vote:

vote:

votvote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or

change their vote? hearing none, on this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 15. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the reid and mcconnell amendment number 4727 and the motion to concur with respect to the house message on h.r. 4853 be modified with the technical change which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, december 14, at 11:30 a.m. senator bond be recognized for up to 20 minutes to make his farewell address to the senate, that at 3:15 p.m. senator harkin be recognized to speak up to 45 minutes and senator kirk be recognized at 5:00 p.m. to make his maiden

speech in the senate. any time utilized be charged under rule 22. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 628 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 628, an act to establish a pilot program in certain united states district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged. and the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that a leahy amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 679, s. 2902. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number

679, a bill to improve the federal acquisition institute. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the committee reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider laid on the table, and any bills relating be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 638, s. 3447. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 638, s. 3447, a bill to amend title 38 united states code to improve educational assistance for veterans who served in the armed forces after september 11, 2001, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the committee reported stao*ut substitute amendment be considered and an akaka amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the budgetary paygo

statement be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask a budgetary paygo statement be read. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. conrad: this is a statement of budgetary effects of paygo legislation for s. 3447 as amended. total budgetary effects of s. 3447 for the five-year statutory paygo score card net decrease in the deficit of $1 million. total budgetary effects of s. 3447 for the ten-year statutory paygo score card net decrease in the deficit of $734 million. also submitted for the record as part of the statement is a table prepared by the congressional budget office which provides additional information on budgetary effects of this act. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent the bill be passed and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to

the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6278 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6278, an act to amend the national children's island act of 1995 to expand allowable uses for cayman and her tan islands by the district of columbia and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with tpho*ef intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i understand s. 4023 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 4023, a bill to provide for the repeal of the department of defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces known as don't ask,

don't tell. mr. durbin: i would object to further proceedings with respect to the bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar number under rule 14. mr. durbin: thank you. i need to correct an earlier consent where i stated amendment number 4727. the correct amendment number is 4753 for the reid-mcconnell amendment. with that statement, i had asked for unanimous consent not withstanding rule 22 the reid-mcconnell amendment which should have read number 4753 and the motion to concur with respect to house message h.r. 4853 be modified with technical change which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, december 14, that following the prayer and pledge of allegiance, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be

reserved for their use later in the day and following any leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the motion to concur with respect to h.r. 4853, the vehicle for the tax compromise postcloture. further i ask that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons and the time during any period of morning business recess or adjournment count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the postcloture debate time will expire around midnight tomorrow night. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned u

>> white house press secretary robert gibbs today fielded questions on a federal judge's ruling that the individual mandate part of president obama's health care lock is

unconstitutional. other topics include tax cuts and the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. this is about 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> the umbrella is -- the umbrella is better force democracy. it's an interesting -- [inaudible] for the tourists who follow that direction. mr. fowler. i picked the umbrella and i'll leave the crickets alone. go ahead, sir. >> two topics. on the health care ruling, the passage in which the judge says

that the unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limit suggestion by the minimum coverage provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal powers. and this is not about -- just about health care, but it's about individual right to choose to participate. doesn't this indicate or validate a central argument of skeptics, which is that despite your intentions you can't require people to participate a lot like this? >> well, in a couple of port things for perspective, then. first and foremost, obviously the administration argued on the other side and i do think it's important to keep some good about the fact that there are now 20 or so cases making their way through federal courts. the court -- this was the eastern district of virginia. 115 miles away, the western district court of virginia ruled that november 30th, to uphold

the same provision that the eastern district and its judge had ruled against. so i think the other court, the eastern district of michigan on october 7th ruled in favor of the law as it was passed. so i -- again, we disagree with the ruling. obviously, the individual responsibility be portions of the affordable camera are the basis and the foundation for examining and doing away with insurance company discrimination on behalf of preexisting condition. obviously, without individual responsibility portion of the low, you could not -- you could not find yourself dealing with

preexisting conditions because the only people who would likely get involved in pursuing health care would be that very sick. and i briefly, that would be enormously expensive. >> given that it is so fundamental to the whole lot any of these different court rulings, is that clear to you that this is going to go to the supreme court? >> i am not a legal scholar, ben. i think that it is safe to say because there is several other cases in the pipeline and because you've got disparate corporal aimed 115 miles away, that the bill will continue to have its day in court. i do think it is important that even this judge ruled that the bill continues to move forward in terms of its implementation. and obviously, the individual responsibility ethics of this legislation were to go into effect until 2014, so they sometimes work this through.

>> just wrap up this part, what gives the weight of companies that ultimately will prevail if this case continues to go to the attached >> again, i think -- i am certainly not, ben, a lawyer in terms of the legal arguments that underpin each of the priests. but i would say challenges like this are nothing new in terms of laws that have come before the courts in the past in which -- in which our position as prevail. work confident that it is constitutional. and quite frankly, the three corset render decisions on this decision, to uphold our favor. >> democrats in the house are talking of targeting the estate tax provisions that they're unhappy with and maybe dealing with added an amendment or legislatively changing the language. as the white house urging those democrats not to do that if that could cause the whole deal to

unravel? >> obviously, ben, the senate is going to vote on -- on a procedural vote that little bit later on this afternoon. i think the president is encouraged by what we here in the senate and believe that the legislation will pass that hurdle and the one important step closer to passage. in terms of -- i'm not going to get involved in sort of what the amendment process might be in the house at this point. i think you have seen whether it was in here on friday with former president clinton or whether you have seen justice morning that this is something that has broad bipartisan support in the public. it's an excellent -- it's a good agreement. it's an excellent agreement on behalf of millions of americans who will see their taxes go up. those that are impacted in

having lost a job in this recession will have the security of knowing that their unemployment benefits won't follow the link to politics. in the middle class will enjoy a significant tax cut in the payroll tax portions of this bill. so we are encouraged that we get closer and closer each day to having this agreement become law. >> can you talk about the initial reaction to the health care ruling? were you surprised by a? and how concerned are you about the fact that their are a lot of other lawsuits out there? >> again, this is the third federal -- this is the third federal court that is rendered a decision on this portion of the affordable care. and two of those courts have upheld it. so i think we are confident that the affordable care act to move the appellate.

