seen a forecast revision in a negative direction. .. this compromise is greater than the up towards our vision and forecasts. >> [inaudible] diaz think that it will be addressed individually? -- and do use think that it will be addressed individually? >> economic prognostication is a hard. political prognostication is beyond me. it is inconceivable that the united states could allow any any serious question to arise with respect to our debt.u >> dan with the "huffington post."

this being your last speech, i wasin hoping if i could indulge you with nostalgia and expressing some regrets. what would you -- >> nostalgia and regrets are slightly different. [laughter] >> i was referring -- >> i'll answer to that. nostalgia, i will let you he means regrets. >> what was your first major decision -- [laughter] >> with the fact that the last two years were much better for big banks than they were for the little guy? >> look, i don't think -- the president has said many, many times that none of us can rest or be satisfied with anything like the current level of

joblessness, with anything like the income gaps between what people could be earning and what they are earning. and so that's where one would like to have seen more rapid progressli. even as one, i think, does need to recognize that relative to what was really very widely feared, the outcome has been a good deal better. but i think one needs to let time pass to fully evaluate the policies that have been put in place. i try to make clear we have a great deal to do. we have very important problems

to solve, but for all of our problems, one looks at the other major industrialized countries in the world, we have a relatively good hand to play. and i remain quite optimistic. about the future. >> anybody who looks at the financial crisis we just came through would say regulation and deregulation was a major factor, it's not the major factor. we're about to have a business summit with the president and it looks like one of the highest items is regulation and deregulation for the economy. the question becomes, what do you think the role for regulation is for the years ahead? where the problems are. and regarding financial sector.

do you think the kind of economy that you should discuss in the 21st century is going to a larger financial sector? >> oh, i think it's very difficult to predict what will happenve over time to the size the financial sector. i don't think there's any question the vast excess built up in the period from 2001 to 2008. i think the volume of trading, for example, was 100 times as large by 2007 as it had been in certain areas -- certain of the most dangerous areas of derivatives as it has been in the late 1990s. and 2000.

and that's why the implementation of the financial reform bill and its tough minded implementation is going to be so essential. i said many times in the financial reform t debate that was a profoundly important one both for the issue of financial reform and for the broader effectiveness of the democracy.t that there was a million dollars being spent on lobbyists per member of congress. enough lobbyists were working on that bill. that every member of congress could be quadruple-teamed. and if that effort succeeded, it was going to be a very serious thing not just for what it meant for the future of the financial sector. well, that effort that went into

blocking financial reform has not gone away. it has been turned towards the whole rule-writing process. and it is hugely important that effort not succeed. and we will have to find ways to assure that on the one hand, we bring substantial expertise to bear on these questions of financial regulation. and at the same time, we maintain the kind of objectivity and distance that is essential to successful regulation. and that's going to be one of the very important issues going forward. [inaudible] >> my question, i have two parts. [inaudible]

>> you mentioned the politics and the white house on the economics, you know, on the speech. i wondered do you think, though, and did you enjoy the time in the white house? thank you. >> i think i had said on occasion that i was one of the very few people who came to washington to get out of politics. hi e i'll stand by -- i'll stand by that -- i'll stand -- i'll stand by that statement. with respect to the tax bill, look, i don't -- i think it's pretty clear that anything that

leads to an upwards revision in the forecast leads to a downward revision in the probability that you would attach to another downturn. and i think there is the further point there was the risk and it was a risk that had been growing in forecasters' minds that somehow none of the tax cuts would be extended and that would would have had extremely serious impacts on the economy and would have had extremely serious impacts on continents. >> dan millbanks on the "washington post." following up on dan's question. if you had to do it over again in the last few years, is there anything you would do differently and would you have even come down to washington? >> oh, there's no question i would have accepted president obama's request that i serve as

his economic advisor. it has been an enormously consequential time for our economy. and i have been honored to play a small part in it. and to work with what i think has been of a -- what was a remarkable presidentwh and what think has been a quite extraordinary team of individuals working to -- working to strengthen and support the economy. would i like the results to be even better than they have been on a number of different dimensions? of course. but i think the president is right to take pride in what has been averted. and that is not always easy for

to understand but is something that i think is very, very important. i will leave it to people who have not involved -- have been directly involved or to myself after i've had more opportunity to reflect on the particular decisions that were made at a variety of different stages. >> yeah. >> with respect to the current tactics and framework, on the estate tax, what was the president's position and why? and if the president's position is not what's in the framework, why did they go with that stance rather than the position ? >> i think the president has been extraordinarilyin clear in

his, as i was, in restating his position of opposition to the estate tax relief contained in the bill. t t but of the view that compromise s necessary to serve the most important objective of pushing the economy forward. so his position was of opposition to the estatex tax provisions but of willingness to compromise. [inaudible] >> on inflation and stagnation rates, any lessons to be learned from the japanese example? >> i think the japanese example is both disturbing and instructive. and i think it carries the lesson that it is a serious mistake to be complacent partway

through an economic recovery when substantial slack remains. and it is very important not to be premature in the declaration of victory. a similar lesson is taught by the american experience in 1937 and 1938. for as tempting and as attractive as it is to focus on the long run, and as necessary as it is to focus on the long run, as long as the economy is still well short of its capacity, it will be essential to pay attention to issues of demand as well as to issues of supply, to pay attention to the kinds of spending that can directly create jobs. that's why i spoke about the importance of exports. that's why i emphasize the role

of infrastructure, investment. that's why i talked about government's role not as a source of demand but in replacing the lost demand that comes out of the private sector. >> i think that's an important lesson to learn from japan. >> the last question in the front. >> i just wanted to get back to your point about counteracting the lack of demand. is there a concern, though, that a rise in long-term interest rates could offset some of the beneficial impacts of that?he and then also on the other question, what will you miss most being in the white house? >> reporters like you. no, seriously. [laughter] >> seriously, i will miss the

opportunity to work with remarkable presidents, a great team and to be involved in the daily flow of events. at the same time, i look forward very much to be m able to step back and think about some of the very important questions we talked about. daf. -- today. with the kind of perspective. it's not possible when you're working on a daily -- when you're working g in the daily grind of -- of the white house. but, yeah, there are things i will miss even as there are great things that i look forward to. i'm sorry, what was -- the first part of your question was about?

