called the baby-boom generation, which is taking our retired population from 35 million to 70 million people. and as a result, we and the rest of the world -- and japan for that matter -- because of this demographic shift find our self confronted with governments which are struggling how they're going to pay for what our entitlement societies. the way i sort of phrased it is that when a populist government, a government that moves by election of the people, when a populist government meets a massive demographic shift in an entitlement society, you get unsustainable debt. and that is something we confront right now. and we need to stand up to.

those two streams are our biggest concerns, or at least my biggest concerns as i leave the senate. how -- how do we defend ourselves against a fanatical movement, which is asimple mettory -- which mass an asymmetry base, which wants to do us harm. they are not a nation staivment you can't find them easily. but they want to do us harm and will do us harm if they have the capacity and will do it with a weapon of mass destruction. and, secondly, how do we deal with this shift in our society, this aging that is driving the populist movement, which is making our structure of government unafoferreddable in many ways? -- unaffordable in many ways? well, america's greatness comes in our ability to address issues like this and comes from our people and from our constituti constitution, and it's that constitution which embraces basically the liberties that allow our people, allow our people to create prosperity and

give this nation its strength. our freedom and prosperity is absolutely r resilient. there's no question about that. but government can either be an enabler of that freedom and that resilience or it can be a stifler of it. and whether or not we are going to succeed, i believe is whether or not we continue to assert the core values which allow us to govern well and they all basically arise from our constitution. i have the good fortune to sit at the webster desk. daniel webster was the senator from massachusetts. new hampshire in an act of appropriate stealthiness had the desk designated to the senior senator from new hampshire by statute in the 1970s. it is a great honor to have the right to sit at this desk. webster and clay kept this nation together at a time when,

had it been torn apart, it would have no longer existed because we were not capable -- we had no lincoln and we had no strength of the north to survive. and webster in his speech on the compromise of 1850 said, "i mean to stand upon the constitution. i need no other platform. i know but one country. no man can suffer too much. no man can fall too soon. if he suffers on or if he fails in defense of the liberties of the constitution of our country." and at the center of our constitutional form of government, which was designed by madison and randolph, which was built on the concept that there should neverren be -- never be an overly powerful branch of the government, at the center of this government is the united states senate. it is the caldron of liberty for our nation. why is that?

because it is the place where issues are aired, people are heard, amendments are made, and no one gets to shut down the minority until a supermajority decides to do so. the rights of the minority are the source of the power of our government. they are the source of the power of our constitution. they are the source of the power of our liberty. and this is the center. this institution is the center of the rights of the minority. i've been in the minority here. i've been in the majority here. it's almost irrelevant from a standpoint of the importance of the role of the senate. because it is the senate that gives voice to all americans. it does not allow us to shut out any american or any thought process in america that is legitimate and which can come to the floor of the senate and make -- make its case.

i've often wondered, what would this government be like if there were no senate? well, it would be a parliamentary government. for all intents and purposes, moving -- lunching to the left, lunching to the right -- lumping to the left, lumping to the right. and as a result in many ways undermining individual rights, but more importantly, having no continuity of purpose. or force. we play politics in this city and in this country between the 40-yard lines for all intents and purposes. we are not the government that ever moves too radically left or radically right. and that's the way it shouldn't. -- and that's the way it shoofnlt that's the way it should be. in this institution, compromise is required. to govern you must reach agreement. we are 300 million people. obviously of a diverse view.

if we're going to govern 300 million people, we must listen to those who have legitimate views on both sides of the aisle. so, as i leave this chairnlings i just want to say this simply: it's been a huge honor to have the chance to serve here. it's something that is the highlight of our career, kathy and mine. we move on with reservations, but we hopefully move on to something equally as interesting. but it will never be -- have the same status as being in the united states senate. this to me is the ultimate job when it comes to the governance of america. and i simply ask you who stay here -- and i know this will be done -- to continue to carry the torch. understand that it is the senate that is the center of the liberty that leads to the prosperity that our people expect. it is the center -- senate that the the center of our

constitution. thank you very much. [applause] mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would hope that it's not the intention of the senior senator from new hampshire to leave the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the accolades that our friend

and colleague, the senior senator from new hampshire, has just received from both sides of the aisle are richly deserved and i would hope he might be able to stay just a bit longer, as some of us have a chance to comment on his extraordinarily distinguished career. he's devoted his entire life to public service. always served with a deep sense of purpose and with the overriding conviction we must leave america in a better place than we found it, as he just so articulately expressed. he's worked tirelessly for the people of new hampshire and for all americans and he's been a truly invaluable member of the republican conference. he's the smartest guy in the room, usually the most

strategic, and as witty as they come. and yet even as judd's national profile has increased over the years as a result of his many natural gifts, he never lost sight of where he came from or the people he represents back home in new hampshire. now, judd grew up in nashua, in southern new hampshire, was introduced to the world of politics early on. in 1952, when he was just five years old, his father, hugh gregg, was elected governor of the state. judd went on to phillips exector academy for high school and in the mid-11960's and to columbia university after that graduating with a degree in english in

1969. it was an eye-opening experience being in new york city. particularly in those years. and judd took it all in. he jokes that his minor in college was subway exploration. even as he witnessed all the student demonstrations and clashes with police on campus, he found time to dress up as the school's mascot for a time, the columbia royal lion, working the sidelines at games. judd returned north to attend law school at boston university and got his j.d. in 1972 and then an l.l.m. in tax law in 1975. and then he returned to new hampshire to practice law. meanwhile, he began to venture into new hampshire primary politics, coordinating the primary campaigns for ronald reagan in 1976 and george h.w. bush in 1980.

it was during this time that he really developed his conservative principles. and over the years, he stuck to those principles and the voters have rewarded him for it. never lost a race -- not one. part of the reason judd wins is that he's not afraid to lose. he'd rather lose for the right reens than win fo -- right reasn for the wrong ones. over the years, he's become something of a political legend in new hampshire, and for good reason. he's the first person in new hampshire history to serve as congressman, governor, and senator. first elected to congress in 1980, where he would serve four terms, and then in what some viewed as a political gamble, he followed his father's footsteps to run for governor in 1988.

he was elected and easily reelected in 1990, and during his second term, new hampshire, like the rest of the country, faced a difficult recession. but laced with pressure to raise the state's income tax or sales tax, he cut government spending instead. the new hampshire union leader would later credit judd as being able to manage the state through the crisis far better than anyone expected, and the "wall street journal" ranked him ninth in their good governor guide for cutting spending and keeping a lid on taxes during a serious budget crisis. in 1992, judd decided to run for the u.s. senate on his strong record of environmental protection and fiscal discipline. he won a close race, and upon narveg thiarriving in this chamd immediately set out to work for the people of new hampshire. and i know one of the things he's proud of in his nearly 17 years in the senate is the work he's done to protect more than 300,000 acres of land in new hampshire from development.

he can also be justifiably proud of the remarkable work he's done as the republican -- the top republican on the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee, and, most importantly from our conference's point of view, on the budget committee, where his knowledge and command of the issues has always impressed the rest of us. he was clearly the right man for the job. and when -- when the budget came up -- and i think we would all agree on our side of the aisle, when judd stood up and had something to say, everybody quieted down and listened. and you can't say that about all of us on every issue all of the time. we recognized his talents from the very beginning. just two years after arriving here, he was selected to serve as chief deputy whip as well as cochairman of senator dole's senate agenda committee, a working group tasked with developing and managing the republican agenda back at that particular juncture. it was the first time in 20

years that a senator from new hampshire had served in a senate leadership role. he never hesitated to work across the aisle to get things done. judd understood that to make something happen in this body, as he just described, it happens between the 40-yard lines, and that means both sides have to participate. he teamed up with senator kennedy to coauthor "no child left behind," referring to that particular accomplishment, judd once said, "i don't think any of us ever gave up our basic principles. ted just understood that even though he had strong beliefs, he understood you had to legislate to accomplish things. there was no point in just standing off in the corner and shouting." history will remember that judd also played a central role in congress' response to the financial crisis of 2008, which we all remember very, very well.

with our nation on the brink of economic collapse, i knew i was to select one person to represent our point of view at that critical moment. the choice was completely obvious. the one person we had that everybody knew had no other agenda and would at the end of the day do what was right for the country. so i made him the top republican negotiator on the emergency economic stabilization act, now infamously referred to as tarp. his top priority then and throughout the entire debate over the effort was to assure that the original package protected the taxpayers by including language in the bill that stated all the proceeds from the paybacks would go to reducing the debt, and he did a fabulous job. it was because of judd's

principles, intelligence, commonsense, and ability to work across the aisle, as i just indicated, that i asked him to join my leadership time after he was elected republican leader. i've relied on him heavily these last four years. judd has been right in the middle of every legislative debate we've had since i've been in this position and he's never disappointed. he's been so effective, in fact, that senator reid gave him a couple of nicknames late in his career. first, this was senator reid about our colleague about him, i'm speak, first he called him the -- quote -- "see if we can mess up the legislation guy." after that, he described judd as, somebody -- quote -- "who comes on to the basketball game tonight score points, just to

kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a different direction." and i think judd and i would both agree that's a heck of a compliment. in fact, this is senator gregg's reaction to those nicknames give to him by the democratic leader. "i appreciate the senator's comments. i take them as a compliment. i've been active legislatively. that is, obviously, our job." it's funny how people see things differently. i never saw judd as a bill lambier-type player out on the court just to rough people up. i always saw judd just sticking with the basketball metaphors for a moment, as the intelligent point guard, as the ideas guy with the extraordinary judgment, as the type of guy who could see the whole floor, the big picture

and could make the unselfish play that would win the game. and over the years, that's exactly what judd did for our team. he's been instrumental -- he's been instrumental in our efforts to hold the line, slow down, or call out the democrats these past two years in particular on an agenda that we viewed as deeply harmful to our future. he's been an indispensable member of the team.

in fact, i'm not sure where we would be now without him, and sometimes i've wondered where we'll be a few years down the road without him. but he leaves his example and he leaves the knowledge he's passed along along the years and we'll all continue to draw on that in the years ahead. now, judd was recently asked what the hardest thing about being a senator was, and he answered without hesitation. "the hardest thing," he said, "was being away from his family." it's another principle he never, ever hedged on. he said, "i made a decision early on in my career which i've carried throughout my career that if the choice was between being here and being with something that was important to my family, i'd be with my fami

family." family. now, maybe my children feel differently but i don't think i've missed anything that was really critical in their upbringing." which brings us to kathy. as judd indicated, a wife of 37 years. a cherished member of the senate family. we're so grateful for kathy's grace and patience with the demands of public life. along with her important work in education, promoting the arts, the environment, and historic preservation, as well as her work in raising awareness about child abuse.

somehow she and judd's three children, molly, sarah and joshua, all managed to put up with judd's three decades of public service. and we thank them all for sharing judd with us all these years in washington. one of judd's greatest assets as a senator has been his profound love for this institution and his gratitude for having had a chance to serve as a member of it. he never took this place or this job for granted. as he once put it, from my first day in the senate to today, i remain in awe of this fabulously interesting place, which he just expressed again. when i'm on the floor and i look around and take in its history, it never ceases to hit me that this is the most successful deliberative democracy in history. it's an honor to serve there.

now, to say that i tried to convince judd to stay is an understatement. but he knew it was his time to move on. and to write the next chapter -- next chapter in his life. and while senators come and go all the time, i can't help but note that when judd walks out of this chamber, when he walks out of this chamber for the last time, he'll leave an enormous void behind. and so i'll close, old friend and colleague, by saying that you're certainly going to be missed. we wish you well in your future

endeavors. thank you for your service. you've done an extraordinary job. kyl that be recognized for 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i just wanted to speak for a few minutes about the tax package or tax legislation that the senate is debating and will be voting on here before long. there's been dismay on both sides of the aisle regarding the merits of the package, and i emphasize a point that's been made by others. no one thinks this is a perfect

bill. most conservatives are upset about the unfunded extension of unemployment benefits and the fact that the tax rate extensions are not permanent. on the left, there are those who dislike the death tax reform and would have preferred that the top marginal income tax rates be increased. and there are other concerns as well. i agree with some of the criticisms my conservative friends have made. this is not the bill i would have written. there are some provisions in the package i disagree with or would have written differently. but, on the other hand, this is not the bill that president obama would have written. he's made it clear that he doesn't like everything in it either. the package represents a true bipartisan compromise. that's something we talk a lot about but seldom seem able to do. but political circumstances will not allow either party to dictate its perfect bill, so while neither party got everything it wanted, there are provisions in the package to appeal to both sides of the aisle, and most of us agree it would be very bad for americans

to allow taxes to be increased. most important thing the bill does in my view is to freeze all existing income, capital gains and dividend tax rates and reform the death tax. without legislation, taxes are set to go up for every taxpayer in just 17 days. and so by maintaining current tax rates and instituting death tax reform, the bill will provide positive economic certainty for both families and job creators. this is a very important development for american taxpayers and for our economy. in fact, according to new data from morgan stanley this bill can boost economic growth to 4% or more next year. that's a lot better than the anemic 2% achieved in the third quarter of this year. ironically, some commentators have argued this economic growth will benefit president obama's reelection prospects and, therefore, should be opposed. that's not clear thinking.