>> is the next best for you? >> you know, the department of justice will have to make decisions about appealing this particular case. my sense is that that appeal decision is something the likely make, but i would point you over to them. >> and just a question -- larry summers gave a farewell speech today at a think tank, and i'm just wondering how the decision-making is going on his replacement. do you still have to do that before the end of the year? >> you know, look, i would say that it is -- i am not sure that that is going to get done by the end of the year. obviously, a whole host of legislative -- lots of legislative work around the lame duck with a budget, taxes, start, "don't ask, don't tell," the dream act. there are a whole host of things

that have taken up a bunch of bandwidth and a bunch of time and it's unclear to me whether that will get done before the end of the year. jake. >> it appears that one of the main reasons why the judge will decide -- ruled that congress exceeded its constitutional power is because for what i can only imagine were political reasons, the word tax in terms of the penalty for those who don't have insurance, who can afford it, was replaced by the word penalty. and he said because the legislators who drafted -- >> let me -- i have been getting ready for this. i've not had a chance to read that and ignore folks and you are taking a look at it as well as the department of justice. i don't have a direct response to the judges, some of the individual reasoning mean i've got to have an opportunity to look at it. >> i mean, this is how it is. >> i'm not doubting what you're reading.

i'm just saying i've not had a chance to read it or have a chance to talk to counsel here about how they take care. >> all right, well, the question would be, was in retrospect a mistake to change the terminology from -- i understand you're not ready to answer right now. maybe get back to me. >> i need sometime to have somebody take a look at it. >> can you get back to me on that point, though? >> i'll see whether they can, yes. >> you keep talking about two other cases where the judge ruled otherwise. and those, it's my understanding that those were democratic appointed judges and in this case by republicans. his politics playing into any of this? >> i., dan, don't know the answer to that. the judges clearly make different decisions based on different points of reasoning. i think our belief is that the health care act will go forward

and that it is constitutional, that it improves people's lives and particularly this is the basis that it said, of the provision that allows us to finally address the lingering discrimination against those who have a preexisting condition. it also, by the way, you know, your health care, my health care, everybody has health care in this room pays the uncompensated -- the cost for the uncompensated care when somebody doesn't have health insurance, gets into a car accident, becomes thick and then they're going to the.ear to the emergency room or because of the seriousness of their illness and not having regular backups or primary care. all of that is -- that is paid

for by you and me. we seek to address that in the affordable care act. that's why i think the progress we've made in offering tax credits for those to afford to be able to have a minimum set of health care -- a minimum standard of health care that allows us not to pay for their health care in that sense, the health care that they need. >> can you tell us what the president's reaction was? >> i have not seen the president since the ruling. >> is there any annoyance at all, the signature item for the president and for this white house continues to be challenged, something the president says is critical for all americans, yet he continues to be challenged in a court? >> again, i can't speak to the motives that -- it would appeal only spaces -- i don't remember quite the coverage when both

courts upheld the law, but that is just from the cheap seats. well, you do mention sometimes when planes land safely, there is not breaking. >> can i take a crack at a question? >> you can try. you're sort of like the district court. one court ruled -- go ahead. >> the congress is about -- that wasn't about to take office in january is much more predisposed to oppose the health care law. do you worry about this one politically will help provide momentum for either starvation of the health care law through lack of funding for stronger action against the health care law? do you think this politically will be ammunition? >> i don't because i think the position that is held by those who seek to repeal the law i think has been their position both in the courts ruled against

their position and when courts rule in a way that upholds their larger position. so i don't think that impacts it. i think it is important when you hold these provisions back or when you these provisions, that the impact of that is, as i said, if you are somebody that cannot get health care because of preexisting conditions, to guarantee that when this is fully implemented in 2014, they go beyond what do that. that's a no win like this and i think that's important for everyone to understand. >> thanks, robert. given the signal that henry hudson has said in previous writings on this back in october, for example, which are then surprised if he had done anything other than what he did? >> within, i don't think this was the decision today was how he decided it was a surprise to

anybody. >> are not a legal scholar and i'll accept that. but anyway, the president is -- >> i didn't go to law school like you did, chip. that is worked out so well, you are here in the front row of the briefing. [laughter] >> sedan as well. i hear the theme music to l.a. law. [laughter] >> but the president was a legal scholar and still -- and he said you haven't talked to him since he came down. does he get personally involved in the arguments? >> not that i'm aware of with justice. obviously in a regular meetings with them, white house counsel bob bauer will update in -- will update him on where different

courts are, you know, not long ago and turned those the western district of virginia. that was something we covered. i don't honestly remember and i can go back and ask and see whether or not he has read. >> as he put in his 2 cents and make suggestions -- >> i'll take that question. not that comes to my memory, but let me go flush that out. >> i don't think this is an accurate word we stand on start and is tell the president's position that is going to stay here until it's done? >> yes, to the second question. i think quite frankly, i think it's probably one of the next couple of pieces of business that the senate will move to, not long after -- not long after the procedural votes and then obviously it's unclear yet the

number of hours of debate after the procedural vote today, before the senate takes up for final passage of the tax agreement. but i think fairly soon after, the senate will move to the debate on start ratification. our belief is, as you've seen a number of republican senators come out that this is a treaty that will -- that has the votes to pass the senate. and i believe will pass the senate before congress goes home for the holidays. >> will he stay here until christmas eve or beyond if necessary? >> is that what it takes. >> read it until new year's eve about what it takes? >> i think the president is hopeful to spend a little time with family and friends in hawaii, but if the congress is here the president will be here.