>> what about the counteracting the lackou of demand and what about the risk of a rise in long-term interest rates? >> oh, look, you have to make judgments. and we'll have to make -- we will have to make the judgments -- judgments will have to be made over time in the context of events as they unfold. as i said, i think at this point the risks of stagflation and deflation exceed the risks in the opposite direction. but you don't want to find out how far you could push things, and that's why i emphasized as a crucial priority having a framework inat place that provis

for debt growth to be matched with income growth. i might just mention that when you see interest rates rise and the stock market fall sharply at the same time, that is suggestive what's happening is someen kind of major concern abt the supply of private capital. on the other hand, when you see interest rates rise and you see the stock market be stable or rise, then it's more reasonable toat attribute the increase in interest rates to an upwards revision in the economic forecast a sense of better prospects for business and more investment demand. and i think if one looks at the pattern in recent weeks, the pattern in a variety of the indicators would suggest that what had driven interest rates was more the greater -- was primarily the

greater prospect of more rapid recovery. >> just to follow up on that, how confident are you that this package is going to be adopted to give -- >> well, i think i indicated i thought that the tax measures were important but i emphasized talking about infrastructure and talking about a range of other priorities in the answer i just gave on japan, that we were going to - we were need to remain attentive to demand issues for quite some time to come. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. [applause]e [capons copyright nl cable satellite corp. 2010] [inaudible conversations]

>> in a few moments the former head of the cia, retired general michael hayden on the future of terrorist threats. and the senate is back in session at 10:00 eastern to continue debate on a bill extending tax cuts and unemployment benefits.

>> now, former cia director michael hayden talks about terrorist threats around the world. he spoke last week at the jamestown foundation. his remarks are about 40 minutes. >> we're just going to transition here for a second. it's my great pleasure to introduce general michael hay n hayden. i thank everyone for saying for the final word of the day is going to be given by general michael hayden. he really deserves no introduction. he's the former director of the former intelligence agency where he's responsible for seeing the collection and information concerning the plans, and intentions and capabilities of america's adversaries where he produced timely analysis for

decision-makers and conducting covert operations to thwart terrorists such as the groups we've talked about today. i'm going to turn the floor over to him, and he needs no further introduction and we've waited his final concluding remarks and observations about today's event and it's a great pleasure to have general hayden here today. thank you, sir. [applause] >> well, good afternoon. and thank you so much for the opportunity to be part of really what is a very impressive gathering put on by a highly regarded institution. i regret 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 all the detailed flow of the conversation.

if i would, knowing what i know know about what's 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 to which you've been exposed, that put a template on it, that's more comfortable for me coming from my own background, i've got two templates i'd like to share with you. one is it comes from my army brother and i'm a career air force officer but my brother talk about the close battle and the deep battle. i mean, obviously the close battle being fought at the small unit level. you've got troops in contact and, in essence, you know, i've got fighting going on. whereas the deep battle according to american military doctrine is by far the most important battle. that's the battle that you want to shape. success in the deep battle creates circumstances under

which the close battle is fought, tomorrow, or the day after or 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 will us harm is that our leverage to influence it are far less powerful than our levers to

influence the close infight. it's one thing for those three letter agencies around town, cia, dia, nsa, fbi and so on to somewhat excel at relatively immediate defense. it's quite another thing for a western nation to affect cultural, philosophical or even theological developments in other parts of the world. the second template i'd share with you is one i picked up from my good friend hank crumpton. hank ended his government career as condi rice's 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. and hank talks about again putting another template on things you discussed here today, another 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 havens, and conditions. and again, echoing my comment from the first tranch, the first template, i think we're doing reasonably well against leadership. a mixed record but some progress with regard to safe havens. but again, that other element, the conditions or from the other template, the deep white, the deep battle much more difficult for us to handle. now, i thought a lot about beyond just somewhat characterizing from my own point of view what you've discussed over the past six-plus hours. what could i possibly be in terms of value-added through my lens here? i've 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 that i think is important to you and at least

i'm not aware that it's not yet been focused on during your afternoon discussion. it's through my lens. it's through my life experience. it is unarguably less scholarly than the things you have been discussing. probably more operational. than some of the things you've 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 job i ever had in my life. you're focused on the here and now. prominent in the community of which i was a part for so long. prominent, so strongly in the american security and intelligence community is kind of a recalibration of how we are currently perceiving the threat. and again i'm more talking about the close fight rather than the deep fight. and what it is i'm about to describe for you, i think, is general -- i believe it's

strongly personally and it has operational, strategic and policy implications. because of the -- and i really mean this, because of the surprising continuity, the powerful continuity to the 43rd and 44th presidency of the united states when it comes from fighting this war on terror, we actually think we have been reasonably successful. and bear with me, if i had a white board up here or geographics or something i would be projecting something up here but you're going to have to help me make hand puppets so to speak as i describe this. if this is the level of american and allied effort -- and again, in defense, in that close fight, all right, most of the spectacular attacks with which we are all familiar, 9/11, world trade center 1, bojinka, east

africa, embassy bombings, the attempted plot from great britain in the summer of 2006, hydrogen peroxide and so on, we actually have some level of confidence that we can be successful up here. look, i'm an intelligence officer. one word we never use is "never." okay? and so i'm not saying these attacks are impossible. i'm just saying we've got reasonably good at detecting things. these are complex. they're relatively slow-moving. they have multiple threats. they've got a planning thread. they've got an operational thread, a training thread, a finance thread, a forgery thread. and we're good enough at this now that our security services here and our allied nations -- we discover one or another one of those threads and we start rolling it up and pretty soon we've got a fur ball and we got

a pretty good idea what this plot is. i came into the cia in the last days of may of 2006. the first thing i was briefed on was the atlantic airliner plot that was then being matched -- it was then being born in great britain. again, i don't want overstate this. the false bravado on the part of this a intelligence officer is 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. with the americans wanting the arrest to happen relatively soon and the british for law enforcement reasons wanting the plot to spin out so they could build up the strongest possible case for ultimate 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's happened. in the last 12 to 18 months. let's take christmas of last year. abdulmutallab, mounted against us by an al-qaeda franchise, mounted against us by aqip, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, when i was director of the cia i would say to the large audiences and to the small, private and public, classified and unclassified, every known threat to the american homeland has threads that take it back to the tribal region of pakistan. this attack did not. this attack was hatched by a franchise. that's different than what we saw up here.

think back where some of you may have been particularly the americans in the audience. where we were two plus years ago on thanksgiving eve. i was in my new house in mclean. i was shopping up celery for the thanksgiving stuffing. i had the tv on and what did i see? i saw hotels ablazing in mumbai. do you recall the incident? recall the scene? it was bad. it was bad in and of itself. you know, in it's own right, it was bad. it was tragic. but beyond that, in terms of my professional aim, besides the human suffering that was obviously visible, i had a deep and great concern in my professional persona. . ..