some other conservatives say if we wait until next year to pass tax legislation then the g.o.p.-controlled house could pass a better bill than this one. that's true from my perspective, but there's no guarantee that the senate or the house -- the white house rather, would go along with such bail or that we could -- such a bill or that we could get a better compromise in the end. in the meantime every taxpayer would have been hit with a tax increase. tax increases would almost certainly hurt the economy. look back to 1936, for example, when president roosevelt raised taxes on high earners. the shaky economy plunged back into depression and unemployment skyrocketed. freezing tax rates, on the other hand, has the potential to help the economy and job growth. some on the liberal left seem to think tax provisionness this bill should implement their

policy of tax warfare. i would hope we all agree we want to help job creators as well as job seekers. ideology should not trump concerns on either the right or the left. the key thing is that tax rates matter to growth. businesses must be allowed to retain earnings so they can expand and invest and hire new workers. as i've document floor to point -- as i've document floor to point out many small businesses that create jobs pay taxes at the individual rate and would be hurt by the increases in the top marginal income tax bracket. according to i.r.s. data -- and i'm quoting here -- fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships and s. corporations reported on -- other businesses would have been hurt by skyrocketing capital gains and dividends taxes.

raising capital gains and dividends tax would greatly discourage the investment our economy so urgently needs. indeed capital taxes are among the most distorted and least efficient taxes the government collects. in my view, any comprehensive tax reform should include significant reductions in capital taxation. but for now i'm glad that members of both parties have decided to at least block a capital gains tax increase which would have a severe impact on job-creating investment. death tax reform is another measure in this bill that will provide certainty to job creators. and i want to thank senator lincoln for her leadership on this issue. we spent a lot of time together over the past few years working on the issue and she deserves much credit for her expertise and devotion to crafting this plan which will provide relief to job-creating small businesses. the result is a true compromise. there will be a large increase from this year's zero percent estate tax rate, which is one that i favor, to a 35% rate.

but that's much less than the 55% rate that will be in place on january 1. and the exemption is $5 million, which is much preferable to the $1 million exemption after january 1. should death tax reform not occur and the rate rise to 55%, small businesses could be forced to reduce their payrolls by more than 500,000 workers over the next ten years according to former c.b.o. director douglas holtz-eakin. that is a half a million people whose jobs could be threatened. the effect of the compromise would be to eliminate the death tax liability for about 90% of estates that would otherwise owe exorbitant sums. according to the institute for research and economics, the proposal would add more than $200 billion in annual economic growth relative to current law. so this is not about giveaways to the healthy as some have asserted. to the wealthy, as some have

asserted. madam president, a final word about the deficit. it's true that will extending unemployment compensation without cutting other government spending will add to the deficit, and there are some tax incentives in the bill that should be offset with spending cuts. it is important to note we should not raise taxes to provide the revenue. that would just grow the size of the federal government. and democrats are unwilling to find spending cuts. so we are left accumulating more debt instead. the political reality is that the unemployment benefits would certainly pass both chambers and there are not and will not be the votes in the senate to cut spending to offset the costs either this year or next. i admit that i'm surprised to hear some conservative commentators lump the extension of current tax rates and death tax reform into the same argument about the deficit. congress has never offset

theoretical revenue laws from the annual a.m.t. relief, for example, because we know there was never ann tent to collect it. -- any intent to collect it. the republicans view the tax ags extending new law. the left delight in misrepresenting as providing tax cuts for the rich but these are not tax cuts, only extensions of decade-old existing tax rates for everyone. the only new tax cuts are the expensing for businesses sought by the president with which republicans generally agree and the payroll tax holiday. the actual revenue loss, therefore, is about $237 billion, not the $900 billion some assert. while any increase in the deficit is unwelcome, the overall merits of this bill, including preventing a massive

tax increase on every taxpayer outweigh that deficit increase in my opinion. in conclusion, americans are looking for economic growth in solutions to unemployment. keeping tax rates where they are and providing some certainty is a good place to start. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and see to it that job-killing rates are not imposed on anyone. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, madam president. i just had a number of issues i wanted to bring up today for the record to explain a lot of the things that we're faced with here as we wind down before christmas eve maybe. the first thing i'm going to ask you to do is to place into the record the california-connected

service members who have died in afghanistan and iraq. i put their names in the record continually, and sometimes i have time i read them. i want to say this: since august 5, 52 more california-connected service members have died in afghanistan and two more have died in iraq. and i would ask unanimous consent to place their names in the record. thank you. these heroes, these americans who have sacrificed and given it all for this nation, i am humbled by their service. i'm humbled by the service of their families, because this is a family commitment. i'm so proud for senator byrd to be the cochair of the military

families caucus and i will continue to do whatever i can do to make sure our commitment to our military families is constant and that we're fulfilling our role to make sure that they get treated with honor and respect and that we lessen their hardships. we cannot take away the pain of their loss. i also want to say that i'm working in every way i can to end this war in afghanistan. i support beginning to bring the troops home in 2011. there's some talk that it might be extended to another year. i don't support that. as someone who voted to go after osama bin laden and the taliban and go into afghanistan, we lost a lot of years because the president george w. bush turned and focused his attention in iraq, a war i did not support,

didn't think it was based on truth. it turned out it wasn't. and history will speak to that. but, we've been in afghanistan a long time, and they're going to have to stand up and defend their own country, as all nations have to do, defend themselves. we've given so much, and today 52 more california-connected service members since august 5. it's an ongoing sacrifice. we just heard yesterday about a tragic explosion against nato forces there on a headquarters in southern afghanistan where we lost six. so, i support that withdrawal and doing it in a way that makes sense. we're not going to do it in one

day or six months, but we should start it. connected to that, the second issue i wanted to bring up is the passing of ambassador richard holbrooke, someone i consider to be a friend, an advisor, a brilliant mind, a warm personality, a man who lived for his work and his family. it's so ironic in a sense, i saw him twice last week because he and his wife had gone to the kennedy center awards, and he seemed so fine and so engaged and so well. and it was a shock to read about what happened. i just send my love to his family, his wife and his children, and he will be missed so much because he had a very

unique approach to diplomacy. it was a love of what he did, that you can't create. and when you talk to him, he engaged you because of his deep commitment and his love of his work and his understanding that diplomacy is really the answer, and not war. and that you had to be tough. and as he pointed out, meet with people that you wouldn't want to be in a room with, as he had to do when he negotiated the end of the war in bosnia. but i will miss him both personally and certainly as a member of the foreign relations committee with you, madam president. i wanted to talk about a couple of other issues, just express my disappointment that because of an artificial line laid down in the sand by our colleagues on

the other side that they wouldn't vote on a civil rights matter to end don't ask, don't tell, which is a policy that makes our nation weaker, not stronger. it's a policy that brings pain to so many of our fellow americans, where they have to keep a secret as to who they are and how they live their life, and it's -- it runs counter to this country, because the thing is when you're in the military and you are side by side and you're in trouble, whether you're gay or straight has nothing to do with the mission you're facing. it's a very strict code of conduct in the military that says whoever you are, you cannot

abuse your rights and privileges, whether it's about sexual harassment or anything else, that's very clear. so we already have a code of conduct that could apply to everyone, and i was proud that in the survey that was taken, our military said they -- they didn't think it would harm us in terms of our ability to have a strong defense. good for them. i read into the record a number of cases of heroes who have been run out of the military because of their sexual orientation, heroes. a couple of them have been reinstated. the courts are going to do away with don't ask, don't tell, so i would rhetorically ask my colleagues why on earth would we leave this to the courts when we could have the pride in standing up for civil rights? it's -- it's just unfortunate.

and some on the other side have flip-flopped on this issue, said oh, well, when the military leaders say it's okay, i'll be there, and now they're not. they set the bar every day a different height. it's wrong. we should get it done. now there was an excuse, let's do the tax cut first. okay, we did the tax cut. so i'm hoping they will let us go to this and vote on this, and we could be proud as americans here across party lines that we put aside partisan differences when it comes to civil rights. i just was watching a tv special on civil rights law that passed in 1964, and the beautiful part of it was the coming together of the parties at the end of the day on an issue that was so right for this country. i hope we can do this again, i

just hope we can do this again. and if not, i say to the courts do the right thing. you're doing it, but keep it up because we are not any stronger as a nation. we are weaker when incredibly talented, dedicated, patriotic americans are turned away for absolutely no reason. and so i want to talk about that as well as the "dream" act, another area where this country is made stronger. when we look at a child that may have been brought here by their parents, their parents broke the law, brought a child here, say 3 months or 4 months. the child doesn't even know they don't have their papers until they get to be 18 years old. this is their country. they love their country. a lot of them are president of the student body. since when do we win the crimes of the parents on a child?

we don't do that here. and again, what are we gaining? we are losing. so the "dream" act, which started off with huge bipartisan support, suddenly has gotten into the place where don't ask, don't tell has gotten us, where we're moving away from justice. and everybody has got their reasons. oh, it can't be part of the military bill, and then if it's part of the military -- if it's not part of the military bill, they say why isn't it prt of the military bill? it just seems to be a moving bar. and i -- you know, as -- there was a big meeting, i read about it, called no labels where people got together and said we're tired of the two parties not working together. and it was sort of interesting because it was on the day when the two parties did work together, and we got over 80

votes for our tax bill, but be that as it may, we'll set that aside. here are two issues that have nothing to do with partisan politics because they're good for the country to help our young people and to make sure that people can serve in the military if they're qualified and their sexual orientation essentially has nothing to do with it. we have a chance to come together for the good of the country on these. 57bd i still hold out hope that we can do it and we can also take care of those heroes, talk about heroes of 9/11 who went to that toxic pile in new york and looked for the survivors and then looked for the remains and breathed in that toxic air, which those years the e.p.a. said was safe wasn't safe, and they're sick. and we can't seem to get the votes to help them. but i don't give up. i think, you know, we can do

this, so let's work together on those things. now, another area where we have been able to work together in the past, where i hope we will continue to work together, is the transportation bill. we usually enact our highway trust fund programs for about four, five or six years at a time. last time we extended it for a year, and now the extension is ending, and we need to extend again the existing transportation authorization. i'm optimistic on this one because in the house, it didn't seem controversial, they added it to the continuing resolution, extended it to the end of the fiscal year 2011. september 30 is the date. it's important to note that 900,000 jobs nationwide depend on this highway trust fund and the re-authorization of it and

all of those programs. 85,000 jobs in my home state of california. and it's -- it's very important that we do this work, whether it's through an omnibus budget or through the continuing resolution, however it ends up. this is an area again where the political parties have come together. my ranking member, jim inhofe, and i have been very -- working very closely on this, and we support this extension. it has the support of the members of the americans for transportation mobility coalition. i'll name some of them. the american public transportation association, the american road and transportation builders, the associated equipment distributors, the associated general contractors, the society of civil engineers, the international union of operating engineers and laborers international, the national asphalt paving association, national stone, sand and tbraf

he will, united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners and the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, listen, that's quite a group. when you have got unions and you have got the employers and you have got the u.s. chamber of officers, which is negative on so many things, unfortunately, positive on this, that's a good matchup. so i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for transportation mobility be placed in the record. so this extension will save jobs not only in the short term, but it gives -- really gives certainty to our states, madam president. we know our nation's highways, bridges and transit systems need to be in good repair. i can say this. with the construction industry still in a downturn, it's tough for them because of the housing crisis. construction work is few and

foor between and we have a very high unemployment rate in the construction industry. this extension is important. it gives the certainty. it will save hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will improve our infrastructure and provide that foundation that we need for a solid recovery. and so i look forward to taking that up. and, madam president, the last topic i wanted to talk about -- and i ask how much time remains in my 25 minutes? the presiding officer: the senator has used 15 minutes. mrs. boxer: thank you. the last topic i wanted to talk about was my vote yesterday to move forward on the tax bill that was the -- the framework of which was sent to us by president obama, and there were negotiations with our republican colleagues, and then a couple of -- one very important addition was made to the bill because many of us here in the senate wanted that, and i'm

grateful for that addition, and it was the 1603 program, which is critical to our clean energy businesses and will result in tens of thousands of jobs, because it allows companies that are moving forward with solar, wind, geothermal projects, clean energy projects to essentially get a tax credit up front. and it's essential because there is a lot of plans on the drawing boards, and if this hadn't been renewed, we would have lost those plans, we would have lost those jobs. so i'm very pleased about that. madam president, so much has been said about this tax bill. i don't know that i'm going to say anything that's going to add to the debate, but i wanted to just lay out some of what compelled me to vote yes to move that bill forward. it's really kind of summed up in

the "san jose mercury news" editorial where they say more than three quarters of the spending will go to middle and lower income families through tax cuts, tax credits for working families and unemployment insurance. that's the "san jose mercury news." now, one could quibble maybe it's 50 -- more than 50% or maybe it's 60%, but the fact is this bill will be a help to the middle class. you know, when you look at how bills become laws -- you know, when i was a kid in school, we had a big lecture on how a bill becomes a law, and it sounds so easy. you start in the subcommittee, in one house or the other. the subcommittee marks up the bill, the full committee marks up the bill. then it goes to the other house, they do it. if there are differences, they all meet happily in a conference and chat a little bit and then they find the differences and resolve them, the bill goes to the white house.