>> sound like any chance of getting out this weekend is -- >> i think you've got a few extra days to pull together those christmas presents that she put off buying. i think obviously there's a decent amount still left that getting out of here friday or saturday is probably not the day i'd pick in the pool. >> dunwoody also stay until "don't ask, don't tell" is -- >> honestly, i think the president will be in washington and in the white house as long as congress and is in session. >> anything on the bonar interview last night? >> i only saw some clips of it, so i don't have anything on it. i wasn't going to talk about -- >> does the -- >> again, mike i'm not a lawyer. i think we look at it as a

basis -- we look at the basis by which we can address important interviews, like the discrimination of those with a preexisting condition. we look at it as how you deal with uncompensated care as a result of people going to the emergency room and everyone's health insurance going up as a result. >> is one of the legal arguments against congress' ability to issue tax. >> again, i have not, as i said to jacob not have an opportunity to speak on the merits of some of what the house rule. >> ceos are coming to me what the president on wednesday. can you talk a little bit about what is hoping to accomplish in that meeting? >> i think the president has over the last several years, over the last two years at fairly regular intervals had ceos in for meetings,

discussions, for lunch as. over the past few weeks, the president has met with what i think you would consider economists on the left, economists on the right. he has and will have an occasion to have similar meetings with labor and discuss a whole range of ideas that are out there in terms of continuing our fragile economic recovery. and i think if you look at, you know, something like south korea free trade agreements, i think it's an issue. there are clearly issues that congress is going to deal with in the administration is going to deal with, where -- where we share the opinions of those in businesses on how to expand our

economy, how to create jobs and how to keep things going. >> mr. donohue from the chamber of commerce in an interview with fox on friday suggested that the relationship with the business community is seeing signs of improvement. do you have reaction to that because obviously there've been intense times between the administration and the chamber of commerce. >> will look, i think whether it's -- i mean, obviously one of the biggest proponents of the korea free trade agreement with the chamber of commerce. i think that whether as individuals at the chamber, whether members of the chamber, whether it's the ceos that are members of the chamber are belong to other organizations, and again, i think there are a series of issues that are important to the business community, that are important to getting the economy moving again. i think those are issues the

president is eager to work on. >> just to follow up on the administration is taking a legal position in its papers that the authority for the individual mandate lies and the power to tax. is that inconsistent with your political arguments that health care reform will not raise taxes on the middle class? >> no. >> how so? >> again, i think it is the basis for -- i guess we do you presume that you pay a tax rate on your health care for -- would you consider that thousand dollars that you pay as part of your health care attacks because somebody who does not have the health care is paid for by you? >> now, but i'm not paying it to the government. >> now come your payment to the insurance company. >> the administration states that the individual mandate and the fees raised, the penalty can't constitute a tax. >> you went to law school, not me. i -- we think, and based on the rulings of the other two courts

and the belief of this administration that the law will be upheld. >> you just a couple minutes ago when dan asked, you said you did not politics motivated judge hudson's decision. you've also set to chip you weren't surprised by the result. just to clarify, some democrats are saying this is the case of judicial activism -- >> again, chip mentioned there were earlier writings that but most people to believe this is the way that you would make her do so again i don't -- >> you're not signing onto democrats who are saying this is the case of judicial activism by a bush appointee? ..

>> on the text deal, the pew center found that there was support for the tax compromise fairly evenly distributed with democrats likely to support that. >> do you think that is a sign, does the white house believe that liberal democrats in washington is not reflective of how democrats in the country feel about it? >> look, i think whether you -- we send out the statements from a number of people across the country that represents democrats, republicans and

independents -- mayors, governors, governors elect. you heard from in this room former president bill clinton. i think the notion that the view of some in congress is on olympic to the viewpoint of every person in the party. i didn't think that then. i am not surprised by the polling that shows that a vast majority of people don't want to see their taxes go up at the end of the year. >> so do you think the protest, very loud protests, in fact so loud that they put passage in the house and some doubt, what's behind that if it's not reflective of how people really feel? is it just politics? >> again laura i think that is a question for them. i understand that people are frustrated that as a result of whole series of things, we find ourselves having to make an

agreement that contains things that the president finds less than satisfactory. that is the nature of how this place works. but again, i didn't think last week that it was the monolithic viewpoint of every person in the party or every person even in the progressive wing of the party. >> you robert, is the administration inclined to seek an expedited supreme court ruling on this health care matter? >> mark, again i think i would leave that to the department of justice who will make some legal decisions on that. >> on tax cuts why is the president doing this many media blitz that has to do with 14th tb patients? >> i think the president is looking for more ways than more

opportunities to talk to the american people about what he thinks is important and what is good in this agreement and i said this a lot last week and i start this week i saying it again, and that is if you look at the individual components of this agreement, they make sense economically. we are, by preserving the rate for middle-class taxpayers, providing them certainty and not having their taxes go up at the end of the year. we are taking the politics out of unemployment insurance for the 2 million people that would stand to lose those benefits this year and millions more next year that could see those benefits threaten. the payroll tax cut is important for middle-class families. is obviously a tax that -- you pay taxes on social security up to $106,800 of your income. by reducing the amount that an employee is required to pay into

that, that is money that is going to come into -- that money will be in the pockets of those middle-class families. this make sense for the economy. it contains things that the president doesn't like, but it contains much more of what we think is necessary and what we like then there is to dislike. >> how did you choose the city sets get the interviews? >> i know you are not a lawyer. laughter. >> i am a good hard thrower. look, truthfully we picked a few markets around the country that represents the geographic diversity, the south, the midwest, the west. we had animated discussions with scheduling. i would like to do 14, not for. so i think it is a good opportunity to talk to the american people.

>> who said he wanted -- he said he wanted to do 14, not for? to follow up on that were they in districts where they are our members who are undecided? >> i've not heard any discussion about that so --. >> i'd like to shift to the afghan review. that's coming up i believe this week. with the outline, what's the plan? >> the president's regular monthly afpak review meeting will be tuesday, tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. as is scheduled now in the situation room. that will have the people that you are used to seeing at that meeting. the president will make a statement on thursday and we will have -- there will be a public release for the december review. that will happen on thursday. >> of the document?