>> all right, so franchise, low threshold. now walk with me into times square last april when 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 think if they goes on in fort hood into that same mix. so we have franchises now, not al qaeda, lower threshold attacks, self radicalized

individual. secretary napolitano has described this. these are my words, not hers, but i think i'm catching what is it she's trying to say. in the future it is far more likely under these, never impossible but now we're worried down here, that al qaeda attacks against american and other countries as well when the less complex, less well organized, less likely to succeed and will be far less lethal if they do succeed. they would just be more numerous. now, let me finish up by saying a few words as to why i told you that, why i think it's important, and what its implications are. okay, the first invocation i think is operation. i'm speaking as an american year because i know the american system best, 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, it will require a shift in how we are dealing with this threat, the shift from a heavy emphasis on intelligence to an increasing emphasis on law enforcement. to shift between, the balance between foreign and domestic will likely shift in the direction of domestic. and the ballots we now have between preemption, that is, breaking up the plot while it is still an idea and that al qaeda is planners mind. and being forced to defend at the point of attack, is probably going to shift from the direction of being forced to defend at the point of attack is because of the nature of the threat. those are significant operational challenges, and the question, the open question is, how well will we do it? there are policy implications out of this new flavor of

threat. back to my left arm, attacks appear, current level of effort. i enjoy doing this in small groups of americans because it resonates, but bear 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 impressed -- to have press to gain a greater probability of success against the new flavor? put another way, quite startling, and for most americans in the room, this is not a metaphor, how much more are you willing to take off at dulles international? by the way, and i mean is, that whole patdown we had over the thanksgiving holiday is the first wave breaking on the beach of this dynamic.

the new threats are down here. we obviously continue to have to work these because this is where the current threat is. i guess there's one more of an occasion and this is at the strategic level. what's our definition of success? since 9/11 our definition of success at least politically inside the united states has been pitching a shutout, if not a no-hitter. no successful attacks. and to badly mix my metaphors for american baseball to what the rest of the plan calls football, there's a current circumstance is penalty kicks. i don't care how good the goalie is, there's a ball sooner or later come is going in the back of the net. the important policy question is how do we respond to it? do we further punish ourselves and punishment not be the right

word, but the one that obviously came to my mind, by further restrictions on our commerce, on our convenience, honor privacy. do we go spasmodic, politically, and once again dismantle security structures that frankly, remember, frankly had been pretty successful defending us. in response to a successful attack. those folks i have left behind in government, those folks in my old community i think are asking for, again, i'm talking as an american year, for an american national conversation on mike hayden's left arm. that we go out and talk to our public saying, we can do this, but we need to agree that we all think that's a good idea. and if we don't think it's a good idea and we keep the armor relatively close to where it is now, we all shake hands and

recognize that we are accepting some degree of risk it 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 be to simply exhaust those with security measures. we will do that any american political context, i am sure, if we wait until after the ball is in the back of the net to have this conversation about this. that again, i told you, i may present tense kind of guy, more operational, all the thoughts expressed here today are deeply important. and, frankly, will be in the balance about success or failure in this conflict because it's about the deep fight. i told you that's most important one. in terms of the close fight, that's a really important question and it's one that is being asked widely inside the american security community, and

our political leaders to deal with it in a appropriate -- in an appropriate way. i know it is a very rich and more far-reaching and deeper discussion earlier in the day. i thank you for your attention, and i would be very happy now to take any questions that you might have. thank you. [applause] >> okay. we will go ahead and open the floor to questions. raise your hand if you want to ask a question. don't be bashful. >> okay. >> no questions? here's one right here. >> general, i'm a full-time contractor for osd cost assessment and program assessment. one of the things that struck a chord with me when you discuss the difference between the close and a deep fight, it seems to

me, and i wonder if you agree with this, we will have to maintain our readiness ambiguous with respect to the deep stuff for the simple reason that if something should happen in the close battle, particularly in the homeland, that the american people are likely to demand a deep response from if you will? >> i think that's right. this plays out over several turns of the wheel, but if you look at the thinking of close battle and deeper battle, that's more, that's more a temporal expression than it is a geographic expression. close battle is the one that is close in in time as opposed to the deep battle which is doing things that affect things over a very long term. i would add, and remember, very 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 notches playing decent -- playing defense but playing offense. we need to keep al qaeda on the defensive and most days word about their survival more than they are plotting against yours 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 in the immediate battle is taking the fight to the enemy. but the deeper battle, the one i'm referring to here is really about ideas. it's really about what people think. it's really about what people are motivated to do. i want to choose my words carefully here, and i wish i had a prepared text to make sure i was very precise, but consider myself among friends. we had this kind of thing in the cold war, all right, we talked about containment, that's kind

of close battle. and overtime the deep battle was just battle of freedom, battle of ideas and what we did to communism ideology. western europe, other nations in the work at a very prominent role to play. in the ideological fight, deeper battle. the communism after all is a western philosophy, and, therefore, europeans and americans have some legitimacy in that debate. marx and hegel evolves out of other western thinkers. we had legitimacy to talk about. it is far more difficult for a nation like the united states, or the nations of western europe, to engage in the dispute about ideas in a religion that is largely not our own. i understand where a multicultural society. but by and large our historical tradition is judeo-christian. in fact, it's so hard for us to

engage in it that when we do engage in it would probably make things worse. and so this is a question about authentic voices within islam. working out the future of islam and what that than dusty what i suggested earlier, -- what i suggested earlier, sorry, very long answer. >> question here in front. >> thank you. i am a journalist from pakistan. in the last two years we have been treating and curing from the american media and american officers that pakistani military has not broken its link with the islamic terrorism, taliban, they remain the most favorite terrorist group of the pakistani

military. the americans have been responding to this by giving more and more military aid to pakistan. there was a question in the afternoon, and casey was that the americans, how to meet this challenge. i tend to agree with him i would like you to speak about the americans and western europeans, have a plan for, how long will they get more and more military aid to pakistani military, and same thing to pakistani military, these are the india and vis-à-vis taliban. first of all, i've already heard about my good friend director at lunchtime conversation, and i hope he and i were able to