the the president either signs the bill and everybody celebrates, or he vetoes it and you have got to get three quarters of the chambers to override. it doesn't exactly work that way in real life. in real life, what you can't really explain in a textbook, is that different parties bring different passions to the table, and those passions are held deeply. and if i could tell you where i see the passion coming from on either side, my view -- there is no science on this, it's just my view. i think the passion that the democrats brought to the table was that we needed to make sure, first and foremost, that the people who have been desperately hurt by this slow economic recovery aren't left in the lurch for the next year, because even though technically the recession has ended in terms of the g.d.p. growth, the fact is

there is a very painful, agonizing recovery going on. yes, jobs are being created. up to now about 900,000 since january, but it's not enough to make up for the millions of jobs that were lost in the recession, so it's painfully slow. and we're worried about -- we brought that passion that we had to make sure that middle-class families who lost their jobs don't lose everything else, don't lose their home, don't lose the ability to send their kids to school, that they have this bridge of unemployment insurance. which, by the way, they pay for. they have to be actively looking for work in order to get it. that passion we brought to the table. the other passion was to make sure that the middle class didn't get a tax increase. we were passionate on the point, and we wanted tax credits for

business that resulted in jobs. those were the passions we brought to the table. i think it's fair to say the passions the republicans brought to the table were to help make sure that the very wealthiest got taken care of in any deal. why do i say that? it's a fact in evidence. their nonnegotiable terms included extension of the tax cuts to billionaires, millionaires. that was it, passionate, passionate. just as we were passionate about helping the middle class, they were passionate on this point. and they were passionate and they have been about the largest estates in america. they feel that -- a lot of them don't even think estates ought to be in any way taxed. now, in america, for many years, we have -- we have had a -- i would call it an ethic, that

this american dream is crucial. we want everyone to have it. we're proud when people get to be multimillionaires and billionaires, but we have a defense department to run, we have an education system to help, we've got roads to be built. our national security costs money. our domestic security costs money. social security has to be taken care of, people pay into the system. health care. and, therefore, we believe for years -- and it was bipartisan -- that the wealthiest estates that have an estate tax was something that worked. because, frankly, somebody who inherits, let's say, a $7 million estate from their parents, they're going to be okay. by the way, that's a very small percentage. democrats feel 99% of estates

wouldn't have any tax under our plan. but the republicans were passionate about this. they wanted a $10 million estate and they wanted a lower tax rate. so when i write the book "how a bill becomes a law," i would have a different way of writing it. i would say, yeah, technically this is what happens, to get it to the president, get the bill -- but what you need to know is what the passions are. and i think at the end of the day both sides could come away with this saying what we felt fashionate about in this bill was -- passionate about in this bill was good. the one thing that wasn't addressed is the deficit, and a lot of us on both sides feel passionate about that. but i think at the end of the day there was a decision, perhaps not voiced but certainly understood, that this is a stimulus bill and we're going to have to do serious deficit reduction.

and anyone who thinks you won't have to pay the piper for these tax cuts is living in another world. of course we are. and the question is: do we do it now or do we do it when this economy truly turns around? and then there will be another passionate debate, passionate debate about who's going to help solve the deficit. i have a feeling you're going to see the same thing, and the democrats are going to say the middle class aren't responsible for this. let's look to the upper income. and our republican friends are going to say it's class warfare. don't look to the wealthy. so we're going to have this battle again. but i voted for this bill because i think our economy continues to be in a fragile state when it comes to job growth. and i think we had to move forward on this. and i'm glad that we did because this has been the worst recession since the great

depression. i hate to remind people of what it was like, but when george bush was president and he came to us with hank paulson, then-secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke, and they said to us this economy is going to collapse. nobody's lending. capital is frozen. we're in desperate shape. i have to tell you when the stock market went down, at one point it was as low as 50% down, those were tough, tough times. and we took many steps to get this economy back on track. and i have to say things have stabilized. since january 10, we have added 937,000 jobs to this economy. but because 8 million jobs were

lost in this recession, in this great recession, that's just not enough. and the president knows this, and that's why he knew he needed to come to us with a framework that basically said we're not going to put a burden on the middle class. they've suffered enough. and he had to swallow hard to do things that we know he didn't want to do. but i would reiterate what the san jose mercury news said. "more than three-quarters of the spending will go to middle- and lower-income families." and that's an important point. i have talked about the importance of the extension of unemployment benefits in my state. more than 400,000 workers in california will lose their u.i. benefits by the end of december; 2 million workers nationwide.

i've got to say mark sudan dirks who was one of john mccain's top advisors clearly says when you extend unemployment benefits you get the best bang for the buck. i'd ask for two more minutes and then i'll stop. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: so this tax bill that i voted to move forward on will help our working families. there's a 2% cut in payroll taxes. i know some say is that going to hurt social security? we have a statement from the executive vice president of the aarp, the association of retired people, saying the proposal has no financial impact on social security because the trust fund is made whole. madam president, that is critical. when we had the administration in our caucus, we made sure of that. there is the extension of the child tax credit from the recovery act, the earned-income tax credit, the child care tax

credit, there's education relief, refundable tax credits for college. and again, those clean energy incentives which were critical. the 1603 provisions. job creating tax incentives, bonus depreciation, small business capital gains exclusion. in closing, do i feel passionate that the people who earn over 1 million don't need a tax cut? you bet i do. i am passionate. to me, that adds to the deficit to, help people, so many of them say don't do this. we had a letter we put in the record from 90 millionaires. they said this is ridiculous. this is ridiculous. so i feel passionate about that because frankly it's a agreement between the two parties, and that's fine. we can't be expected to agree on everything. but i think moving ahead with this was very, very important.

most economic forecasters estimate the legislation will increase g.d.p. growth, and i think that is critical at this time. my state is struggling, 12.4% unemployment, and i didn't agree with two major provisions. the estate tax, which is a giveaway, to states, over $10 million. it's a giveaway to the westiest few. it adds to the deficit and there is no reason to do it. but on the whole i think this is something we should do and i look forward to getting this done so maybe colleagues on the other side will join us as we look ford to a whole list of things -- look forward to a whole list of things we need to do before we leave for the holidays. may i put in the record a tribute to george voinovich? the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you very much.

the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to say that i think the president of the united states and our senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, have done a great job. as i hear the talking heads and the pundits and different people talking about this compromise, this way forward, i am sure of it because no one is completely happy with it. people who think that we should have a death tax are not happy with this bill. people who think, as i do, that the unemployment goes too far and isn't paid for and should have been, are on the other side. but, we are now faced with a choice. are we going to allow the taxes

for every single individual in our country who pays tax to go up on january 1. we could talk all day about how we should have addressed this much earlier. yes, that's true. but we are where we are. it is now mid-december, and it is long past time. when we should have told the american people he, every family, every business in this country what the tax policy is going to be for two years. madam president, i have to tell you that i come from a business background. i wish more of my colleagues had had real business experience, because sometimes when i hear the am democrat mix and the talking heads -- the academics and talking heads and people talk about what we ought to do, some say let's wait, we can do

this better next year. are you kidding sunni are you kidding sunni have you -- are you kidding me? have you been in the real world trying to make a decision about whether you can add one more piece of machinery to your factory floor and hire people to run it or not because you're not going to make the decision if you don't know what your commitments are going to be in taxes and in this health care bill that is looming before every business in this country. now not only did i come from a business background, but i do talk to people in business throughout my state. and they are not hiring. they are not hiring. two-thirds of the jobs in this country are created by small business, and that is exactly what we should all hope for. we don't want jobs to be created in the government sector that's a cost you can't recoup.

we need to cut down on the government-sector jobs and make sure people in the private sector are working because that is how you build a strong and vibrant economy. two-thirds of those jobs are small business and small business people are operating generally at low margins. and they're not hiring people when they know that this health care bill that they're seeing all kinds of estimates on the cost of that to them. and their taxes are going to go up next year at every level. at every level taxes will go up if we don't pass this bill this year. capital gains and dividends are going to go up. seniors who have saved their lifetimes to be able to retire, and they know they can't live off social curate, social security was never meant to be a

complete retirement plan. it was meant to be a cushion, a help with your savings that would allow you to have a standard of living. you talk to a senior today who has saved, and they're not earning one penny on their savings, and they certainly are not going to do well if we raise the tax on capital gains and dividends. what are we thinking? to raise tax on capital gains and dividends that is the level that hall louse many seniors -- that is the level that allows many seniors to live at a decent standard. what about the tax rates? every person who pays taxes is going to have an increase january 1 because they're going to go into a higher bracket, a

higher level at each bracket. now, if we do that, let's go back to small business. nfib, national federation of independent business, which is the largest small business organization in america, says that 75% of the small businesses in this country are taxed at individual rates. so if their taxes go up, that is going to be the very, very conveyor belt being able to plan for the future and hire. what people in business want is predictability and stability. that's why having at least two years is so very important. and doing it now so they can plan for next year is so very important. because they're looking for

predictability. now if i had written this bill with nobody else's opinions on this floor, i would have made them permanent because i know that small business would much rather have the idea for ten years what have's going to happen, or at least five years, but i didn't get to write it by myself. tphaoertd -- neither did senator mcconnell and neither did the president. had we written it, we would have made them permanent. we have all sponsors of the bill to make the tax cuts permanent because we want jobs to be created in the private sector because those are the good jobs of the future that can be sustainable and grow our economy. if we allow these tax cuts to go up, the marriage penalty is going to come back. now, the marriage penalty is my amendment that finally was put

in to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. my amendment was to relieve the marriage tax that people play, a policeman and a stkaol -- schoolteacher get married and they go into a higher bracket because they got married not because they increase their incomes, and that is wrong. two schoolteachers get married, they go into a higher tax bracket, but the marriage penalty relief bill that i passed relieves them to the greatest extent. it doubles the standard deduction instead of paring it back. and that's what we need to have. what about the a.m.t.? the a.m.t. relief in this bill goes to the very lowest income earners in this country. if we don't pass this bill, 21 million american taxpayers

will have to pay an alternative minimum tax because the government says they're not paying enough. now, i think it's a fair question. at what point does the a.m.t. kick in? today, the a.m.t. kicks in for a single person who makes $33,000. a married couple that makes makes $45,000. if we don't pass this bill through this congress and let the president sign it, a married couple making $45,000 will have to pay the alternative minimum tax. our bill gives relief. the bill that is on the floor gives relief so that it would go up to a married couple making making $72,000, not to have the alternative minimum tax kick in. a single payer at $47,000.

so the bottom line is if we think that a single person making $33,000 ought to have to pay the alternative minimum tax, then i can't explain it to you. if you think that, i can't explain it to you. i don't. i don't think that single person making $33,000 should be suggest to an alternative minimum tax because you're not paying enough tax. the a.m.t. relief in the bill will bump it up to a level that is more reasonable, $47,500 for a single person and $72,000 for a married couple. the estate tax relief, i think that was a significant advance for the real world. again, for small business people, farmers and ranchers. if you have the $1 million exemption, you will force

farmers and small business people whose equipment is valued at more than it can produce, what happens is the heirs to that estate will have to sell the equipment or the business or part of the farm or all of the farm to pay taxes to the government. and the irony is the money in an inheritance tax is money that has been taxed and taxed and taxed again. people pay taxes on their earnings. people pay taxes on their profits in a business. they pay taxes when they earn on their earnings. the death tax is -- it does not make sense in the american dream, because we have always said this is a country where you

can work hard and give your children the fruits of your labor, but because of the death tax, family businesses are cut by 50% in this country because the heirs have to sell the business to pay the taxes. that doesn't just affect the family. it affects the people who work for that family business. i want to keep the american dream alive, and i think the inheritance tax should be done away with completely, because it is not money that's never been taxed. it has been taxed in our system again and again and again. every time something is earned on earnings, you pay a tax. so there is no policy reason for a death tax. i didn't get to write the bill by myself and neither did senator mcconnell. we would have made it permanent,

but it's not going to be permanent and it's not going to go away. it is going to be a two-year extension with a $5 million exemption and a 35% rate after that. i think at least if we can allow people to plan for their estates, i hope that we can make it permanent so that people will be able to plan into the far future so that their small business, their farm, their ranch will be able to be held by their heirs and keep the jobs that those family-owned businesses have produced. so i just think it is important when we get down to the bottom line, do we pass this bill or not, there are alternatives. we could say, you know what? i want to write it differently.