>> of the document. and i think it is our hope that after that we will have in here, schedule permitting, secretary gaetz and secretary clinton and others to take some questions on the review. >> and should we expect any broad changes in policy? >> i don't want to get ahead of all the meetings. i think we are, as you have heard the president say on this most recent trip to afghanistan, i think we are seeing some progress. we still have -- and i think you know many of them -- we have many challenges in both security and governance. we have, well, we have progress and we have challenges.

that is something that is talked much about when we go into these meetings in the situation room. obviously there will be another meeting before the review is released so i don't want to get ahead of where we are on that but i think the president feels confident that we are on track on where we should be and that we can certainly meet our commitments to begin a condition drawdown of our forces next july. >> just to be clear, he'll get the review tomorrow? you'll see the review tomorrow? >> he has been -- there are different aspects of and traps of this, some of which he has seen. tomorrow obviously is the normal meeting that generally takes about an hour and a half to two hours. obviously some part of that will be based on the review in some part of that will go through in his briefing some of what has

been talked about both in the review and in the weekly memos that he kept from commanders and ambassadors. >> so, i'm sorry, will there be a meeting that's just focused on the review or is that tomorrow? >> there have been a number of those. it will be covered in tomorrow's meeting. >> is there any reaction to the comments from president karzai in the "washington post" today? >> i've not talked to anybody about that. >> and as the house democrats talk about what they want to change in the tax deal are geithner. lew: and vice president biden an active part of those discussions as they were in the initial conference with republicans and democrats? >> i think a number of people are having discussions with members of congress. the president is having discussions with members of congress so i think that subset of people was likely involved as well as others. >> but it's not as though it's

round two of negotiations with regular meetings on the hill. >> and then about the health care fight when you have got a full plate of things that you want to astound us in the next two years how much of a distraction is it to have to keep litigating your major fight from the last two years at the same time? >> well, again, people challenging the constitutionality of different laws is nothing new and nothing that is unexpected. >> just a quick one on the health care ruling. you said that you remain confident that the law will be upheld but a judge has just ruled against the administration appointed by republican, the two who were ruled the demonstration were appointed by democrats. how can you stay confident when this could end up in front of the robert supreme court? >> i think we have a good argument. i think the merits of the case are strong and i think it is

constitutionality will be upheld >> robert? two aspects on the tax. for the house democrats who have said they cannot vote for the language as it's currently in the senate, has anybody in recent days brought the president language particularly on the estate tax some kind of changes in language that might be proposed on the house side that could still work on the senate? >> again the president talked with members and heard their concerns but i do not know -- i don't know of anything that would fit the requirement that you just said about language for both. >> are there some changes being kicked around or at least run by the white house? >> i think the biggest changes that we have seen in the agreement are the addition of the energy credits for production and that is the basis by which the legislation is written that will be voted on by the senate.

>> and on the senate vote this afternoon, what will you take from that? a measure of what? of strength or of where people are? >> look i think this will give you a sense of where people are in the overall agreement. i think, again, i think if you look at -- i think there is broad bipartisan support in the senate for this. i think there is clearly broad bipartisan support throughout the country, and i think and believe that will be reflected in the votes that the senate make. >> thanks robert. as you look at what's achievable and the rest of the lame-duck session, where does the d.r.e.a.m. act and "don't ask don't tell" sort of come into play? how is the president going to prioritize those? >> peter, there is not a list of one, two, three, four. there is a series of things that i think the president believes are important and can be done this year.

i think the senate is likely to move to not long after taxes to the s.t.a.r.t. ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. "don't ask don't tell" and dream along with government funding are all issues that are likely to come after that. >> very much alive? >> absolutely. >> is there anything else? >> can i ask a follow-up? >> let me come around. there is judicial confirmations. there is senate confirmations. this is not an exhaustive list. >> robert, to questions. there's a considerable likelihood here on this tax vote that speaker pelosi is going to vote no. it is really going to be the first example i can think of on a major legislative initiative where the president and her have been at variance. how does he feel about that and what does it say about the

respective directions they are moving in? >> glenn, have not spoken to the president about that. i've not heard heard it come about both counts in the house. i think obviously the first procedural hurdle will be encountered this afternoon in the senate and i think that is where a decent amount of our energy has been directed. again as i said, the president has reached out and talk to individual members of congress and look, i think each is going to have to evaluate what they feel is -- or how they feel about the agreement and whether they think it is important for the economy. >> is he actively trying to convince her or vice versa to deal with this differently? i mean are there ongoing conversations between the two of them? >> i don't know when the last time they spoke, can check on that. >> what were his thoughts to the bernie sanders lengthy filibuster on friday? >> i haven't talked to him about that. >> there was a sense there were

going to be some personnel announcements and some various moves higher to christmas prior to the end of the year. you are now telling us that nec is not likely to be announced until the beginning of the year. >> i think because of the volume of the work that has been done in the lame-duck, but most of it is going to get pushed over. sam, let me address just tangentially what you said about sanders. i think the president will be the first to agree that there are aspects of this that he doesn't like and i've said it before and he has said it before. our preferred method was to make permanent the tax cuts for the middle-class. the votes weren't there on the senate to do that. and rather than threaten our economic recovery, the president believes that this bipartisan agreement was the best way to

go. and he respects and he understands the frustration of those that have a different viewpoint on the agreement. i think at the same time, he believes that it is important for our economy, it's important for middle-class families and important to get done. yes, sir. >> robert just to be clear on "don't ask don't tell" will the president direct the senate to stay in session longer for this week if work on repealing that laws and finished by the end of this we? >> again, i think the senate is going to be in longer than this weekend i think there's no doubt that based on the votes last week it is clear that a majority of the senate supports the president's position of doing away with don't ask don't tell, repealing that. and certainly our hope is that the senate will take this up again and it will see this done by the time the year and.