discuss a working together later in his visit here. great to see you again, mr. director. i'm going to give you an incomplete and, therefore, not totally satisfying answer. because that's a difficult question to discuss. particularly for somebody who's been where i've been to discuss in great detail publicly. but let me talk about a visit i made to pakistan after he was killed. mike mcconnell and i flew, we attempted to do this under the radar, we did what journalists like yourself reporting on it, at least immediately. so we had what i would call the trip from hell. we were going 54 hours and 40 of them were in the air. just getting into one way or another. we saw the president, president musharraf. and we were sent by president bush. the message i had for president musharraf, and this is a transcript, i'm summarizing now, the things i would've told them were, number one, we've had great success with the security

services, and particularly isi in the regions of pakistan. in fact, in fact we had captured more al qaeda senior leadership in cooperation with the isi that we had with any other service in the world. so that's a fact and good news. i then pointed out to the present with nazi 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, a change the dynamic there and was sent the conditions for it to be a safe haven for al qaeda in both pakistan and afghanistan taliban. i said to president musharraf, we told him at the time, i told them at the time we oppose that agreement. but at least i think i understood kind of the thinking behind it. is you that those kinds of folks in the tribal region were not

just a threat to america. they were a threat to him. they were a threat to pakistan. what i've tried to drive home to him, this would've in january i guess 2008, was that his magic should change. that now his folks in the tribal regions were not just a danger to the united states, not just a danger to afghanistan. he should not perceive them as being a threat to him, as a threat to him and his government. i pointed out that after he attended a special forces into the red mosque that previous summer, that osama bin laden issued a fatwa against him and the pakistani government, and now we have seen a merger of pashtun extremism with the international organization al qaeda and is now represented as 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 are going on in pakistan. we made the same argument, to the degree we win that argument, to the degree we impressed that point, some things you are suggesting, get much reduce. to the degree we are unable to make that argument, some of the things you're suggesting i think continue. and it's based on that back to that fundamental premise, do you agree or not agree with how we are described the situation. that's about as detailed as uncomfortable getting. >> -- that's about as detailed as comfortable as i am getting. >> mark from the department of defense out of pearl harbor. one of the comments you have made was given the new way that we are perceiving the new threat we will have to figure out a way to approach it and determine how

policy is going to focus on it. you also mentioned to increase restrictions. and i'm curious on your opinion as to how to approach that. what do you think? you have some like brian ching and to argue that our greatest success with the highlighting our liberties and other aspects of what truly as americans actually he did speak could speak to that, areas as to how you think we should best approach this new threat that we see right now. >> it is very are just on the fly to say this is in the left hand column, that is in the right hand column. that pat down at the airport, i work with john purse. director of fbi. i think john did a magnificent job with policy and explain the policy. so i put that in the okay column. they i don't want to do that for the next four years. in terms of the current threat. i am someone who is quite comfortable with working on authorization for the president come in september, october of 2000 want to put in place a

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

protecting the united states and its citizens. okay, now you may want to describe that, you're security mindset and people have a more civil libertarian point of view, but there's another chapter. if i'm playing on the inside box, even though i could've been playing in a bit larger box, i hope that has meaning for you, sorry to be obscure, if something bad happens, let me show you the new box. because i know the american political process. and so, i'm not getting a clear answer other than a couple of specifics. one needs 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 it's katie bar the door for convenience, privacy, liberty and commerce and solar. and so it's not that simple, it's not as simple in our u.s.

security liberty. misplace if we could really hurt liberty over the long term. all that said, all that said, back here, me personally, i'm not real interested in pushing it down much further. >> question over here in the back. >> i found your discussion very interesting, particularly the distinction between the close fight and the deep fight. and you said the deep fight is very important, and then you went ahead and said and i'm going to talk about the close by because that's what we do all the time, that's what i understand. and it raised a concern. we read about al qaeda has a strategy of death by a thousand cuts draining resources. it seems to be one of our most critical resources is the

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

is not vietnam, that 1%, they applauded at the airport. we put them in first class if you're traveling in uniform. they are highly regarded 1% of the country defending the other 99%. that 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. but were the product of the inattention of the rest of the american government. which didn't strap that on as something they need be concerned with. let me go deeper, because i suspect we've got a lot of folks in the audience your year investment a fair amount of their time on college campuses. let me read them by analogy. let me go back to the late 1940s, the last kind of major security crisis facing the nation. you had the canon article, containment followed up on paul nhtsa, financial security council directive to in essence kind of set the framework for

the american response to communism and soviet expansionism. all right, thinking of my 10 years after nhtsa comes back up in a mountaintop with nsc 68, how we will deal with the soviets, thinking about it, go back, how many colleges are offering soviet studies, how many colleges were not studying marxism and leninism. how many colleges are offering studies and russian language. okay, good. fast-forward to today, we are now 10 beyond 9/11. where are you? not people in a room are playing israel room but i'm talking to more generally throughout american society. how many cities do have out there, how many arabic language does to have going on? at me serious, rigorous studies of islam to have going on in colleges across the message. the whole question of the plight

of the arab world. we do not have a comparable all of government are all of society heavy lifting for the current conflict. so you're absolutely right, and i think my messaging was successful. your security establishment are doing what you asked them to do by the close fight. this isn't and all of america response to the deep the battle and a lot of folks not yet on the field. >> one more. >> i'm with the investigative project on terrorism, and i had a question rid to your presentation. you predicted that future terror attacks are going to be less complex, less organized, and less likely to be successful. but how do you explain something like the mumbai attacks? because of the tendency to

replicate attacks in developing nations in the developed world. you know, you have a 1983 commuter bombings in mumbai that were replicated been in london and in madrid. and recently there was a scare about the mumbai attacks in europe. so how do you explain that? >> i agree, and please, i'm an intelligence officer by profession. we never say anything that is absolute. we always hedge, and so don't take any of those judgment as being absolute. but in general, particularly if you look at those things about my arm, all right, the ones that succeed were pre-9/11. in a different world in a different security establishment. they have a great deal of difficulty attending those kinds of attacks that because they are complex. and, therefore, you go with something like farouk abdulmutallab who was not well trained, probably not even