let's wait until next year. first of all, if we do that and we open up what i think is a very balanced approach, then we're going to talk about this a whole lot longer than a week next year. it's going to take a while. and in the meantime, people are not going to be hired because small business won't know what their tax liabilities are going to be, and we will not have this settled for at least two years so that we can work on long-term tax reform. i thought the -- the commission that just reported had some very good ideas for tax reform, where everyone would pay more of a flat tax. it would be slightly higher -- at the higher levels, but -- slightly higher at the higher

levels, but it would bring in more -- and lower the tax on everyone and bring in more because it would be simpler and more fair. i think we ought to look at that. we may need to make changes in one way or another, but it was a good starting place. but if we wait until next year to pass a bill, we are going to throw this economy into up heavial, and we will certainly not create the jobs that is the motivation behind this agreement. the president and the republicans agree on one thing, and that is the goal should be to spur the economy and create jobs. how we get there, we have differences, but at least there are some parts on both ends that will have the effect of giving stability and predictability to the small businesses in our country that create two-thirds of the jobs so that they can

start hiring, and that should be the dispositive part of the decision that we all need to make to vote for this bill. you would have written it differently, mr. president, i would have written it differently, the president would have written it differently and so did senator mcconnell if we were the king and queen of america. fortunately, we're in a democracy, not a monarchy, so we can't have everything the way we want it. this is a good start. and let me end by suggesting that once we make this decision -- and i hope that we will make the decision to move forward. i hope the house will join us -- then we will not have to discuss tax cuts for two years. people will know what they are going to owe for two years, and

they will be able to start making plans on that. but the argument that is being made that this is going to create more in the deficit does need to be addressed, and once this bill is passed, we must get about the business of cutting overall spending in this government, and that is not just the discretionary part, which is a minor part of our budget. it is also the entitlements. what can we do to make the entitlements not continue to grow beyond the capability to pay for it in a reasonable economy? we must get the debt down. we must get the deficit down, and we will be able to concentrate on that if we have put the tax cuts to bed. one of the things that we need to address is the implementation

of this health care bill, which is the other factor in jobs not being created right now. i hope that we can repeal what we have passed and start all over so that the business people know that what we have passed is not going to work, it's going to be in the courts for a long time because of the constitutional issues, and let's go about the planning for a health care reform that doesn't put the fines and the penalties on business and individuals. let's give them options, options so that affordable health care is there for them. we don't have to do that with a hammer. we can do it with options that are incentives for people to get

health care because it will be affordable and let them make choices for what fits their family, not a big government-prescribed one-size-fits-all. and let's start getting serious about a bipartisan effort to cut the spending and cut the debt and cut the deficits, and let's set some parameters around extending unemployment so that more people will be hired and we will set standards that are reasonable for people to start giving back to the community if they are able-bodied and have been unemployed for two years and more. if we are creative and we work together, we can do this. but tearing this package apart and saying, well, i want it all my way means we are not going to

have the stability and predictability that will create jobs starting next year, and that is our stated goal on both sides. i hope the members of the house will realize that anything that we do next year is going to have to be with a democratically controlled senate, a republican controlled house, and that means that everything is not going to be our way. i wouldn't have written this agreement exactly this way. neither would senator mcconnell. i'm sure the president wouldn't either. but senator mcconnell and the president have done what leaders need to do. they have come together on a bill that will move this country forward, and it will not

increase taxes on anyone that is paying taxes today. how can anyone believe that it will be good for the economy of our country to raise taxes in a recession? so i'm sure we're going to hear a lot of debate on this floor about what different individual senators would have done differently, but the bottom line is this senate will overwhelmingly pass this package. i just hope that when all the debate is finished, that this bill will be signed by the president, and we will move forward in a joint effort to reduce the debt of this country as adult leaders should do. that should be our goal for the next two years as we now have settled the tax cut issue,

hopefully. we will go with a vengeance against the debt, and with tax reform and some reform in the entitlement programs, we can do it. it won't be easy, but it can be done, and that's why we ran for these offices, to be the leaders when our country needs leadership. thank you, m recognized. a senator: i also want to add my voice in respect and recognition for the service of senator kit bond. mr. conrad: he has been a terrific colleague. and we have jostled over issues like water policies affecting our two states, but he has also conducted himself with honor and integrity and he will be missed

in this chamber. mr. president, for just a moment i also want to note the passing of richard holbrooke, a distinguished ambassador, somebody who played a key role in working on the policy toward iraq and afganistan. richard holbrooke was a giant in american diplomatic history. richard holbrooke was a friend. i actually was with him the sunday before he passed away. and was shocked to learned that he had been stricken. even more shocked to learn that he passed away on monday. richard holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace and for advancing the interest of this country. richard holbrooke will be missed. mr. president, separately, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the

senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. conrad: mr. president, i come to the floor to discuss the tax extension package before us. i support this package because it will provide, i believe, a significant boost to the economy next year. it is necessary because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millions of middle-class families in just a matter of weeks. mr. president, i recognize that this package will increase the deficit over the next two years, but we need to distinguish between what is the right economic policy short term and longer term. short term i don't think there is any question that this economy remains weak,

unemployment stubbornly high, and that means we need to do more to provide liquidity in the short term. that does not mean that we should ignore the growing debt that is all around us. that is a longer-term challenge, but it requires our urgent attention. mr. president, we need to put together a plan this year to deal with our deficits and debt. that's what the fiscal commission was all about that senator gregg and i pushed for, which was just recently concluded its work with 11 of the 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt long term by $4 trillion. mr. president, just as with that package, there are not all elements of this package with which i agree. in fact, part of this tax package i strongly oppose. most noteliably, i am topped --

most noteably, i am opposed to those provisions that i think giveoverly generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax area. but i understand that the president did what he had to do to get an agreement. this economy clearly remains in a fragile state, and we can't afford to wait until we get everything we want. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. mr. president, too often in this chamber, in this congress, people insist on having it their way or take the highway. and, unfortunately, that prevents us from doing things that are absolutely essential for the nation. mr. president, economists project that a failure to pass this package could reduce economic growth next year by as much as 50%.

that would mean millions of jo jobs, mr. president, so those who say, well, let's just scuttle this, they got to think very carefully. what is the risk to the economy of the united states? mr. president, just to review where we've come from, the federal response to the recession and the financial crisis, i believe, has successfully pulled this economy back from the brink. we were headed, i believe, for financial collapse. economic growth has returned -- not as robustly as we would have liked, but nonetheless it has returned. in the fourth quarter of 2008, levment est we forget, economic growth was 6.8%. now it is 2.5%. that is a remarkable turnaround. the the same can be seen on the job front.

in january 2009 this economy lost over 800,000 private-sector jobs in one month. the next month we lost another 700,000 jobs. the next month another 700,000. the next month almost 650,000. now we fast-forward to today, november of 2010, 50,000 jobs were created. that is a dramatic turnaround. and we can see in -- for month after month after month we you a have positive job growth. mr. president, this economy has turned in the right direction and done so in quite a dramatic way. we've also seen the rebound in the markets. the stock market hit a low of 6547 back in march 7 of 2009. we're now well over 11 now tho. on economic growth, on job creation, on the stock market we have seen dramatic improvements.

i think as a direct result of things that were quite unpopular -- the tarp prarnlg the stimulus program. mr. president, this economy still remains too weak, too fragile. unemployment stubbornly high at 9.8%. by the way, without tarp, without stimulus you the best economist -- the best economists in this country, including alan blinder and the chief economist at moody's mark zandi said, without tarp, without stimulus, unemployment today would be 15%. 8 million more people would be out of work. so, mr. president, despite some who say these haven't worked -- tarp and stimulus -- you i believe the evidence is quite clear they have worked. so what more needs to be done? as we enter the holiday season we can't forget that one in six americans is now unemployed or

underemployed. and so we must do more to create jobs. in a recent speech to the european central bank ben bernanke went about as far as he could go on the question of fiscal policy. and he urged congress to do more to help the near-term economy while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-term deficits. here's what he said: "on its current economic tra john kerry trirks the united states runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for many years. as a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable. monetary policy is working in support of both economic recovery and price stability, but there are limits to what can be achieved by the central bank alone ... [a] fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to

reduce longer-term structural deficits would be an important complement to the policies of the federal reserve." the chairman, i think, has it right. he is clearly saying the fed alone does not -- and their actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. congress also needs to act. it needs to act in the near term by taking steps to generate economic growth and it needs to act on the long-term challenge by putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in the medium-term and in the longer term. this package, the one before us, will ensure that middle-class taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of the year. it extends for two years all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. it -- and, by the way, by far the most important thing for the economy is the middle-class tax cuts. that is what is critically

important to the economy. the tax cuts for the high end, we could either do or not do. they're mildly stimulative, mildly stimulative, but according to c.b.o. they have pretty low bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. that's the high-end tax cuts, pretty low bang for the buck, according to the congressional budget office. this package also has expanded child tax credit and earned income tax credit for working families. the american opportunity tax credit for college expenses, the alternative minimum tax fix, otherwise millions of people would be getting a tax hike completely unintended. and the r&d tax credit and other expiring tax provisions. so, mr. president, this package, as a package, according to the best economic advice that we can get, will help economic growth, will help job creation create as many as 2 million additional jobs in the private sector next

year. the package also includes three critical measures to help the economy. it includes a payroll tax cut for working families. this will provide a two percentage point reduction in employees' social security payroll taxes. a worker with $40,000 in income would save $800. this measure is widely recognized as one of the most tbective ways to -- effective ways to boost near-term growth. in fact, i asked c.b.o. last year, what are the most effective steps we could take to promote economic growth? number one, interestingly enough, extend unemployment insurance. that's in this package. number two, a payroll tax holiday. that's in this package. in fact, as i indicated, this package has an extension of unemployment insurance benefits at their current level for 13 months. this will prevent 7 million

workers from losing unemployment in 2011. economists also rank this measure as high on bang for the buck, as i indicated. it also includes a business expensing provision allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital purchases in 2011. this is a useful incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011, and again c.b.o. rated this measure as high on bang for the buck. here are some of the examples of the tax cut benefits provided by this package. a mother with one child with $20,000 of income will receive an $1,100 tax cut. a married couple with $40,000 of income will receive a tax cut of almost $2,000. and a married couple with two children with $60,000 of income will receive a tax cut of more

than $3,300. mr. president, mark sedan -- the chief economist for moody's, former advisor to senator mccain's presidential campaign, has examined the potential economic impact of this package. here's what he concluded: "the fiscal policy compromise ... will be good for the economy next year. the planned temporary tax cuts and spending increases will provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that the still-fragile economic recovery evolves into a self-sustaining economic expansion. the deal's surprisingly broad scope meaningfully changes the near-term economic outlook." that according to mark zandi, the chief economist for moody's. mr. president, for those who are concerned about the deficit, as i am, job one is to get this economy growing more strongly. that is job one.

then we've got to pivot and deal with the long-term plan to deal with the deficits and the debt. as i noted before, the one provision in this package that i am particularly unhappy with is the estate tax provision. i support the continuation of the 2009 level with an estate tax exemption of p $3.5 million for an individual, that would be $7 million for a courages and the a rate of 45%. only .25% would be subject to any estate tax in 2011. .25% of estates would be affected. that means 99.75% of estates would be exempt from any estate tax under the levels that i am proposing and did propose in the budget.