>> can i follow-up on that? new litigation was filed in court today challenging the concert touche malady of of "don't ask don't tell." what does the president have to say to opponents of that love who feel they need to pursue litigation to get that off the books? >> i think the president would say the same thing that i have said in the same thing that secretary gaetz has said. one of the two entities, either congress or the courts, is going to repeal or do away with "don't ask don't tell." the best way to do it would be to do it through congress and the house has passed that legislation and it is clear that well more than a majority have, well above the majority of u.s. senators believe that is the case as well and i believe that, you think we are closer than we have ever been to making a repeal a reality. >> a slightly different take on this question. the president has pledged to

stay in town himself until s.t.a.r.t. is done. what he pledged to stay in town until "don't ask don't tell" is done? >> let me be clear. if s.t.a.r.t. it's dumb, the president and congress is here. the president is not leaving. i said earlier that the president will be here as long as congress is here. >> i thought he pledged pacific leave though to stay in town until s.t.a.r.t. was done. >> no, i think that we always envisioned that if the congress was here, the president would be here. there is a whole host of important things beyond the tax agreement and s.t.a.r.t., don't "don't ask don't tell" being one of them, that the president believes that can be dealt with before congress leaves town. >> at the legislative effort fails, there are other options on the table? i mean this is a distinct possibility now. >> well, should say this i think it is a distinct possibility that "don't ask don't tell" will be repealed by the end of this year and that is where our

effort is focus. >> robert, the american legion opposes legislation that would open up --. >> i have three quick ones. >> can you come back to me robert? >> go ahead. tommy passed do you. go ahead. i will come back. i will come back. >> your name is tommy. >> the american legion opposes legislation that would offer up to 2.1 million illegal aliens amnesty by meeting educational or military requirements and my first of two questions, will the president defy the legion on this or try some sort of compromise? >> well, think the president understands the viewpoint of the legion but also is getting advice from military commanders and from those at the department of defense right now that the legislation is important and believes it should be past.

>> what is the white house reaction to what both fox and cbs reported as a ralph nader statement, including, and this is a quote, it is not my quote virchow. >> i bet it's not. >> the president has no fixed principles. he is opportunistic. he is a con man. i have no use for him. what is your reaction to that? they both reported it. >> well, we have had that discussion about what people report and what is true. right, lester? >> are you claiming it is not true? >> i don't know when the last time i talk talked to ralph nader was. i don't have any specific comment to that. i think the president, the president's viewpoint on this lester is that we have to make decisions each and every day and he makes decisions every day on what's in the best interest of the american people and of this country. tommy.

>> thank you robert and thank you, les. i have three questions. first one last week during his comments keith olbermann compare the presidents tax compromise to nazi appeasement and i wanted to see if you had a reaction to that? >> i doubt the president heard that. i obviously have given a number of answers that would denote that we think it's a good agreement and i would say this to democrats or republicans. i think whenever you compare anything to what the nazi's did, if you ever get to that point in your speech, stop, because nothing does. and hopefully, god willing, nothing ever will. >> fair enough. over the weekend, sarah palin was visiting haiti. she told reporters that she thought anyone who is considering freezing aid to haiti should go down there and visit first. i think she was referring to a

statement by senator leahy. does the white house have a position on that, and freezing aid? >> let me look at what the statement was and whether or not there is some reasoning. obviously our response to the earthquake in haiti was and has been befitting a disaster of that magnitude and our responses have been at the forefront of all the international responses on this. >> so you are not aware of senator leahy's, and? >> i have not seen it. >> finally, i did have three. [laughter] do you have a reaction to the bill sammon, "fox news" memo? >> no, i don't. >> you don't have a comment on a "fox news" memo? come on. >> no, i don't. thanks guys. [laughter]

[inaudible conversations] speeding our marks from former cia your michael hayden. he gets his outlook on future terrorist attacks. this is about 35 minutes. >> it is my great pleasure to introduce general michael hayden why don't we go ahead. >> thank you everyone for staying until the final word of the day which will be given by general michael hayden. he really deserved orchard action. is a former director of the central intelligence agency where he was responsible for overseeing the collection and information and capabilities of america's adversaries that

produced timely analysis and conducting covert operations to thwart terrorists such as the groups we have talked about today. i am going to turn the floor over to him and he needs no further introduction and we have waited his final concluding remarks and observations about today's event. it is a great pleasure to have general hayden here today. thank you, sir. [applause] >> good afternoon and thank you somewhat for the opportunity to be part of really what is a very impressive gathering put on by a highly regarded institution. i regret that i have not been able to be here all day, but i have had access to some of the slides that presenters have shown you, and some notes that the presenters have prepared prior to the presentation, so i have a reasonably good idea of kind of the general flow of the conversation. but i regret that i haven't been

here to hear the detailed flow of the conversation. knowing what i know about what has been discussed here today, if i could step back and look at it through the lens i bring to it and try to characterize the massive data in which you have been exposed that put a template on it, it is more comfortable for me coming from my own background. i i've got two templates i would like to share with you. one is, comes from my army brother and i'm a career air force officer but my brother talks about the close battle in the deep battle. obviously the close battle being sought at the small unit level, you have got troops in contact and in essence you have got fighting going on. where the deep battle, according to american military doctrine is by far the most important battle that is the battle that you want to shape. success in the deep battle

create circumstances under which the close battle was fought, tomorrow or the day after our next week. in terms of what it is you have discussed today, the close battle is what we and our allies and friends are doing to prevent people who are committed to killing us from killing us and our citizens. the deep battle is about the production rate of those people who might intend to kill us and our citizens. in my sense, an awful lot of our current energy, and some may criticize and judge too much of our current energy has been placed on the close fight. somewhat at the expense of the deep fight. the challenge with the deep fight and the production rate of those who would willis harm, is that our levers to influence are far less powerful than our levers to influence the close

fight. it is one thing for those three letter agencies around town, cia, fbi and so want to somewhat excel at relatively immediate defense. it is quite another thing for a western nation to the fact cultural, philosophical even theological developments in other parts of the world. the second template i would share with you is one that i picked up from my good friend hank crompton. hankin his government career as conde rice as ambassador at large for terrorism, prior to that he was a cia case officer, one of our very first officers into afghanistan after 9/11. hank talks about again putting another template on things you have discussed here today, not the way of organizing the data. hank talks about the three things you need to deal with in order to deal with our current