well-vetted. why? because if they hugged him much longer, we also they would have identified them and probably should have identified him, even with the limited hunting that he got. are just trying to suggest that the style of attack to which they had been forced, i did hear bruce's presentation. i just saw the slide, and the kind of went to the death of a thousand cuts, al qaeda had a national security council meeting and say we want to change our strategy. that may not be true. i think this is more the product of success that they are unable to conduct the kinds of attacks that they really still like to do, and they are forced down here. while the attacks cannot be as long in preparation, if you cannot as fully vet the individual, if a single qualifying criteria is he is clean skins as a poster really well-suited for the job, i think

collectively it reduces the probability of success. all that said, i pointed out quite clearly the ball is going into the goal. they are going to succeed. >> okay, thank you very much, and everyone, we would like to think i've won a participating today. and give general hayden a big round of applause. [applause] >> thank you. >> and we will see you here next year, and we still have some books for sale. that's the way to support jamestown, so look for the dvds to be coming out soon. have a safe trip home. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about to gaveling in to start the day on this tuesday. motivate its plant on a proposed tax cuts and unemployment benefits deal. lawmakers will take a break from 12:30 to to 15 eastern to attend party caucus lunches. and now like to the senate floor he on c-span2.

senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. give heed, mighty god, to our prayers, and hear our petitions. you are a god of justice who always does what is right. you have examined our hearts. you know our motives. continue to guide our senators, empower them to follow you faithfully, to seek your will, and to find their peace through

fellowship with you. may they trust you for safety, finding their highest fulfillment in knowing they are doing your will. when everything seems to fall apart, remind them that in everything, you are working for the good of those who love you. lord, help them to discover security in your promises and joy in serving you. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 14, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jenne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we'll continue on the tax bill, h.r. 4853. postcloture time will expire tonight at 12:30 a.m. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for weekly

caucus luncheons. we also have a number of senators organized today to give their final speeches. we look forward to hearing from senator bond at 11:30 today to deliver his farewell speech. senator judd gregg will deliver his speech at 2:15 p.m. senator harkin will be speaking at 3:15 p.m. for up to 45 minutes. senator kirk will deliver his maiden speech at 5:00 p.m. today. senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. i have spoken to the republican leader and we're going to try to work this out so we don't have to be in until 12:30 today and can move to other matters. we will keep senators advised as to what the exact schedule will be. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 4853. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment with an amendment to h.r. 4853, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the republican leader is on his way here. he has a speech to give. if everyone would just be calm until he delivers his speech. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday,

america lost one of the most talented and dedicated diplomats it has ever produced. richard holbrooke began his diplomatic service several decades ago as a young foreign service officer in vietnam. the storied career that followed spanned the globe and will remain an integral part of the diplomatic history of our nation. dick holbrooke will always be remembered for pursuing the hardest missions, whether negotiating the dayton accords which helped end the war in bosnia or his immensely difficult final assignment as special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. ambassador holbrooke doggedly pursued what, in his view, best enhanced the diplomacy and national security objectives of our nation. we honor his legacy of service to america's foreign policy and interest by continuing his efforts to help afghanistan deny the taliban a return to power and to disrupt defeat and

dismantle al qaeda. i might just add, madam president, i remember running into dick at the white house a couple of weeks ago and he never missed an opportunity to be selling what he was doing, and so he sidled up to me, and in his usual, aggressive way began to discuss his current mission in afghanistan. he was a dedicated public servant, and we will all -- all miss him greatly. now, madam president, on another issue, i rise to pay tribute to senator george voinovich who has served this chamber and the people of ohio with honor over the past 12 years after an already long career as a devoted public servant. george has served in the ohio

state house, as ohio's lieutenant governor, as the mayor of cleveland, as governor of ohio, and as a u.s. senator. that's quite a record of accomplishment. when george walks out of the chamber for the last time, he will have served 44 years in public service. yet, in a career that's taken -- yet, in a career that's taken him from cleveland to columbus to washington and around the world, george has always made time for his family. no one was surprised when in january, 2009, he announced that he planned to retire at the end of this year in order to spend more time with janet. george and janet have been married for nearly half a century, and they have seen a lot together. george grew up in the same working class neighborhood in cleveland where he and janet still call home today. he attended coolingwood high school, ohio university, and the ohio state university for law school. after practicing law for several years in cleveland, he began his

political career in 1963 as an assistant attorney general of ohio. three years later, at the tender age of 30, george was elected to the ohio state house. the 1970's was a period of economic turmoil for many american cities, and cleveland was no exception. in 1978, cleveland became the first american city since the 1930's to file for bankruptcy, and george, who was serving as the state's lieutenant governor at the time, decided he needed to do something to help his hometown. mounting a challenge to the democratic incumbent, dennis kucinich, george overcame tough odds and won the race. determined to turn the city around and bring cleveland out of the economic ditch, george organized a series of coalitions and public-private partnerships to bring cleveland back from the brink. more importantly, i think george would tell you he helped restore confidence and pride to the city.

his motto was "together we can do it." and they did. he went on to serve as mayor for an entire decade and helped close an ugly chapter in cleveland's history. it was a harkable feat. once called the buckle of the rust belt and the butt of a lot of late-night television jokes, cleveland underwent a renaissance under george's leadership. it paid down a $110 million debt, added thousands of jobs, brought new development and businesses downtown and saw struggling sports franchises transformed into contenders. for george, it was never about him. he would never take full credit for the growth and prosperity cleveland enjoyed or the fact that he was named one of the nation's top mayors. it was always about the people of cleveland working together to make the city they knew and loved great again. george's outstanding work as mayor helped him win the governor's mansion in 1990 where

he served two terms. he faced a fiscal mess in columbus, too, and worked hard to rein in spending. one of his signature achievements as governor was education reform and in particular the cleveland school voucher program, which provided thousands of low-income students with the opportunity for a better education and ultimately greater opportunities in life. but his record of success as governor was deep and far-reaching. he helped restore ohio's economy, balanced its budget and saw unemployment hit a 25-year low. and for a job well done, the voters of ohio re-elected george to a second term of governor in 1994 with a remarkable 72% of the vote. blocked by term limits from running again for governor, george ran for the u.s. senate in 1998. he took the values that earned him so much success in columbus and cleveland to washington. and as a senator, he has been at