unfortunately, under the compromise package, certain of our colleagues on the other side insisted that the exemption level be raised to $5 million for individuals or individuals n for couples with a rate of 35%. this will reduce the number estates subject to the estate tax to .7%. it adds about $20 billion to the cost of the package over two years and will do absolutely nothing to generate economic growth and create jobs according to the economic analysis made available to us. if made permanent, this provision would add $100 billion in lost revenue to the treasury over the next ten years -- $100 billion more than the package that i proposed. i don't think that's fiscally responsible. i don't think it's wise. and i don't think it should be approved. while we need to pass the overall package to give a

near-term boost to the economy, we must also now pivot to deal with the nation's growing debt. gross federal debt is already expected to reach 100% of the gross domestic product of this country in 2011, well above the 90% threshold that many economists see as the danger zone p. one of our nation's leading economists, dr. carmen reinhardt, came before the president's fiscal commission. she had recently coauthored a study of the impact of debt on more than 20 countries over the last 200 years. she concluded that when government debt as a share of the economy exceeds 90%, economic growth tends to be about one point lower than if debt levels were not so high. but don't be misled by one point lower. that sounds like nothing. if the economy is growing

typically at 3.5%, one point less would be about one-third less economic growth. so we need to understand the consequences of debt are lower economic growth for the future. mr. president, our long-term debt outlook is even more serious. according to the congressional budget office, federal debt could rise on the current trend to almost 400% of g.d.p. by 2054. that is a completely unsustainable course. i personally believe the deficit and debt reduction plan assembled by the president's fiscal commission on which i serve could prove a way forward. even though the plan did not receive the necessary 14 of the 18 votes on the commission to guarantee a vote in congress, it did receive the support of 11 of

the 18 commission members, which is more than 60% of the panel. 60% here, we can pass anything. but on our commission, we required 14 of 18 of the commissioners to agree to assure a vote in congress this year. and, by the way, the 11 who supported the plan was completely bipartisan, five democrats, five republicans, and one independent. that outcome proved that democrats and republicans can come together to solve this challenge. here's a quick overview of the fiscal commission plan. it provides nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. it lowers the deficit from 8% of g.d.p. in 2011 to 2.3% in 2015 and 1.2% in 2020. it stablizes the debt by 2014 and then lowers it to 60% of g.d.p. by 2023 and 40% of g.d.p.

by 20356789 it reforms social security to ensure its solvency for at least 75 years and puts the program on a more success sphainable path beyond -- sustainable path beyond the next 75 years. a understand it includes fundamental -- and it includes fundamental tax reform make the tax code simpler and more efficient while also raising more revenue for deficit reduction. so now we have a responsible and realistic bipartisan plan on the table and national attention is focused on the issue. it's up to congress and the president to finish the job. mr. president, tax reform may be the most important component of the fiscal commission plan. here are the key elements included in the fiscal commission plan: one, it eliminates or scales back tax expenditures that are currently runnin running $1.1 tn a year.

and lowers tax rates. that will promote economic growth and dramatically improve america's global competitiveness. and it makes the tax code more progressive. the commission's illustrative tax reform plan demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures can lower rates. mr. president, this plan is a beginning, it's got to become law in order to have its full effect. mr. president, i hope very much our colleagues will consider supporting this plan, the tax plan before us and the deficit-reduction plan that needs to be an integral needs to be an integral

this is an hour and a half. >> welcome to this even gone sudan. it's an important point in

sudanese history. i am david smock, senior vice president here. my most important role is to ask you to turn off yourself phones. please do so. as you all know, and did that is the reason you are here today, the referendum in southern sudan and referendum are scheduled for january 9th. but many issues remain to be resolved. registration in southern sudan has been delayed, and this raises the question of whether the january 9th date can be met. no progress has been made on the referendum in of also holding the referendum there is even more question. once the referendum in this office concluded, questions may arise of the credibility of the referendum.

assuming the referendum is concluded successfully and the results accepted, and the secession is the outcome of the vote then many other issues remain to be resolved to insure a peaceful transition including the question of citizenship, assets, sharing oil revenues, border delineation and so on and what to do about abiya as a contested issue. the workshop today will be addressing these issues and with the help of these distinguished speakers, they will help us think through what might be to happen in the next few months in sudan, in southern sudan and abiya to read our first speaker will be from the embassy of

sudan, ambassador fatahelraham ali mohamed with the rank of the ambassador. prior to serving here on washington he was the executive director of the sudan national assembly speaker's office from 2004 to 2006. from 1999 to 2004 he was in the embassy incident and prior to that he held other positions in the sudan foreign service. >> good morning. thank you, mr. smock, for giving me this opportunity to share in this forum. as you know, the referendum is a

product of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. the historical achievement that brought the end to 50 years of war which began before sudan gained its independence. it is the fruit of joint effort in the long course of their negotiations that stand great lengths of time. the government and splm with the support of the international community and represented by the community were able to come together and produce the steel document that called for

implementation of time sensitive benchmarks. they represent the stage of this implementation process that began january 9th, 2005. it must be understood that the primary objective of the comprehensive peace agreement is to secure lasting peace. it is within this context the upcoming agenda people's consultation and the last election must be here. therefore, the issue is not necessary about occupation. rather the vision of building a solid piece which the logical

outcome of the execution. there have been challenges in preparing for the referendum as we have all witnessed. however, after some delay in southern sudan, the commission was eventually formed and it has been able to do a tremendous job so far. we are currently at this stage of where southerners are registering through sudan and the diaspora including those in the united states. we should be encouraged by the fact that despite logistical, financial and all difficulties that are in this process we have somehow been able to overcome.

there have been complaints already that just ended. it's important that the forces leading up to the referendum is currently carried out credibly because only free, fair and transparent process could deliver a real outcome. and really the biggest challenge is in a political process such as always a bitter political the atmosphere. regrettably, some political figure has been creating this year the environment. this attitude essentially put

emphasis and highlight the reason for the corporation. instead, review and try harder to create conducive atmosphere for the negotiations. the negotiations led by a joint political committees headed by the vice president of the southern sudan government deployed a great effort and solving the afghanistan reissues. these efforts are supported by the african unions such as who continues to work to resolve many issues facing the process.

the united states have been able to create significant role in assuring the process move forward. the united nations and arab league play a significant role in supporting the process as well. abyei has been so far the most contentious and challenging issue. the commission for the area has yet to be formed. it was just over a month before the work could take place. the two parties have been negotiating for some time and yet very slowly making progress. the biggest point of difference is the question is of who should

be allowed in the referendum. and despite the provision regarding this and the situation effort, the two parties have yet reached agreement. the government position is to give the people living in abyei and others the right to vote. border demarcation is also another sensitive issue. so far, 80% of the border has been defined. it is important, however, to finalize the process because it would help maintain and if the decision happened to be the choice of the sudanese. without clear orders, clashes

between the northern and southern forces might be unavoidable. the referendum issues, these include citizenship porth sharing and national debt. we have an ongoing meeting on these issues. they could be challenging but through the negotiation and the good corporation, they are solvable. a peaceful environment would help of facilitating these negotiations. finally, the leadership of the two parties have expressed on numerous occasions that the determination must be to all and to accept the outcome of the

referendum. the action has so far been consistent with this promise. yet, many activists and journalists continue to be off war. this is absolutely counterproductive and we never held the peace process. the role of the international community and of the u.s. is first and most to help peace flourish but the peace cannot be attained by such means. furthermore, i think it is important to stress that should

the outcome result this cooperation, northern and southern will maintain cordial relations. it is important to remind ourselves that even during the war, the sudanese move across the country in search of job security and have been able to establish with the communities. these ties cannot be easily detached and would remain beyond separation. therefore, the efforts should be focused towards clearing any potential obstacle that spoils the project peacebuilding. it must seek to resolve issues that could prevent the flourishing of peace between communities.

thank you. [applause] thank you. the next speaker is ezekiel lol gatkuoth who's head the head of the government of sudan in the u.s. based here in washington. previously from 2002 to 2005, he was deputy representative and coordinator of the chapters in north america and then a in june of 2005, he was appointed as the representative for north america prior to his assuming a position of the head of the mission here in washington. >> thank you very much, david

smock. [inaudible] [laughter] designed for him and the ambassador. [laughter] good morning. before i start my remarks, i would like to recognize those who came from far away, like the ambassador who is here with us. he is visiting. maybe you can stand up and greet people. [applause] we have also a talented musician who came from southern sudan to mobilize in the u.s. [inaudible] we are also here together. you can stand up and you can see them. [applause]

thank you very much for or deny the easing -- organizing, david. i will try to be brief but when you're talking about sudan it is difficult to be brief. sudan is actually the largest country in africa, population of 40 million people. southern sudanese has been struggling for the last more than 40 years. the first war was 1955. the war of independence in did in 1972 with an agreement promising them that they would have a referendum in 1982 after ten years. that agreement did not last. it was dishonored by the party or person who was then the

president of sudan. then we went back to the war again in 1983 and then later to find the objective of the war. in the state of war and independence, he decided to say that it is not only southern sudanese who are marginalized that or other people in the east and west and even in the center. so we were fighting for a transformed sudan. that war lasted for more than 21 years. that's what produced the tpa in 2005. and the cpa was meant to address two issues. one is to transform sudan into a better sudan for all of us, democratic operation. that was the objective number one in the cpa to be objective number two is for the people of

southern sudan to decide their future through sound information. where are they going to be? are they going to be part of the north or they can form their own independent state? leading us to the referendum, the referendum started. we are so happy with the administration. it went so well and it is not only us alone. the u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon formed a team and issued a statement, and i quote, it was transparent, free from organized manipulation. this is what they said and many others are saying the same thing we have registered over

3 million in the south and outside in khartoum almost close to 300,000 also in diaspora, so if you look at it, we are registered more over 60% registered, those who are eligible to vote are registered over 60%. however, despite the successful registration people are having to make sure the process is discredited, people are filing lawsuits and many ahead of those complaints, but to us i think they are baseless because it isn't for them or for us to judge the process, but other people who are monitoring the process. but yes, there are general

concerns and happen to listen to those. the issue that is the process is now moving forward. even though in the south we have conceded enough. it was transferred and 05 to number sudan together with other counties. in 1918 and 1932 the two countries were transferred back to southern sudan. so in the cpa there was a protocol come antonette pravachol we are preceded us splm and back to southern sudan there was a referendum so that

nine of them were transferred in 1905. they can vote and decide their future if they want to be part of the north for the comeback to the south. those who are deciding that do not mention. they were mentioned to have that passage and grace and access to water. it is very clear now we are not moving forward, but the splm is committed to making sure that we have a breakthrough if that means we are going to pay a ransom we are willing to do that so there are more people that can decide their future freely. and we are also asking the community to continue supporting bob process headed by the hi

implementation panel so that the basis for addressing this and also the arbitration because dan peterson, sorry, don was the one having the commission and was supposed to define the border of our being and was submitted to the presidency and we were supposed to move and those who were stated it has to be binding on the two parties. then we went to the hague and the mandate was basically saying the systems who were transferred in 1905, the one to be

identified in the than the arbitration made it clear and we know the residents in that area, but we are calling for the community health so that we can have a breakthrough. and this is leading me to the issue of the citizenship. the referendum issues are many. it is involving the security arrangement, citizenship, treaties, legal issues and financial economic resource issues. these are the issues we are addressing now with the north. so far, we've managed to have an agreement in principle but we are going to address the rest of the issues except the issue of citizenship. the issue of citizenship is very clear that there are some people who are threatening southerners who are in the north of that if you were going to register your most vote for unity, and if you

vote otherwise, then your citizenship will be terminated and then you will stay there. our commitment is we will protect the rights of northerners in the south and even before and investors who are investing in the south we will not terminate or mistreat them. we are basically asking the same thing from the north to the same because people might want to decide to stay in the south or north. maybe you are working there and have a good job and would like to stay there, so i think it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who decide to stay there are protected and the benefits are given to them. i know in the southern sudanese they are turning in big numbers to the south because of this year that they are actually having in the north.

people are being threatened and we are worried genocide will be happening after their freedom. but we are happy or partner in the north also to come southerners in the north. we have no capacity to receive the big numbers returning from the north and we are appealing to the community to help us so that those who are returning can get services. we are providing whatever we can as a government, but of course if we are receiving over a million, then definitely you would be receiving a lot and wouldn't be able to manage. in conclusion, southerners are

going to vote, and it is very clear now since we have the registration have done without any problem it is very clear on the night of january southern sudanese are going to go because the hardest part is over. the hardest part is the registration. now the ballots are being printed by the u.k. company and they promise they will deliver them before the 25th december and when they are innocent and then they will distribute them. so on the ninth of january, 2011, we are sure the referendum will be conducted. there is no need for the request for delay because we are finished with the hardest part. it is very clear the southern sudanese are going to vote for separation for simple reasons.

we have failed to transform sudan into a better sudan for all the fuss. if sudan is transformed so all of us are first class citizens. then there is no reason for us to be fighting this country but for the last five years, he is still there and ezekiel is staying in this country and with the status have to be protected there has to be established for me to protect myself as an on muslim in khartoum women are being denied their freedom because its dressed inappropriately to those who are defining how you can dress so doesn't list sudan as is the together the only thing we have to do now is make sure that we are peaceful so that we are committed to this and we will continue to have relations with the north, and this relation

will be the best because now we will rediscovered ourselves that yes we need to honor ourselves because the north need the south and the south meets the north. i will stop here. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, ezekiel. our third speaker is zach vertin with the international crisis group. his first assignment with icg was the u.s. efficacy office in new york starting in august of to the six, and then in september, 2009 he moved to nairobi as the analyst for the horn of africa with special response to these for southern sudan and moved between nairobi and southern sudan with regularity.