challenge is leadership, safe haven and conditions. and again echoing my comment from the first tranche, the first template i think we are doing reasonably well against leadership. and next record but some progress with regard to safe havens, but again that other elements, the conditions, or from the other template the deep battle, much more difficult for us to handle. now i have thought a lot about characterizing from my own point of view what do you have discussed over the past six plus hours, what can i do in terms of value-added through my lens here? i have been asked to talk for about 15 minutes and then to respond to questions for at least an equal amount of time and i will do that, but i would like to impart one message i

think is important to you and at least i am not aware it has yet been focused on during your afternoon discussion. it is through my lens, through my life experience is an arguably less scholarly than the things you have been discussing. probably more operational than some of the things you have been discussing and i have to tell you probably more present tense than some of the things you have been discussing and i have to tell you my last job in government as director of cia was the most present tense i have ever had in my life. you are focused on the here and now. prominent in the community of which i was apart for so long, prominent so strongly in the american security and intelligence community is kind of a recalibration of how we are currently preceding the threat and again here i am more talking about the close fight rather than the deep fight. what it is i'm about to describe for you i think is generally

held and i believe strongly personally and has operational strategic and policy implications. because, and i really mean is, because of the surprising continuity, the powerful continuity between the 43rd in the 44th president of the united united states when it comes to fighting this war on terror, we actually think we have been reasonably successful and if you bear with me, if there is there is a whiteboard appear or geographics i would be projecting things appear but you will have to help me make hand puppets so to speak as i described this. if this is the level of american and allied efforts and again in that close fight, most of the spectacular attacks with which we are all familiar, 9/11, the world trade center, butch inca, the attempted plot against

airliners a decade ago, east africa, embassy bombings, the attempted plot from great written in the summer of 2006 over the atlantic, hydrogen peroxide and so on. we actually have some level of confidence that we can be successful of here. i am an intelligence officer. one word we never use is never. so i'm not saying these attacks are impossible. i am just saying we have gotten reasonably good at detecting these. these are complex. they are relatively slow-moving. they have multiple threads and they have got a planning thread. they have a training thread, a finance thread, a forgery thread and we are good enough at this now that our security service is here and our allied nations. we discovered one another those threats and pretty soon we have

a furball and we have got a pretty good idea what this plot is. i came into cia the last few days of may of 2006 and the first thing i was briefed on was the atlantic airliner plot that was then being hatched, then being born in great written. again, don't want to overstate this. on the part of the intelligence officers -- a very bad thing. but we were all over that plot. we had great knowledge about that plot. in fact, the only issue i can recall during the summer of 2006 was between ourselves and our british allies as to when they were going to arrest the people but the americans wanting to have the arrest relatively soon and the british for laundry smart -- enforcement reasons building up the strongest possible case for alternate appearance before a court. okay, so feeling fairly

confident about what has been historically the preferred al qaeda attack, the large complex attack against an iconic target designed to create mass casualties. now look what has happened in the last 12 to 18 months. let's take christmas of last year. umar farouk abdulmutallab. and al qaeda franchise, against us by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, monitored against us from yemen. when i was director of the cia i would facet lycée to large audiences and small, private and public, classified and unclassified, every known threat to the american homeland has threats that take a batch of the tribal region of pakistan. this attack did not. this attack was hatched by a franchise. that is different than what we saw up here.

think back where some of you may have been particularly the americans in the audience, two plus years ago on thanksgiving e.. i was in my new house in mclean. i was chopping up salary for the thanksgiving stuffing. i had the tv on and what did i see? i saw hotels ablaze in mumbai. recalled the incident, recall the scene. it was bad in and of itself in its own right it was bad. was tragic but beyond that in terms of my professional decided to human suffering, i had a deep and great concern in my professional purse on on the. this was a very high impact attack that was conducted against a major metropolitan and commercial area by about a dozen folks with automatic weapons and cell phones. almost immediately after the attack we began talking in the cia about al qaeda going to school on mumbai and frankly i

think they have. if you look at the press coverage, about three to seven weeks ago when we thought something was going to happen and europe, recall that? do you recall how they describe it? mumbai-style attacks is how we all kind of slipped into the commentary. alright, so from a franchise, a little threshold, now walk with me into times square last april. where we have a naturalized american citizen, self radicalized, attempting to set off an improvised explosive device in a major american metropolitan area. self radicalized and you can throw major has gone from fort hood into that same mix. so we have got franchises now, lower threshold attacks, self

radicalized individuals. secretary napolitano is trying to describe this. these were my words not hers but i think it came capturing what it is she is trying to say. in the future it is far more likely, remember these, never impossible but now we are worried down here, the al qaeda attacks against america and other countries as well will be less complex, will be less well organized, will be less likely to succeed and will be far less lethal if they do succeed. they will just be more numerous. now, let me finish up by saying a few words as to why i have told me that, why think it is important and what its implications are. the first application i think is operational. i am speaking as an american here because i know the american system vest but i think what i'm saying transfers to other security services in other countries as well.

it will require, this new flavor of threat down below my left arm here, that will require a shift in how we are dealing with this threat, a shift from a heavy emphasis on, a heavy emphasis on intelligence to an increasing emphasis on law enforcement. the shift between, the balance between foreign and domestic will likely shift in the direction of domestic. and the balance we now have between preemption, that is breaking that plot while it is still an idea and al qaeda planners mind and being forced to defend at the point of attack is probably going to shift in the direction of being forced to defend at the point of attack just because of the nature of the threat. those are significant operational challenges and the open question is, how well will be do it? there are policy implications

out of this new flavor of threat. back to my left arm, current level of effort. i really enjoyed doing this to small groups of americans because it resonates with there with me. what do you want me to do with my left arm? i can push it down. how much more of your commerce, how much more of your convenience, how much more of your privacy are you willing to have pressed to gain a greater probability of success against that the new flavor? put another way, quite starkly and for most americans of the room this is not a metaphor, how much more are you willing to take off at dulles international? by the way, and it really mean is, that whole pat-down kerfuffle we had over the thanksgiving holiday is the first waves breaking on the beach of this dynamic.