the forefront of numerous important national debates. he has been a leading advocate for an effective and efficient federal government and for simplifying the tax code. he has been involved in legislation to enhance america's competitiveness around the world, to reform our energy policy, and to ensure america's strength and security. george has always had my respect and admiration for his adherence to principle and for his straight-shooting style. he always told you exactly what was on his mind. today we honor our cloak and friend, george -- our colleague and friend, george voinovich, for his nearly four and a half decades of public service. we thank janet and the entire voinovich family for sharing him with us, and on behalf of the entire senate family, i want to thank george for his service and wish him the very best in the years ahead. he will indeed be missed. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. kyl: thank you. might i just add a word to what the majority leader -- the minority leader, the republican leader, has just said. as the republican whip, it's my job to visit with senators about their views on issues and votes that are coming up, and i didn't always like the answer that george voinovich gave me, but i always knew that, as the leader said, it was a principled response to a question that reflected his well-thought-out and deeply felt views about the role of the government, issues on finance and debt and generally from his long experience as having been a public leader at the state level, as well as the federal level. so i join my colleague in paying tribute to an incredible public service career and especially the time that i have enjoyed working with senator voinovich here in the united states senate. madam president, i would like to speak in morning business. i note that the --

mr. voinovich: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: i would just like to express my appreciation to the minority leader and whip for all of the courtesy that they have extended to me over the last number of years. one of the things that, mitch, i have enjoyed doing is getting to know you and elaine. once you became the leader here, i think that you have done an outstanding job of keeping your team together. i really appreciate your willingness to answer all my telephone calls, visit with me. senator kyl, the same with you. i can't tell you how much i appreciate the fact that we have had open dialogue on many of the issues confronting the united states of america, and i want to applaud the minority leader for reaching out to the president. as you know, i don't agree with the compromise on the tax

situation, but i think it's something that -- that's really important for the future of our country. i have always found that when leaders get together and spend time thinking about those things that bring them together rather than those things that are dividing them, that the people of the state and the nation benefit from it. so, again, thank you very much for your kindness to me over the years, both of you.. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i just wanted to make a unanimous consent request that after senator kyl has ten minutes? mr. kyl: i think i can do it in 12 minutes. mrs. boxer: after senator 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 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, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: are we in the process of a quorum call? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: i would ask consent that we terminate it. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, last night i was at home and received a message on my blackberry that ambassador richard holbrooke had died. i really felt very, very sad about that. he was such a nice man. he was the epitome, in his dealings with me, of being a gentleman. everyone who worked with him knew how hard he worked, and i join the many thousands of people who mourn the passing of ambassador richard holbrooke, a champion diplomat and a personal friend. ambassador holbrooke dedicated his entire life to the foreign service, to keeping america safe through tough, sensible diplomacy. i will miss him, his friendship,

his counsel, and our nation will miss his tireless leadership and steady guidance for foreign policy. i had the opportunity to work with him closely on a number of occasions during my tenure here as majority leader. i appreciated our many conversations and his insights into the central national security issues of the day. the world bears the imprint of ambassador holbrooke's efforts to bring peace and stability to places torn by conflict. in his early days in the foreign service to his leadership at the dayton accords to his efforts at stabilizing afghanistan and pakistan, ambassador holbrooke was always at the center of the toughest security challenges of a given era. america is safer and more respected around the world because of richard holbrooke. our nation mourns his passing and my condolences to his family and loved ones during this most difficult time. i would note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i rise to pay tribute to my old friend -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i rise to pay tribute to my friend kit bond, a man who dedicated the better part of four decades to public service and never failed in all of those years to put the people of missouri ahead of himself. as kit puts it, serving missouri has been my life's work. i've walked the land, fished its rivers and been humbled by the honesty and hard work of our people. the highest honor is to receive and safeguard the public trust. but kit also knew when to leave the field to somebody else. as he put it in his retirement announcement last year before a packed missouri house chamber, in 1973, i became missouri's

youngest governor. i do not aspire to become missouri's oldest senator. it may have been the one ambition kit didn't pursue, born in st. louis, kit is a sixth generation missourian. grew up in mexico, missouri where his grandfather founded a brick company, the largest employer in town, and kit and linda still call mexico home. kit has always been an overachiever. he graduated cum laude from princeton university and first in his class from the university of virginia school of law. after that he moved to atlanta at that to clerk for one of the great pioneers of the civil rights movement on the fifth circuit court of appeals. after that, kit went home to practice law. in 1968 he ran for congress and lost, but he didn't lose his taste for plifntle a year later he was appointed assistant attorney general where he ran

the consumer protection division under attorney general john danforth. the future senate colleagues would become close friends, political allies, and dominant figures in missouri politics for more than a generation. in 1969, kit was elected state auditor and in 1972 at the tender age of 33, he was elected as the youngest governor in the history of missouri and its first republican governor in 32 years. it was an extraordinary achievement, followed by an equally extraordinary series of events. four years after winning the seat, he lost it to a democrat named joe tiesdale, but four years later he won it back from the same guy. as governor, one of kit's greatest accomplishment was working with the democratic legislature to take the pilots as teachers pilot program statewide, a program that was designed to help parents prepare their children for the classroom and help them score higher on

standardized tests. as a young father and governor, kit saw how important the program was for his own son sam. as a parent looking for an owner's manual to care for a new baby, kit said, parents for teachers was my lifeline. and so in 1984 kit signed a bill requiring all missouri school districts to provide parents as teacher services. since its inception, in the mid-1980's this program has been immensely successful and helpful to parents all across missouri, serving 3 million children in the state. and today the parents as teach teachers' program includes 3,000 programs and has exspantdzed to all 50 states and seven countries. as governor, kit was also strong advocate for biotechnology and the expansion of community health centers to underserved areas. after his success as a two-term governor, kit decided to follow his former boss, senator jack

danforth to washington. he won his first term with 53% of the vote becoming the only republican to capture a seat previously held by a democrat. for the last 24 years kit that is ahas been a leader of this body -- kit has been a leader of this body. there is no stronger advocate for themen men and women of our armed forces than kit bond. he worked hard to ensure that our nation's veterans get the care they need and deserve. he's become an expert on southeast asian affairs. last year he coauthored a book entitled "the election front: southeast asia and the road to global peace with islam." it is not difficult to convince a senator to write a book. the hard part is convincing people to read it. the senate is indebted to kit for his service as vice-chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence. he has worked tirelessly to conduct responsible oversight of our nation's intelligence