>> thanks very much david for putting this together today for my sudanese friends to join us. i've been working about the last year-and-a-half i do travel between khartoum and nairobi. i am something of a nomad without cattle. these guys have clearly said the foundation here. i will just briefly touch on two issues, sort of status of the referendum itself. and also the post referendum arrangements which have been discussed. these two issues are obviously inextricably linked. first, i left sudan about three weeks ago as registration started in must say to the end of october and the beginning of the registration on the 15th of the timber there was a remarkable surge in preparations

and the commission itself deserve credit for pulling the together and confounding what seemed like a probable delay at that stage. now as has been mentioned registration was completed a week ago, preliminary lists are now posted for reviewing the appeals process is underway. no official numbers yet, but as has been mentioned on the order of 4 million on the south, 115,000 the north and roughly 50, 55,000 in overseas voting that continues official numbers that's probably later this weekend aggregation is somewhat difficult given the terrain in the areas and access to the far reaching referendum centers. the training of staff begins today and will go on for the next two weeks regarding the polling process itself. what are the immediate challenge is at this stage? as ezekiel mentioned, one of the

biggest hurdles has been cleared of holding the registration itself. the extended registration of the week titans the time line. weigel vlore originally set out three months between the final voters listed voting in a matter of hours between the final day and the beginning of the voting. no polling procedures as of yet much like the russian process. obviously you for of the accusations of interference and problems with registration that have been leveled. several groups, both of the ncp and a handful of others have launched a handful of complaints with the commission challenging irregularities, problems of the regulation, denial of access to certain groups. so of those have more of a basis to others and some of them are not terribly well founded, but in some sense i see this as being the groundwork. for those folks including and those people who don't want to

see the referendum go forward or would like to protract the process, this isn't some since leaving the ground work. should they decide to pursue that route. so efforts must continue to push ahead with the appeals and polling process and every day we get closer to the sort of referendum treatise on the track and is gathering speed. every day we get closer it becomes harder and harder for those still would like to postpone or deny the process altogether. but i would like to focus more on a the post referendum agenda because i think simultaneously pursuing the get answers on this broad agenda is not only critical for peaceful transition, but may also serve to remove the immediate obstacles of a referendum itself. progress now towards the series of arrangements for both military south could help remove these obstacles and also the impact of the referendum outcome

the talks the region started first through the talks didn't jump start the process. what followed was a series of talks in khartoum weeks ago, and there was a lot of talk about whether or not those talks achieved progress. i think they certainly did and more direct talks than at any other stage before the poster for an agenda but at the same time the bar was pretty low and as the president told the security council and others after those talks the pace remains cause for serious concern. the panel led did reconvene the talks last week and again started again yesterday, but we haven't seen other than some new engagement at the level we have not seen a lot of progress. those talks are center of a framework document prepared by the panel which is about a 30 page document addressed as most all the post referendum issues

and also a series of the outstanding cpa issues. samore dealt with in concrete terms and those that would have a more immediate effect on the population such as citizenship and others in the more general terms and the document seeks only to frame the discussion that must continue between january and july. we shouldn't be under any illusions of all of the post referendum agenda can be negotiated now and more to the need to be that there needs to be a mechanism in place so that after the referendum after the results, the process can continue because once the referendum in substance once the referendum is done the sudanese parties will have to wake of the next morning and say now the real work begins from year to july and beyond. among those issues in terms of what i believe the sudanese parties can establish these lines on, first of all oil is a contentious issue in sudan but i have long argued i think because of the mutual reliance of khartoum and revenues 98% in the

south and 60%, north and some sense - khalil was the greatest disincentives to the new conflict and that is why i am hopeful about the immediate future. citizenship has been discussed and we need to call off the fears and protective rights of both of the southerners on the north of the northerners, south. there is concern, hard red, fear of mass explosion afterwards i think in some sense this is largely political grandstanding or rhetoric used as part of the broad negotiating in the political what was your. one thing to note for the simple it's not terribly economically feasible for all southerners to move out of the north. they represent a significant section of the economic sort of stratosphere in the north. currency, there are differences of opinion on this. certainly but economists year if there is an understanding of what how this process goes forward there could be a loss of confidence and devaluation of currency.

obviously there's enough going on in sudan the can't afford this. the wild card on the talks again it's been mentioned this mean some sense be the fulcrum on which the talks dealt. the splm would like to address these as a part of the package. the ndp is not so concerned. in one sense the have an important community that it would hope not to alienate but as has been mentioned i think in some sense they may use abyei as a bargaining tool to see with a can get in return. why we haven't seen much progress in the talks so far, two things i will mention. first, sudan has a culture of political censorship like few others and that is part of this process. what we step back to reliable talk about the insurance. with khartoum are seeking reassurances.

the ncp, there are different camps that remained about how to approach the referendum agreements. there are increasingly folks who are more resigned to the reality of the partition seeking to insure their own political and economic future in khartoum, and in that sense they are also opened with a political and security terms juba isn't supporting the opposition groups coming in on the other hand, the splm is seeking reassurance on one issue comes the conduct of the referendum and acceptance of the result, and i think that is why we haven't seen any movement and until there is some on both sides i feel we may not get very far in the post referendum agenda. so the concerns i mentioned obviously political brinkmanship and in this regard i think the in cp -- ncp, it isn't clear. a strategy hasn't miserably emerged from the ncp on how to approach the referendum and the

post referendum agenda, but in the absence i think the calculation maybe they can afford to wait and that they can only improve between now and january 9th and they may wait until the late 11th hour and try to extract confessions both from the splm and get the best possible package taken from the international community and exchange for the referendum. in this regard since we are in washington and since they are important i will mention the u.s. incentives. i think it's very good these incentives were put forward on the table, items in addition to the parties can negotiate themselves that could alter the equations, but i want to note that these are ultimately limited and i think the view in washington and elsewhere outside is different than in khartoum. these offers and incentives to have limits and the ncp feels the drug has been pulled out from under them when the u.s.

came forward and they are afraid that may happen again. past the normalization has been laid out the state-sponsored terror 82 list of opening up of licensing agreements and trade issues in exchange for ambassadors and ultimately the two big ticket items, the lifting of economic sanctions, u.s. economic sanctions and long-term debt relief to those two in particular are the big ticket items and khartoum knows neither of the issues can be resolved overnight and neither of them fall in the realm of the american executive, and in that sense they are limited. some of based on these issues the current set of state of preparations and this broad political context of the deal number of referendum scenarios can be anticipated, and i think we should note that continued stalemate on the talks could very well increase the likelihood of the less desirable outcomes and i won't go through

them here. of the international crisis group we published a report a few weeks ago in which each of the potential scenarios are outlined we pushed very hard to get out thinking the situation may considerably changed though it hasn't much in the last few weeks. last of one to mention in terms of the referendum itself and what we are going to see in the weeks to come i would like to focus particularly on the results and this period of uncertainty that is likely to follow the voting itself. my guess is we probably won't even have unofficial results for four, five, six days even a week and that period and beyond that between ten and the announcement of official results there will be premature assertions by both sides. it will be disinformation spread, there will be considerable domestic results and they may take more time than originally envisioned, so i

think it's important that there be a body and entity that steps forward and fills the void and if this is for the secretary-general panel monitoring panel of the referendum led by former president is the key. they are the natural actors to fill the void both in terms of the immediate results and also laying the groundwork for ultimate recognition of an independent state should south sudan vote as many of us expect. the recent statements from the panel are good but i think the need to continue to build and established that authority so we can look to them in that period. in this regard, i think one thing that we need to keep them honest by unified response from the african union both from the african union. this is key in addition to the panel if car to accept the

results and the path is clear toward ultimate recognition the african union and the international community will probably breathe easy. if they don't come if they choose another route, if they don't feel like they have a package of arrangement they can live with, then it's still possible. i'm optimistic this would happen but it's possible that they could attempt to challenge results after the fact or prevent recognition, and in that case you may have a split within the african union. that would have serious implications both for sudan and the african union itself as an institution and it will make the situation more broadly very difficult because the u.n. security council and the international community will be looking to the region to calibrate its opinion and response to this issue. and last, there's a lot of talk in washington and elsewhere about what is the future of south sudan look like and what is the political and economic status and the international engagement in south sudan, and i would like to remind everyone

after the referendum there will likely be two states, and i think the attention needs to be maintained on both the north, depending on all things go, they may need as much political and economic engagement to bring it back from the international isolation where it has been for quite some time, and as my colleague said, i think ultimately win nt tensions and rhetoric and concerns and emotions of the referendum by down i think fourth and south will ultimately realize that each will be their best neighbor politically, economically, socially, and ford, and those ties won't go away. a lot more to discuss but we will leave it open. thanks for a much. [applause] >> thank you. our final speaker is jon temin.

eastern a remarkable job of managing our sudan activities, speaking publicly, frequently, writing frequently, managing our activities on the ground in sudan, and jon is just back from two weeks spent in khartoum and juba and will have additional remarks to make. jon? >> thank you very much, david. as david mentioned i just got back a couple days ago from a couple of weeks in both juba and khartoum, so i am going to share some general observations many of which are consistent with what zach just said. as you will see i have more questions than answers but that is frequently the case with sudan. overall i come back with a lot of the positive impression of where things stand concerning the referendum, despite the

challenges it does seem a likely to have been roughly on time and that is certainly no cause for celebration that is cause for cautious optimism. the registration process by most accounts went smoothly. there are lingering questions about registration and the low numbers in the north in particular. there is certainly less violence in the south compared to a year ago and that is a definite positive. to cut through the punch line, i am weary of any prediction in sudan, but i think that the the return to a big north-south war is not impossible but not likely. i do think that skirmishes around the border for some time are probably a pretty likely thing that we do need to work to avoid and minimize. there does remain a sizable gap between khartoum and juba in terms of expectations of what is going to happen over the next few months. my sense is people in khartoum

are coming to grips with the likely result of the referendum, but there is still lot of people in khartoum who expect a delay in the referendum and the next that legal challenges and we are already seeing some of those legal challenges, and as zach mentioned, i also believe that fundamentally ncp hasn't paid some of the court decisions about how they want to treat this process, how they want to react and those decisions are of course central to how those are going to play out. in the south of there is a conviction among most people the january 9th is going to be the day. i thinks so. i'm not certain. this does put the splm in a little box if they have a short delay because they are so adamant about january 9th. if there is some sort of a delay i think it would only be acceptable if the message comes from the senior most physicians within the south. even then, that could be seen as somewhat of a broken promise.

unfortunately, there is relatively little education in this house concerning the referendum, and the referenda. there are still some people confused about the difference between elections and referendum. hockley some of that can happen in the next few weeks but obviously the capacity is limited. there is relatively little in the six month transition period between the referenda and the end of the cpa in july. that is something people do need to know about. nobody so far has mentioned the recent bombings that have been disputed. obviously there are different messages from the north and south as the purpose and the reason for those bombings. they are seen as an attempt to provoke a response from the spla and so for the spla hasn't responded in any real way. i will echo some of what zach said it as well about how the result of the referendum is going to be received internationally, and

particularly with va you. i think there is a trade-off between the referendum on plan and the quality of the referendum, and that then gets to the question of response, and particularly responses from other african countries. i think there is the concern that some countries are given a reason or half a reason not to recognize the results they might take that. and that should be of concern particularly to the south and so that does raise the question of whether holding it on time is going to produce the product that is needed. i think zach is right but a lot of the world is going to kill the british response to the referendum based on the african response. that is where we are all going to look first. i think that there is probably likely to be some violence and around the referendum process, local violence particularly around the border. that can start locally. it doesn't have to be provoked by the parties. the key is to prevent the

escalation of the violence. it could be a violent place it's going to happen but presenting the parties from fleeing into that, preventing the spla and the staff and escalating it. that is where the focus should be. clearly in abyei there's little progress and negotiation that's discouraging. i -- it's been stated now there is it going to be a referendum on the ninth. i think it is some sort of a negotiated solution is probably the likely outcome. i suspect that probably comes after the southern referendum in january. from the perspective i think there are concerns about abyei being a slippery slope if they are to make confessions of their then they might be pushed to make territorial concessions elsewhere along the border. to have to keep in mind it's not just abyei that is disputed that there are at least five parts of the north-south border that are disputed and there are other potential little abyei out there as well.