the new threats are down here. we obviously continue to have to work to prevent these if this is where the current threat is. i guess there is one more application and this is at the strategic level. what is their definition of success? since 9/11 our definition definition of success and least politically inside of the united states has been pitching a shutout if not a no-hitter. no successful attacks. this current circumstance is penalty kicks. i don't care how good the goalie is. this ball sooner or later is going in the back of the neck. the important policy question is, how do we respond to it? do we further punish ourselves

and punished may not be the right word but one that obviously came to my mind, by further restriction on our commerce or on our convenience or on our privacy? do we go spasmodic politically and once again nanosecurity structures that frankly, remember, frankly have been pretty successful in defending us in response to a successful attack. those i have left behind in government, those folks in my own community i think are asking and again i'm talking as an american here, for an american national conversation on mike hayden's left arm. we go out and we talked to our public saying we can do this. but we need to agree that we all think that is a good idea and if we don't think it is a good idea and we keep the armed relatively close to where it is now, we all shake hands and recognize that

we are accepting some degree of risk down here that we might otherwise reduce but because of balancing different priorities and different values, we have collectively chosen not to do so. i think it was suggested by bruce earlier on, bruce hoffman in his presentation, that an al qaeda tactic might t. to simply exhausts us with security measures. we will do that in the american little context, i am sure, if we wait until after the ball is in the back of the neck to have this conversation about this. that again, told to i am a present tense kind of guy, more operational. all the thoughts expressed here today are deeply important frankly in the balance of success or failure in this conflict as it is about the deep fight and i told you that is most important one but in terms of the close fight, that is a really important question and it is one that is being asked widely inside the american security community and is going

to require some political maturity on the part of my nation and our political leaders to deal with it in an appropriate way. that was my value-added to what i know is a very rich and more far-reaching and deeper discussion earlier in the day. i thank you for your attention island would be very happy not to take any questions that you might have. thank you. [applause] >> we will go head and open the floor to questions. the first question, anybody raise your hand if you want to ask a question. don't be bashful. no questions? here is one, right here. and a second one. >> general my name is john and i'm a full-time contractor for ost cost assessment program evaluation. one of the things that struck a chord with me is when you discuss the difference between the close in the deep fight and

it seems to me, and i wonder if you agree with those that we are going to have to maintain our readiness and vigilance with respect to the deep stuff for the simple reason that you know if something should happen in the close battle, particularly in the homeland, that the american people are likely to demand a deep response if you response if you will. >> i think that is right and this actually plays out over several turns of the wheel. if you look at the thinking of close battle and the battle, and that is more a temporal expression that it is a geographic expression. close battle with the one that is close in time as opposed to the deep battle which is doing things that affect things over a very long-term. i would add, and a brief reference to continuity between president bush and president obama, i believe to the core of

my being that our success in the close fight has been largely derived out of not just playing defense but of playing offense and of keeping at least al qaeda main on the defensive and most days worried about their survival more than they are plotting against or mine. so, please don't take it to mean that the close battle is all about goal line defense. what has made a successful is in the immediate battle, taking the fight to the enemy. but the deeper battle, the one i'm referring to here is really about ideas. it is really about what people think and it is really about what people are motivated to do and i want to choose my words carefully here and i wish i had prepared text to make sure i was very precise but i consider myself among friends. we had this kind of thing in the cold war, when we talked about canon containment.

that is kind of the close battle in overtime to deep battle was just about freedom, ideas and what it will do to communist ideology. america and western europe and other nations of the world had a very prominent role to play in an ideological fight, the deeper battle. communism after all is the western philosophy, and therefore europeans and americans had some legitimacy in that debate. i mean, marx and engel, you all thought of other western thinkers. we have legitimacy to talk about that. is far more difficult for a nation like the united states or the nations of western europe to engage in a dispute about ideas, in a religion that is largely not our own. i understand where multicultural societies but i enlarge our historical tradition is geocricket -- gao christian.

when we do engage in that we probably do make things worse, and so this is a question about authentic voices within islam working on the future of islam and what that then does to what i suggested earlier, the motivation for folks. a very long answer but an important distinction. >> a question here in the front. >> thank you. i am a journalist and author from pakistan. in the last two years we have been hearing from the american media that pakistani military is not rocha and its length with the islamic terrorist, taliban, lashkar-e-taiba of the pakistani

military. the americans have been responding to this by giving more and more militant aid to pakistan. the question was raised in the afternoon and his feeling was that the americans -- how to meet this challenge. i tend to do agree with him. i would like you to speak, why do the americans and western europeans -- how long will they continue giving more and more and more military aid to pakistani military and strengthening the pakistani military vis-à-vis india and vis-à-vis taliban? >> first of all i have already heard from my good friend director solace' lunchtime

speech. i am going to give you an incomplete and therefore not totally satisfying answer and that is a difficult question to discuss particularly for somebody to discuss in great detail publicly. when we talk about a visit i made to pakistan after benazir bhutto was killed. mike mcconnell and i attempted to do this under the radar. it wasn't all that super secret but we didn't want journalists like yourself reporting on it, at least immediately, so we have what i would call the trip from hell. we were gone in 54 hours and 48 of them were in the air, just getting in one way or another. we were sent by the president musharraf and by president bush. the message i had for president musharraf and this is the transcript. i'm summarizing now. the things i would have told them were number one we have had great success with his security

services and particularly isi and the settled regions of pakistan. in fact, we had captured more al qaeda senior leadership in cooperation with the isi than we have with any other service in the world. that is fact. i then pointed out to the president that we have not seen that same kind of cooperation in the tribal region and that after the peace agreement that the governor signed in september of 2006 in the tribal region and change the dynamic there and really set the conditions for it to be a safe haven for al qaeda and both pakistan and afghanistan taliban. i said to president musharraf, we told them this at the time, told in this at the time that we oppose that agreement but at least i think i understood kind of the thinking behind it. his view that those folks the tribal region word not just a