community. he worked closely with former chairman rockefeller and our current chair dianne feinstein. in doing so, they showed all of us the importance of working together in a bipartisan fashion on matters of national security. kit was instrumental in the passage of the protect america act and the subsequent foreign intelligence surveillance amendment act of 2008, and he worked tirelessly behind the scenes and across the aisle to combat widespread misinformation about these bills. regarding the fisa amendments act of 2008, kit said, "there's nothing to fear in this bill unless you have al qaeda on your speed dial." over the years, kit worked hard to improve missouri's transportation and infrastructure. legend has it that his staunch protection of missouri's highway funds even led to a physical altercation one day with our former colleague, senator moynihan. the details are a little murky, with the passage of time, and

pat denied it ever happened. but kit claims to have been the last senator to be slugged on the senate floor. and the rest of us learned an important lesson that day: don't mess with missouri's highway funding. i think anyone who knows kit well will tell you that the last ten years have been some of the happiest for him. linda has made kit a new man. i understand she's improved his diet, his fitness routine, and, thank heavens, his wardrobe. and he's probably watched his son sam stand up and defend the nation kit served his entire life. first lieutenant bond served two tours in iraq, the last has a scout sniper platoon leader where he conducted close reconnaissance and surveillance operations in order to gain intelligence on the enemy. and we all thank him for his courage and his sacrifice in

defending our freedom and security. now, i'd be remiss if i failed to acknowledge another kit's loved ones, his dog tiger. he's become sort of a youtube celebrity around here. tying certificate named after kit's university of missouri tigers and his favorite past time is lying underneath kit's desk and destroying a stuffed university of kansas jayhawk. tiger may not be the kind of dog one would imagine for the vice-chairman of the senate intelligence committee. even kit admits he is a little bit of a froo-froo pet. the last time he saw fdic chair sheila bair, he wouldn't stop bark. chairman bair has not one but two degrees from the university of kansas. i think she sniffed it out, bond said. kit has a tremendous career in

public service. he's been elected seven times in missouri from state auditor to his four terms in the senate, more than anyone else in the history of the show-me state. looking back, kit says his political adversaries kept him nimble and the media kept him humble. whatever the formula, kit has been an outstanding senator and we will miss him terribly. i'm sure it is hard for missourians to imagine kit outside of office. it's no easier for his colleagues to imagine the senate without kit. as his fourth term draws to a close, history will show he has served the people of missouri and the people of this nation with passion, honor, and integrity. he will be missed. and let me just add, mr. president, back in the mid-1980's, i started off in the very last seat back there and then two years later -- these were not great years for

republicans; we had two freshmen my first year and two freshmen the next year, senator bond and senator mccain. and so seniority being what it is in the senate, i got to move out of the very last chair over two more chairs and bond and mccain came back there and joined us. we were such power players in those days. we referred to ourselves as the "not quite ready for prime time players," but i must say to my friend from missouri, you've come a long way from those early days, made an enormous difference here in the senate, and we will all miss you greatly. mr. bond: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. bond: thank you, leader mcconnell, for your very kind and generous words. since i announced i was not running for reelection, i've been overwhelmed about the nice things sphroax been saying about me -- folks have been saying about me.

there's nothing like being eulogized while you're still breathing. but to my good friend mitch, it's been a long time since we sat back in the corners and not quite ready for prime time players, but while i never made it to prime time, except, of course, one appearance as a very less-than-best-selling author on the john stewart show, you certainly have arrived. you led us through many difficult and protracted debates through all of it. you've beenag been agile, courts negotiator. you've kept us together on many tough votes, as least as much as it's possible to keep 40-something different independent minds all together, as i like to say, 40 frogs in a wheelbarrow. but i thank you, mitch. while i occasionally caused you heartburn, and i realize that, i've always appreciated your intelligence, your leadership, and your friendship. you and elaine are very close

friends of linda and mine and we wish you both the very best for the future. well, two years ago, i announced my retirement from the united states senate and that time's come. i have to begin by thanking all my colleagues and my constituents for making this job one of the best a person could hold. there's no greater honor than being given the trust of the people at home to represent th them. and i've done my best to keep my faith with my constituents on every vote i've cast and on every issue on which i've worked. through more than two decades of membership in this world's greatest deliberative body -- sometime delaying body -- i've participated in my share of debates. when i first came to the senate, the cold war was a conflict some thought we would never win, yet now, thanks to the courage and resolve of former president ronald reagan, millions of people now live in freedom. and during this last term --

during his last term especially, it seems that the debates will have history shaping consequences. america's faced many challenges in the past six years. the longest recession since the great depression, wars in afghanistan and iraq, the continuing battle against terrorism, the fight to be competitive in a global economy, and many more. as i look back, the successes that we have achieved during my time here have come because people of goodwill were willing to work across the aisle for the common good of our nation. as i address the floor today, i'm filled with memories of the many colleagues with whom i've worked over the years. one stands out in my memory. the one who is my best friend and mentor in the united states senate, took me under his wing and treated me and my family as close friends. and that, of course, is the late senator ted stevens. he was unflagging in support of his principles, and everyone

clearly knew where he stood and yet he was very -- a very effective appropriator because he knew how to compromise. and i could only hope that my colleagues and constituents know where i stand and i, too, know that working across the aisle is the only way to get things done in this body. right after i arrived here, i had the pleasure of working with the late senator robert byrd to achieve the acid rain trading compromise and passed the clean air act amendments of 1990. i also joined with former senator wendell ford who establish a national guard caucus. now it's a pleasure to work with pat leahy to ensure that our dual-mission national guard is adequately prepared to serve emergency needs on the home front and participate in our national security missions abroad. on the appropriations committee, i have really enjoyed the successes i've had working first with barbara mikulski and now patty murray to ensure that public housing meets the needs

of the people it's supposed to serve and the communities in which they live, providing supporting assistance for the homeless, particularly veterans, and stopping lead paint poisoning in children in hold public housing buildings across the nation. barbara and i also gave a boost to what i believe will be the job-creating technology of the 21st century: agricultural biotechnology. and we did that with congressionally directed spending to the national foundation for science budget. with diane feinstein as chair of the senate select committee on intelligence, we have put, i believe, the senate intelligence committee back on a path of bipartisanship and achieved passage of the first intelligence act reauthorization in six years. i especially owe my republican colleagues my sincerest thanks and appreciation for sticking with me as we negotiated our way through some tough compromises, like the fights we had on fisa.