there's also questions within the south as to how much they would want to give up for abyei if they are going to do that. we talk about hostages and ransom. do they want to pay ransom that might set back a new country in terms of their starting point, in terms of their wealth and so forth. that is a question that on here and others here across the broad southern population. i think the southern leadership as we to have to address. some of the questions i think are going to come up in that immediate post referendum environment, issac mentioned already what's going to happen while the accounting is underway it sounds like it could be weeks before there is a final result of the referendum and those could be ten weeks and there could be violence during that period. there are also questions about whether there is going to be a post referendum scramble for power and resources in the south and i contest the southern leadership. another big question for me is

the oil revenue that comes from khartoum to the south and whether the payments will continue throughout the remaining six months of the cpa. obviously this of this highly dependent on that money. those are short-term concerns and i want to raise just a few of the longer-term concerns i have first concerning this of. a lot of that really revolves around how long the post referendum honeymoon is going to last for the south and for the southern leadership. as we've heard there are high expectations among the southern population about improvements and tangible and professed are going to happen after the referendum and after presumed independence. those expectations are going to be almost impossible for the southern leadership and to meet. the issue limited capacity to be able to deliver services, health care, schools and so forth. there's good reasons for that limited capacity but nonetheless, the have to increase the capacity

significantly to meet some of those expectations and so one year, two years, how long are they going to sit patiently to wait for things, that is a very important question related to that is the idea of the centralization which could help the southern government to deliver some of the surfaces. it's been a lot of talk about the centralization juba but for the most part it hasn't happened in the saw fit to deliver services post referendum it is probably going to have to accelerate. another one of those later wrong poster referendum questions concerns developing the new constitution. of course is an issue in the north as well but speaking of the soft, people are only just beginning to pay attention to this question but it is of course central to having a new state and making that a successful space state. related question to the constitution is when the next election might happen in the

south. of course that is a question in the north as well. in this house your responses like 18 months after the end of the cpa to five years after the cpa. i don't think anybody has come to a real consensus on that. also questions in the south about how long the recent military and political reconciliation among some dissident groups is going to last. i think it is likely to pass the referendum, clearly that is the goal for many. but whether it will pass the referendum in the past july cremains lingering question out there. as i mentioned i think there has been notable in progress and stability in the south and that is something to be to celebrate. nonetheless, the ethnic division through the south are real and they are concerning inviting for is still a sense that some of what holds the altogether is getting to a referendum and the common enemy many people perceive in the north and those are going to be diminished after the referendum. and so the question becomes what

else is going to hold some of the self together and some of the groups that have been at odds in the past. the spla is still seen by some as a predatory entity, and that, too, is going to need reform. a lot of the reform within the spla has been put off for the sake of getting to the referendum and there are good reasons for that but at some point that reform will have to accelerate as well. those are some of the concerns, but i want to strongly echo that point as well about pay attention to the post referendum north. we spent so much time talking about what kind of state and please the south might be if there is a secession. we spent relatively little time talking about what could replace the north might be. and they are big questions. are they going to go back to some of their ways early in the regime in the 1990's or are they going to seek to be more inclusive democratic pleat? a lot of the problems of north places now in terms of the court

and dynamic or not want to go away if there is southern secession. i hear a lot of talk now about the so-called new south and north blue nile in which the popular consultation process is not proceeding at the pace some might like it might not deliver the results that could help the people in the two states. as khartoum going to try to deliver services to some of those peripheral states of course that includes darfur in the east and north as well or are they still going to focus on developing the center of the country, the so-called trial. there are no answers to these questions but there are questions that deserve attention a lot of thinking. we can't totally focus of the referendum of the south. we need to think as well with a population of 30 million people or so who are going to continue to live in the north even if there is a session. ..

>> i think it is clear that the case of southern sudan is

different than the other, the east, and many agreements of peace of which are in eastern sudan, but the comprehensive peace agreement is something different. that is it is complied in the constitution. many change the constitution between the north and south in this cpa, and it is time sensitive benchmark one by one for the agreements worth sharing, power sharing, and the final stage is one where the people will vote. that's a big decision in two countries or one country, but with regard to the darfur issue is something different. it is something -- it is from 2003. there might be a clash between

triable for a long time, but it's not an issue like the war in southern sudan. it would be something different for them, but in the other part of the question regarding the citizenship and i think my colleagued also touched on it is the fear of the people of the southerners in the north that might be having problem or hurt, i would like to assure what the leadership of the country, the president, to assure that the southerners in the north they will be in peace. they will enjoy their life, but the legalisms will be under negotiation. if there is a separation, there are two countries and eventually

this would be legal issues on the situation and the nationality in two parts of the country, but my colleague touched on this issue of protection or prevent harm, that is absolutely is not logical because when people are fighting in the south the southerners, they move to the north. they live in peace. they have -- the official government of the people. they live together. they live in peace. what do you expect if there is a real peace and there is the new legal boundaryies and situation in the two parts? so it is -- there is no question of these

people would be harmed. the president assure that and the leadership assure that. what is the legal? now it's under discussion. this is one of the issues. it is not logical to say that these people need protection. when they win the war, they live in peace so the votes of random people who live in peace. there's no reason here, and there is another question. if it come to the situation of two countries, so what do you expect? do you want to make the separation for participation in the south? that's one part. people of the southern sudan living in the north to be a staying forever, all of them. it would be something under

institution if the people they want to move, if they want to live, that depend on the legal outcome of the negotiation which is taking place right now. >> anybody else? okay. another question? yes, right here. >> thanks, brian kennedy. i want to ask about the u.n. mission in sudan. we've heard at least from the north statements to the effect that they won't be accepted in sudan after the ref referendum, and i'm wondering if the pam sees a role for the u.n. in sudan after the interim period, and if so, how will it change? thank you. >> anybody want to address that?

>> for us in the south, we want the u.n. to continue after the referendum for one or two things. number one, they can actually stabilize the situation of the referendum making sure we have peaceful disengagement of our forces and even managing the border so that we minimize scrimmages on the border. second, is to help in the south to build the capacity of the new state so that we can catch up with the rest of the world. yes, we need some help so this is where they can contribute in building our capacity and providing skills to those who need them, so i think it is very important for them to continue after the referendum and the two parties should commit to that.

>> go ahead. >> well, i'll just echo that in part in terms of the u.n. future. yes, in the south as he was speaking on behalf of the government, there's a willingness to continue that relationship, stablization including protection of civilians will and should continue, certainly there are very real concerns as jon mentioned about stability in the south once the common di nonnay tore is removed. in the north, we just don't know. it's tough to say at this stage. there was a request for additional troops to be placed along the border. the u.n. leadership originally had a yellowish-green light, and a week later they got a red light. they throw test balloons on the issue, and i think it's too early to tell.

they are certainly planning for a future mission in the south, and at least one school of thought within the secretary is that ideally you have one mission in the south and one in the north. the one in the knot that would compromise of some type of liaison platoon which somehow addresses the remaining challenge in the transitional areas, but also be incorporated with the continued peace keeping agenda in darfur. >> i'll just briefly add on the idea of some sort of a u.n. buffer force around the border out there lately. it's a good idea on paper. we're talking about a 2,000 kilometer border, and the troop number doesn't seem to be available. that, unfortunately, is not a role the u.n. can play in a really affective way, but i very much agree on, you know, the ability to provide stability in

other parts of the south in particular to focus the mission on a development effort post referendum with a lot to do there. >> over here. >> thank you, fraser group, excellent panel. i want to ask about the legal challenge for zach or jon, the legal process. is this something that's a nuisance or is it potentially a big deal? is it game changing that this would become the rational to not accept the outcome in a worse case scenario, and if that were to happen from a diplomatic perspective, is there expectation their league also would withhold recognition and then what? >> i'm reluctant to speculate

too much on that because i think it's happening all too quickly. i'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that one the chief complaints concerns part of the referendum legislation that says you have to have flee months -- three months between the referendum and the registration itself. that's not happening. what wins between that requirement and the requirement to have it on january 9, i don't know. that's for the courts to decide. you know, i think there was some sort of a statement from the u.s. government recently about this count cripple the -- shouldn't cripple the process, and i tend to agree with that. a lot of parts have not been to the letter of the law, but as to, you know, how these legal challenges affect international recognition, i don't know at this stage. >> i think two things. figure of all, a number of -- first of all, a number of challenges have been issues.

some are waiting and others are more politically motivated than others, and i think it's good. as they're coming out, there's pushback on some of them particularly the one submitted to the constitutional court that many argue is a seriously politicized entity, and the referendum commission and chair stood up firmly to that. i think it does -- given we don't have any extra time in the timeline that remains, i think it does present a problem potentially and could cause a short term delay. i am not as -- i don't have quite the religious zeal about 9 of january, and we need to push ahead for that, but if it is for the safeguards, it's not the end of the world, and the other issue is whether or not these come before or after the pulling itself. they can throw a wrench in the process now, but afterward if these kinds of challenges #, the

these month issue, and the issue of polling station workers being over age 40 which many are not and the number of other issues, if those come after the fact, i think they will pale in comparison of the votes we all expect. >> in the back there in the aisle? >> hi, thank you for your presentation. my question is related to the african union. the country should change it after the globalization period. do you think this is used and execute by african-american countries, and how do you think this affects africa's stability because there's separation and they will use that as an

execution for separation thanks. >> anybody? >> just on the sort of the precedent question and the idea that african borders shouldn't be changed. you know, i think you need to consider the context, and early in africa's post colonial history, there was good reason for that to be a rock-solid principle. i'm not sure those reasons are as relevant now as they were decades ago, and i think you also have to balance that principle against the cpa itself which was a mon knew mental achievement that ended a war and signed by a whole host of guarantors that sets out the right to self-determination, so, you know, toy not think that the principle should stand in the

way of the will of the people of southern sudan being able to decide their future. i also think that there's one often hearing the arguments of the slippery slope, and you know, if sudan slips into what's next, how many other countries in africa? i think those arguments are overblown because i don't see other movements on the continent nearly as strong as what we see in sudan. there are some, certainly you can make a long list, but the majority are pretty active if not dormant, and i conclude by saying i went back and did a little research in the ethiopia recession in the early 90s, and you can find all the same warnings about slippery slope and this is the redrawing of the african map, and clearly that didn't happen. when we hosted the president a

few months ago, we asked a precise question on what's different in the cases negotiated by egad and endorsed and accepted by the african union, so there's an obligation on african states to accept the outcome of the referendum. >> i'll echo that. it's an interesting question no doubt given the way the borders were drawn on this continue innocent, and your question was part of the debate that was had, and i think we're glad it finished 8, 10, 12 months ago about this question with too much international focus in the course of the standard of the cpa and the course was renewed, and i think that debate should have been had five years ago when everybody signed their name to the cpa. this is the most endorsed agreement we've seen in quite some time, and no other

successionist movement including darfur or other parts of sudan have the cpa. my point going back on the cpa, this process, would have serious implications with sudan and much broader implications for africa, peacemaking, for the african union itself, and i don't know if there is a good alternative at this stage. again, the self-determination referendum is here, and well, you know, i agree with jon. i'm far less alarmist of the likelihood to large scale conflict in sudan is very unlikely, but when this question was raised, the one issue to guarantee conflict is denial of self-determination and forced unity. >> by the colonial borders, maybe i can also remind you that

southern sudan has been a different entity. they were governed by british two countries basically. they were forced into marriage in 1956. we were not one. if you look at israel and sudan basically, we are two in one, so i don't think the african union will object to that, definitely they know sudan very well. i think it is also true that david smock said what was said because we have two parties, sudanese and extortions, separation, and unity. they endorse that, so i don't think they likely jump away from this agreement that they've witnessed and helped in negotiating. >> also this question was raised a many time. the african union between the

negotiation that that at the time of declare ration of principle, and that time the people have a choice between war for 50 years to continue this principle. it went to many processes in sudan and the parliament and the people who accept it, and they went also with the union and there's a fine consensus for some time. there is also some legal issues we raise at that time, but the people have the sign on the epa and endorsed by the parliament, then it was constitution and accepted for the sudanese, and it was also to be african union

in mozambique and other leaders confirmed this. >> thank you. other questions? yes? >> i'm dodge fielding from the multitrack diplomacy. my question with regards to the role of china playing here and with the shifting realities there's, i would assume, and this is my question they are making overtures todd south. can you talk about china's role, if any, in this process? >> the role of china and the p-5 , yes, they are chinese and

invested heavily which is basically in the south, 80% of it is from the south. i can clearly say that for the last five years when we signed the agreement, china has been playing a constructive role in making sure that the two parties including the cpa, and the outcome is respected. you can see from the statements that they are releasing and also from beijing. the role is very positive, and in the south, we are very happy with their role, and we are looking forward to engage with them so that a new nation will also work with them and cause relation with the chinese, so the role is very constructive, and then we are also urging them is to help more so that we reach an agreement on the post