threat to america. they were a threat to him. they were threat to pakistan. it is trying to drive home to him and this would have been january i guess of 2008, was that his metric should change, but now those folks in the tribal region where not just a danger to the united states are not just a danger to afghanistan. he should now perceive them as being a threat to him, threat to him and his government. i pointed out that after he has sent his special forces into the red mosque that previous summer that osama bin laden issued a fatwa against him in the pakistani government and that now we have seen a merger of pashtun extremism with the international organization al qaeda and this now represented a serious a threat to him as it did to us. you know this better than i, president musharraf at that

point in time was distracted with all the things going on in pakistan. we made the same argument to president zardari. to the degree we win that argument, to the degree we impressed that point, some of the things you are suggesting get much reduced. to the degree we are unable to make that argument, some of the things you are suggesting i think continue and it is based on that fundamental premise, whether you agree or not degree degree -- agree with how we describe a situation. that is about as comfortable as i am getting. >> has come on the side of the room and then we will come back to you. speaking mark from the department of defense and pearl harbor. one of the comments you had made was, given the new way that we are preserving -- perceiving the current thread we are going to have to figure out a way to

approach and determine how policy is going to focus on it and you also mentioned increased restrictions. i'm curious as to your opinion on how we approach that, what you think. do have someone like brian jenkins that argue our greatest success will be highlighting our liberties and other aspects of what truly is american so if you could speak to that. curious how you think we should best approach this new threat that we see right now? >> it is very hard just on a flight to say this is in the left-hand column and this is on the right-hand column. the pat-down thing at the airport, i am with john pistole. i worked with john closely and he is the deputy directory -- director of the fbi. i thought john did a great job with explaining the policy. i'm putting that in the debt that is okay colin. i may not want to do that for the next four years but in terms of the current thread. i'm someone who is quite comfortable with working on authorizations from the president and october of 2001

put in place a terrorist surveillance program. so i kind of tilted in tilt in a direction using the full extent of the law to ensure security. i understand the great danger. sorry, doing hand puppets again. if this is what the law allows, box that size, you know, it is a little edgy. i don't want to go through that political meat grinder of being criticized. let's play inside this box, just a few yards back from what is legally permissible. i actually have trouble with that as an individual, is the director of nsa, director of cia. if i'm playing in a box that is not as big as the policy box allows me are as big as the legal box allows me, i am shading towards protecting me and my agency as opposed to

protecting the united states and it is a sons. okay, now you might want to describe that as your security mindset and people have a more civil libertarian point of view would disagree with you but there is another chapter. if i'm playing on the inside box, even though i could have been playing in a bit larger box, hope that has meaning for you and i am sorry to be up scared, and something bad happens let me show you the new box because i know the american political process. and so, i'm i am not getting clear answers other than a couple of specifics. one need be very careful about not using all the tools available because if you do not use all the tools available and really horrendous things happen, in one sense for convenience, privacy liberty commerce and so what -- so it is not a simple

and argument as security liberty. this security could really hurt liberty over the long-term. all that said, all that said back here, me personally, i'm not religious to them pushing it down much further. >> there is a question over here in the back. >> yeah, aaron nettles university of college maryland park. i found your discussion very interesting particularly the distinction between the close fight and the deep fight and he said the deep light is very important and then you went ahead and said and now i'm going to talk about the close fight because that is what we do all the time and that is what i understand. it raised a concern. we read about al qaeda has a strategy of death by 1000 cuts draining our resources. if you see one of our most

critical resources is the attention and focus of our leadership and i am getting at the very strong sense that we are spending so much time in the close fight that we are so occupied with the crisis to ensure that we are not doing the deep think and not preparing for the next battlefield and what we are going to fight. >> a great point and you are right. frankly that is the message i was intending to send. i told you, my job is incredibly present tense. i think the cia is probably not the three letter agency around town you want out there in in the deep fight for ideology and ideas and all those things. i think that is one -- thank you. this is very important. sorry, have to come at this with cautiousness. let's just look at the armed forces of the united states. we have 1% of america permanently defending the other 99%. that is the way we are

organized. now it is not vietnam. they don't spit at them at the airport in effect they applaud them at the airport. they are highly regarded but we still have 1% of the country defending the other 99%. there is a very good argument to be made that the issues currently in afghanistan were not the product of inattention by the department of defense or by the cia. the product of inattention of the rest of the american government, which didn't strap that honest something they needed to be concerned with. let me go deeper because i suspect we have got a lot of folks in the audience here who spent a rare amount of time on college campuses. let me reason by analogy. let me go back to the late 1940s, the last major security crisis facing the nation. you have the canon article, containment followed up by paul nhtsa nsc 78 that in essence kind of set the framework for

the american response to communism and soviet expansion. think in your mind 10 years after nhtsa comes off a mountaintop and how we are going to deal with the soviet union. how many colleges were now offering soviet studies? how many colleges for offering studies in leninism? how many colleges were offering studies in the russian language? take your machines fast-forward and let's go back to today. we are 10 years beyond 9/11. where are you? people in the realm obviously are playing this game but i am thinking more generally throughout american society. how many studies do we have out there? how many arabic language institutes do we have going on? how many serious rigorous academic studies of islam that we have going on at universities across the united states? the whole question of radicalism.

the whole question of life in the arab world. we do not have a comparable all of government or all of society heavy lifting for the current conflicts. so you are absolutely right and i think my messaging was successful. your security establishments are doing doing what you have asked them to do, fight the close fight. this is an all of america in response to the battle and there are a lot of folks not yet on the field. >> one more. >> i am at the investigative project on terrorism, and i have a question for validity of presentation. you predicted that future terrorist attacks are going to be less complex, less organized and less likely to be successful, but how do you -- something like the mumbai

attacks because there is a tendency to replicate attacks in developing nations in the developed world. you know you have the 1993 commuter bombings in mumbai. recently there was a scare you know about mumbai terror attack in europe, so how do you explain that? >> i agree and please -- i am an intelligence officer by profession and we never see anything that is absolute. we always hedge. don't take any of those judgments is being absolute, but in general, particularly if you look at things about my arm, the ones that preceded 9/11, in a different world and a different security establishment, they have a great deal of difficulty attempting those kinds of attacks now because they are complex and they are slow-moving and therefore you go with someone like bill maher farouk abdual