but when the "help america vote" act came to the senate floor in 2001, ob, ostensibly to cure puh card voting in florida but which most of us thought was to discredit the election of former president bush, i urged my colleagues not to block the bill but to use it not only to make it easier to vote but tougher to cheat. when we moved to the floor, i brought to the senate floor a picture of a springer spaniel, ritzy mackler, who had been registered to vote in st. louis, missouri, to make point if we had positive identification, it would have been much more difficult for ritzy to register or certainly to vote. my friend, chris dodd, with whom i'd worked on many children and family issues and who worked with us on the hava act, told me he never wanted to see the picture of that dog again. so i autographed the picture and gave it to him. i trust he still has it in his trusted memory box.

right now, we're engaged on the senate floor in passing a bill that will stop historic tax increases from hitting most american families and the entire economy next year. i truly hope the house will be able to pass the bill for signature by president obama so we can begin getting the economy to work again and preventing even more job losses. assuming we can do it, the new congress has to put our economy back on a sound footing. we must end the recent trend of the push for government overspending and passing a burdensome mandates on states and the private sector. excessive regulations that go beyond reasonable safety and environmental restrictions are costing us jobs, delaying in agriculture, energy, many othe others -- many other areas of the economy, and stopping badly needed developments that we in this country need. and the size of the debt has become an increasing concern for

my constituents and others across the nation. we have a debt problem that is caused by spending, not by having taxes too low. i'm encouraged to see there's been more discussion of having a flat tax with lower rates, eliminating a wide range of deductions, credits and other tax built earmarks. dueling so would make it -- doing so would make it easier for all of us as americans to fill out tax forms, eliminating the time and effort of figuring them out. and i think it should enable us to put more of those resources into what we really need, our top priority, job creation. speaking of job creation, i think there are tremendous opportunities in export trade. i applaud president obama's call for expanding trade to create jobs. i look forward to seeing his continued leadership and to see congress move forward promptly to adopt the trade agreements with korea, colombia and panama. for our intermediate-term future, it's essential that the

united states participate in the transpacific partnership with countries on both sides of the pacific to take down barriers to trade and increase export job opportunities. as most of my colleagues know, i've been particularly interested in expanding trade with southeast asia, which i believe is not well understood by too many americans. but the entire asian region, however, provides huge opportunities for better american jobs through trade and investment across the pacific. but in expanding economic growth and jobs, trade is also an important element in smart power. fight against terrorist insurgencies in other countries ultimately necessary to protect us here at home. as i mentioned in the book that the leader was kind enough to mention, we see trade, investment, education exchanges to build stronger communities as a necessary step to -- as we use

military action to stop imminent violent threats. the combination can make stronger, stabler allies. and i think smart power has no better demonstration, no better object lesson than the missouri national guard agricultural development team in nangahar province. military men and women went to afteafghanistan with strong agricultural expertise and a wide range of activities and helped reestablish a profitable, legitimate agriculture in nangahar while they were maintaining security. by the end of the first ten-month growing season, poppy -- elicit poppy production had dropped to zero in nangahar, which had been the second leading poppy producer in the nation. i think we have to expand that model with more national guard units but also seeing better coordination of not only our

military forces overseas but civilian assistance that must go with them. we must continue our efforts in the afpac region to avoid giving al qaeda and its related terrorist allies an unchallenged place to develop recruiting and training camps, command-and-control units, and threatening us. one of the greatest challenges, however, is the -- is the publicly announced summer 2011 withdrawal date from afghanistan. this told our enemies they only need to wait until next summer. it put our allies and the karzai government on notice that we may not be there to protect them after 2011 summer. and just as importantly, it takes -- it tells the local shura leaders, the community leaders, that we won't be there next year to protect them from the taliban if they cooperate with us. there must be a message, i believe, from the white house widely democrat natured -- disseminated that we will pull out of afghanistan only when

conditions on the ground indicate that there will be security. high point of my legislative career really got an impetus in 2007 when i went with senator bayh on a congressional delegation, a codel, to afghanistan. we were told that the limitations in the old foreign intelligence surveillance act was a great throat our troops -- great threat to our troops as well as to those of us on the ground. i worked, as the leader said, from that point until the summer of 2008, with the strong support of my republican colleagues and a workable compromise across the aisle was developed which gave the intelligence agencies the access they needed at the same time extended the protection of the rights of americans overseas from unwarranted interception of messages by telephone or e-mail. as a result, we currently have the ability but we must go to

work quickly to make sure that other provisions of vital intelligence collection measures authorizations do not expire without legislative extensions. for the united states ourselves -- our homeland, our defense against terrorist attacks from prisoners of war is essential, and we must prevent the release of gitmo detainees to other countries where they will return to the battlefield. the fact that one in four detainees already has come back is a frightening figure because we believe that there are many more who will come back and i near one of those may conduct an attack on the united states. we need to have a law of war which allows us to hold them. as a final thought in intelligence, however, the recent wikki leaks scandal has shown us what damage the internet can do to our diplomatic efforts as well as to

the safety of those in dangerous places we work with. the even greater threat we see is the continuing cyber attack on our military intelligence and private-sector critical infrastructure. with my colleague from utah, orrin hatch, we've introduced a cyber security bill which will establish the cyber defense alliance, to allow private-sector entities to cooperate with governmental agencies to protect our critical financial system, our utilities, and, most of all, our communications systems from attack. the battle is underway and we'll need every effort to stay ahead of the developing attacks, and helping the private sector protect their information. in closing, i'll tell you, i have worked in all possible party combinations. i've been in the majority and in the minority. i've been fat and thin. and being thin and in the majority is a whole lot better. [laughter] mr. bond: in my two terms as

governor, with a 70% democratic majority in both the house and the senate of the general assembly, they explained to me how bipartisanship works. i figured out during my second term, which enabled to us do better. my most successful term in office, the general assembly and i both achieved passage of all the legislative priorities that we had. so now, if my colleagues will permit a little parting advice from an old -- an old bull, work together, play nice. i would follow up on the leader's comment about a little scuffle i had with pat moynihan. i never talked about it. he -- we never said anything publicly until now. but he did later on, as we became fast friends, used to tease me about setting up boxing matches so we could raise money for charity. but when i looked at his height and his reach, i didn't take him up on that. but in a