referendum issues because they are included in that, and we are asking egypt also to play a role because they also have invested areas that is important to help us. it is in the interest of the chinese and others to see us back to square one, and they are helping and have been attending many security counsel briefings here, well, not here, but their role have been very positive. >> jon? >> just to add, there's evidence out there to suggest that the chinese have come to grips with the likely outcome of the referendum. they've opened up a consulate in juba, the cbc large oil company largely invested in sudan opened up an office, and senior southern officials going to to beijing and vice vice versa. they see the likely

developments. >> right there? over here. >> thank you very much. david from the national and public policy group. it was discussed in passing at least the consequences that the referendum doesn't occur on time, and i was wondering the thoughts of the rest of the panel. is a delayed referendum politically feasible if the southerners are on time, or is it determined by political agreement? thank you. >> i'll go first and leave it to the experts after this. my sense is that as jon mentioned and it is given way that we see often in sudan and addresses the government citizenship rights within the economic activity and security

engagement and natural resources. i think there's certainly an option on the table in which some or all the territories succeeded to the south and certainly the acp looks for something in return. what that is remains to be seen. two other things. one is in some sense it's different on the ground than it is at the high political level, and i think the solution that satisfies national politics and leads is necessary, but insufficient. any sustainable solution has to solve the problem on the ground and has to have local buy-in for the communities, and certainly in the atmosphere today the harden positions of political leads trickled down to the community. i was there a month to month and a half ago, and one issue in the regard as an example of arms carrying and security, certainly the government of south sudan is

widely said that the no maddic people can continue their migrations into the south like they have for generations. you can tell them, but don't bring weapons. that issue has to be resolved. there's a standing issue that folks can't come across the border with weapons, and they don't feel like they have adequate scwiewrt if they do, and again, we're at a bit of a deadlock. until you find some solution to that, you have many groups coming south, and where they normally would have crossed the river and go in the south and unless you have pressure intensifying in an already tense environment, we'll let the cpa know, but it's a problem that needs addressing, or it will continue to fester. the way that's solved is local level and state level

agreements. that's happened in recent years and in some areas and hasn't happened in others, and again, now, my sense though there are others here from the area that may know better is that kind of discussion and discussion about arms carrying and about security of both people migrating and host communities isn't happening in the way that it did in the past. >> yes, there is a possibility that we might not be there in 011, and that's where the au is focusing on a political solution, and we think that the best way to settle this before they take this into their own hands because if they feel portrayed by the world, by the

south, and by the ncp, then definitely they will take this into their own hands by telling them you don't come. you come by force, and then we will be back to square one. i think the best is one to transfer or the people back to southern sudan because they were the ones transferred to the north. why would they be allowed to vote and they were not transferred? they were in the north already. i thought the people and the pca, it was written in english, not arabic or our language. the law is clear that the people who are transferred to the north, they are the ones to be asked to come back to the south, so it transferred back to the southern sudan by presidential decree as it was done in 1905 by

a restrictive order for administrative purposes to be an act of transferring back to southern sudan, and then the second option is to grant the rights so they continue to have access to grazing rights and also water, and if they are after the independent of the south, then all of these privileges they have been getting will be stopped. then we can internationalize this so that it can be a treaty, an agreement between the two parties saying that regardless of our outcome, the treaty will continue to have access to water and pasture, so this is the only solution that we can address the issue of before it is too late. i think it is very important for the world to move quickly. in a state of leaving it to the two parties, yes, they are doing a good job in the au to help us reach an agreement, but i think

this is where the u.s., the u.n., and the world should help us to avoid war. >> i think we have to differentiate between the area and the land which is our petition already decided, and between the movement of the connections in this area and crossing to the south and between the citizenship and the people living in the area. the movement of the crossing of the river and to go to the south, that is on something different. being a part of the north da fur is something different, and giving the vote for the people in the area which is identified by the petition is something

else. now, if you want to say that only the income folk should vote, that is not accepted by the whole people living in the area, so the government position is that the whole people living in the area identified in the area and not the southern part should be identified to work. now that is the discussion currently taking place. now the meeting of the negotiation in this point. who is able to vote? who have the right to vote in this area? the position of the center government is the whole people in this area they can vote, and other living in this area identified to which should vote in this. there is now negotiation going on, and those people are

committing and working together. the government and parties are getting together. now, we have an offer to the presidency, and we hope these people hold the forum should come to a solution which is acceptable to all people in this area. we have time for one more question. >> another question or comment to the challenge. for a big challenge -- [inaudible] without the peace agreement

there was nothing to happen, but it was to be imp plemented to make sure it's taking place and the presidency is a position because of the cpa. that is to be isolated. the discussions whatever the decree was to separate the two restrictive areas now when people negotiate, people talk about being as a part, but it's different. now the question, the challenging question is after the referendum, the presidency will end. the area that was decreed to be under the presidency is going to fall. we need to be addressed. go back to what my colleague had just said, do we need to say at

the international that led and the question that's left for them and that's why the community went on conference last month by saying we are portrayed by both governments and the international community and therefore we should take it in our own hands. that fundamental question needs to be asked. that decree in the two areas does that give restriction? thank you. >> well, i want to thank all of you for coming, and i want to particularly thank our panelists for doing a great job. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

recognized. a senator: i also want to add my voice in respect and recognition for the service of senator kit bond. mr. conrad: he has been a terrific colleague. and we have jostled over issues

like water policies affecting our two states, but he has also conducted himself with honor and integrity and he will be missed in this chamber. mr. president, for just a moment i also want to note the passing of richard holbrooke, a distinguished ambassador, somebody who played a key role in working on the policy toward iraq and afganistan. richard holbrooke was a giant in american diplomatic history. richard holbrooke was a friend. i actually was with him the sunday before he passed away. and was shocked to learned that he had been stricken. even more shocked to learn that he passed away on monday. richard holbrooke leaves an extraordinary legacy of working for peace and for advancing the interest of this country. richard holbrooke will be

missed. mr. president, separately, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. conrad: mr. president, i come to the floor to discuss the tax extension package before us. i support this package because it will provide, i believe, a significant boost to the economy next year. it is necessary because the alternative would be a significant tax increase on millions of middle-class families in just a matter of weeks. mr. president, i recognize that this package will increase the deficit over the next two years, but we need to distinguish between what is the right economic policy short term and

longer term. short term i don't think there is any question that this economy remains weak, unemployment stubbornly high, and that means we need to do more to provide liquidity in the short term. that does not mean that we should ignore the growing debt that is all around us. that is a longer-term challenge, but it requires our urgent attention. mr. president, we need to put together a plan this year to deal with our deficits and debt. that's what the fiscal commission was all about that senator gregg and i pushed for, which was just recently concluded its work with 11 of the 18 members endorsing a plan to reduce our debt long term by $4 trillion. mr. president, just as with that package, there are not all elements of this package with

which i agree. in fact, part of this tax package i strongly oppose. most noteliably, i am topped -- most noteably, i am opposed to those provisions that i think giveoverly generous tax reductions to the wealthiest among us in the estate tax area. but i understand that the president did what he had to do to get an agreement. this economy clearly remains in a fragile state, and we can't afford to wait until we get everything we want. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. mr. president, too often in this chamber, in this congress, people insist on having it their way or take the highway. and, unfortunately, that prevents us from doing things that are absolutely essential for the nation. mr. president, economists project that a failure to pass

this package could reduce economic growth next year by as much as 50%. that would mean millions of jo jobs, mr. president, so those who say, well, let's just scuttle this, they got to think very carefully. what is the risk to the economy of the united states? mr. president, just to review where we've come from, the federal response to the recession and the financial crisis, i believe, has successfully pulled this economy back from the brink. we were headed, i believe, for financial collapse. economic growth has returned -- not as robustly as we would have liked, but nonetheless it has returned. in the fourth quarter of 2008, levment est we forget, economic growth was 6.8%.

now it is 2.5%. that is a remarkable turnaround. the the same can be seen on the job front. in january 2009 this economy lost over 800,000 private-sector jobs in one month. the next month we lost another 700,000 jobs. the next month another 700,000. the next month almost 650,000. now we fast-forward to today, november of 2010, 50,000 jobs were created. that is a dramatic turnaround. and we can see in -- for month after month after month we you a have positive job growth. mr. president, this economy has turned in the right direction and done so in quite a dramatic way. we've also seen the rebound in the markets. the stock market hit a low of 6547 back in march 7 of 2009.

we're now well over 11 now tho. on economic growth, on job creation, on the stock market we have seen dramatic improvements. i think as a direct result of things that were quite unpopular -- the tarp prarnlg the stimulus program. mr. president, this economy still remains too weak, too fragile. unemployment stubbornly high at 9.8%. by the way, without tarp, without stimulus you the best economist -- the best economists in this country, including alan blinder and the chief economist at moody's mark zandi said, without tarp, without stimulus, unemployment today would be 15%. 8 million more people would be out of work. so, mr. president, despite some who say these haven't worked -- tarp and stimulus -- you i believe the evidence is quite clear they have worked.

so what more needs to be done? as we enter the holiday season we can't forget that one in six americans is now unemployed or underemployed. and so we must do more to create jobs. in a recent speech to the european central bank ben bernanke went about as far as he could go on the question of fiscal policy. and he urged congress to do more to help the near-term economy while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-term deficits. here's what he said: "on its current economic tra john kerry trirks the united states runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or underemployed for many years. as a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable. monetary policy is working in support of both economic recovery and price stability, but there are limits to what can be achieved by the central bank alone ... [a] fiscal program

that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits would be an important complement to the policies of the federal reserve." the chairman, i think, has it right. he is clearly saying the fed alone does not -- and their actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. congress also needs to act. it needs to act in the near term by taking steps to generate economic growth and it needs to act on the long-term challenge by putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in the medium-term and in the longer term. this package, the one before us, will ensure that middle-class taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of the year. it extends for two years all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. it -- and, by the way, by far

the most important thing for the economy is the middle-class tax cuts. that is what is critically important to the economy. the tax cuts for the high end, we could either do or not do. they're mildly stimulative, mildly stimulative, but according to c.b.o. they have pretty low bang for the buck in terms of economic growth. that's the high-end tax cuts, pretty low bang for the buck, according to the congressional budget office. this package also has expanded child tax credit and earned income tax credit for working families. the american opportunity tax credit for college expenses, the alternative minimum tax fix, otherwise millions of people would be getting a tax hike completely unintended. and the r&d tax credit and other expiring tax provisions. so, mr. president, this package, as a package, according to the best economic advice that we can get, will help economic growth,

will help job creation create as many as 2 million additional jobs in the private sector next year. the package also includes three critical measures to help the economy. it includes a payroll tax cut for working families. this will provide a two percentage point reduction in employees' social security payroll taxes. a worker with $40,000 in income would save $800. this measure is widely recognized as one of the most tbective ways to -- effective ways to boost near-term growth. in fact, i asked c.b.o. last year, what are the most effective steps we could take to promote economic growth? number one, interestingly enough, extend unemployment insurance. that's in this package. number two, a payroll tax holiday. that's in this package. in fact, as i indicated, this

package has an extension of unemployment insurance benefits at their current level for 13 months. this will prevent 7 million workers from losing unemployment in 2011. economists also rank this measure as high on bang for the buck, as i indicated. it also includes a business expensing provision allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital purchases in 2011. this is a useful incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011, and again c.b.o. rated this measure as high on bang for the buck. here are some of the examples of the tax cut benefits provided by this package. a mother with one child with $20,000 of income will receive an $1,100 tax cut. a married couple with $40,000 of income will receive a tax cut of

almost $2,000. and a married couple with two children with $60,000 of income will receive a tax cut of more than $3,300. mr. president, mark sedan -- the chief economist for moody's, former advisor to senator mccain's presidential campaign, has examined the potential economic impact of this package. here's what he concluded: "the fiscal policy compromise ... will be good for the economy next year. the planned temporary tax cuts and spending increases will provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that the still-fragile economic recovery evolves into a self-sustaining economic expansion. the deal's surprisingly broad scope meaningfully changes the near-term economic outlook." that according to mark zandi, the chief economist for moody's. mr. president, for those who are concerned about the deficit, as

i am, job one is to get this economy growing more strongly. that is job one. then we've got to pivot and deal with the long-term plan to deal with the deficits and the debt. as i noted before, the one provision in this package that i am particularly unhappy with is the estate tax provision. i support the continuation of the 2009 level with an estate tax exemption of p $3.5 million for an individual, that would be $7 million for a courages and the a rate of 45%. only .25% would be subject to any estate tax in 2011. .25% of estates would be affected. that means 99.75% of estates