question for mr. moody. you mentioned grace infant center around the corner. how many children are cared for their? >> i believe there are 13 children cared for theire. vice president goh: thank you. >> i would ask folks who are standing along the wall to please take a seat or move into the overflow room. we have to abide by fire requirements. if you have a seat next to you, please raise your hand so someone can find it. thank you very much. we will now here for mr. davis from chinese gospel church. >> good evening. my name is russell davis. i represent the chinese gospel church. in an effort to avoid repeating what is in the briefs, i would like to begin with anecdotal evidence. we as a society keep telling our kids to just say no to drugs. we do it on tv. we do it on radio. we do it on the internet, social media, facebook, etc. we need to reconcile this desire to keep kids away from drugs with the proliferation of mcds in the city and county of san francisco. printing a license in this case is inconsistent with the message we tell our kids about drugs. this

by mr. moody. i do want to say that i agree with him that reference organizations, meaning think- tank learning, grace infant day care, and others, are literally covered by the law at issue. any mcd cannot be legally permitted within 1,000 feet of these organizations. the code defines recreational buildings to include uses that provide social, fraternal, counseling, or recreational services to the community. it includes private non- commercial lodges, meeting halls, recreation buildings, or community facilities not publicly owned. without a doubt, the reference organizations primarily serve children under 18 years of age. there is no requirement in the planning code that they be state license. my client, the chinese gospel church, meets this issue. it provides social counseling and recreation gathering services to the sunset community. it is private. it is a non-commercial facility where people meet regularly. it is open to the community and not publicly owned. these facts are undisputed. they are

we will start with mr. moody. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i would like to put a few things on the overhead. i will note that there is no exception to the ordinance about 1,000 feet based on access problems. if there is an access problem, you throw it out the window. that is not true. what we have here are the travel times to the four closest and cds -- mcds. by muni, the longest is 28. these are not that far away. there are 23 medical cannabis dispensaries in this town. oakland has four. as we have noted, there is free delivery available everywhere. sticking with the overhead, there are questions about how near schools are to the site. lincoln high school is 0.75 miles away. they do not have graced infant on this, but let us credit it. you have dianne feinstein at 0.57. you have abraham lincoln and 0.7. you have since cecilia's at one. 07. -- at 1.07. this is an education dense corridor. i am deeply offended by the way that planning is continually changing the rationale for why this is ok. and want you to look at the report, where they say c

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 su

mr. zandi of moody's, mr. pwraoeurpbd of princeton -- blinder of princeton and mr. taylor of the taylor rule. they all have said without exception, do not raise taxes in this kpheurbgs and -- this economy. and those persons who might be making higher incomes most likely are people who have the most employees and they could pay for that by reducing employees. i would also cite him to mr. peter orszag, president obama's own former budget director. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: i yield the floor to my colleague from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, sometimes we selectively around here like certain testimony and dislike other testimony. my friend from alabama is so proud of mr. zandi. i think it's important we put on the record what else mr. zandi said. mr. zandi said that if we hadn't passed the stimulus, we would have a depression. so, now, i hear the other side saying that there was nothing worse than the stimulus. mr. zandi said if

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 su

mr. zandi from moody's, someone from princeton and john taylor of the taylor rule -- the violation of his rule by mr. bernanke, i believe, was a significant factor in the bubble in housing. but mr. taylor was a republican witness. all three said don't raise taxes now in this economy. so it is owe fennive to me a bit to have my colleagues stand up -- so it is offensive to me in a bit to have my colleagues stand up in a demagogic way to say you are trying to give a tax benefit, a bonus to millionaires. i don't believe that's accurate. these three premier economists, two of them called by the democratic majority, said, don't raise taxes because there has -- senator alexander, do you think these economists were saying this because they want to help millionaires? or do you think they were making that opinion because they believe it would be best for the economy and help more americans who are out of work get work? mr. alexander: i am assuming the senator from barack obama still has the floor. -- the senator from alabama still has the floor. i agree with his answer. in answer to the question th

mr. president, just this morning -- this is what moody, one of the ratings agencies, said. "unless there are offsetting measures" -- that means spending cuts "the package will be credit negative for the u.s. and increase the likelihood of a negative outlook on the u.s. government's aaa rating during the next two years." in common language, what does this say in this says we're becoming a bigger risk and it's threatening our aaa rating, which means, if this rating goes down, we pay higher interest rates. if you're more of a risk, just like an individual, if you are more of a risk, when you borrow money, you pay a higher interest rate. this number here, if that aaa rating -- this is based hon a aaa rating. niece numbers get much worse if we lose our aaa rating. so, mr. president, the bill that we have before us, we should have sent a message while we were continuing the current tax rates, we should have, if we wanted to do the unemployment benefits, which i believe we should have extended, we should have done that with spending cuts in other places. senator coburn has a packa

mk fed and the chief economist at moody's, mark sandy, saidut without t.a.r.p., without stimulus today would be 15%.8 8 million more people would beo. out of work.o say mr. president, despite some who say these have it with t.a.r.p.v and stimulus, i believe the evidence is quite clear theyeore have worked, but more needs to y be done. as we enter the holiday season, can't forget that one in six americans is now unemployed orm. underemployed. creat and so, we must do more to create jobs. in a recent speech to the european central bank, federal reserve chairman bernanke wentre about as far as he could go on e the question of fiscal policy. and he urged congress to do more stepelp the near-term economy, while at the same time taking steps to bring down long-termhe deficit. here's what he said. thenited on its current economic trajectory, the united states runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or many underemployed for many years. as a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable. bothe monetary policy is written in support of both economic stabili recovery and price stability. the day our limit to what can be achieved by the central b