challenge to not only the people of pakistan, but to our strategy. to adopt an approach to change on how we would do aide. to be more responsive to what the pakistanis needed and wanted as opposed to what we needed. we need our military cooperation, but also our civilian cooperation. any question about leadership or who is in charge, we deal with the government. i deal with the civilian leadership. we will talk to the military leadership. the admiral has developed a very positive, cooperative relationship. we have made deals regularly with the director general of the isi.

we are in constant communication. there are decisions made by different leaders within their government. it would be a mistake and it is a mistake that the united states has made continuously over the last 63 years to move away from the democratically elected civilian leadership of pakistan. our goal is to help support that leadership and help them to understand how to deliver and showed them that democracy produces results for people. we intend to do that. our answer is that you deal with the leaders of pakistan. we do it in a very whole government approach. the strategic dialogue has given us the mechanisms to do that. >> are you surprised at your relationship with republicans?

that you're working for a different administration, are you surprised how hard it has been for you to get a budget? can you describe how your relationship with senate republicans has changed going from one administration to another? >> they may have a different view, but i do not think it has changed at all. these things have always been hard. they were hard in the last administration. i think it would be wrapped around the axle on a lot of these same issues that we are tied up with now. i do not think it is a partisan issue. the defense budget and the defense authorization bill for a long time has not been a partisan issue. there are many democrats supporting both along with republicans. i have had the vantage.

both the armed services committees and the appropriations committees that i deal with crossed the political spectrum. they are very supportive of the military and the department of defense. i feel like i have had a great relationship with them. i would like to add one comment on the strategic dialogue. when we have the strategic dialogue meetings that include secretary clinton and myself and include ambassador holbrooke and chairman mullen, our counterparts in the small, very private meetings, it is the defense minister, it is the foreign minister. it is in reality, a whole government approach. >> do you feel like that is being politicized? >> i think there were some genuine concerns on the hill,

predictor early on the republican side, but not it exclusively -- not exclusively on the republican side about the modernization of our nuclear arsenal. the resources would be made available to be able to carry up the modernization programs that general cartwright talked about. there were some misunderstandings on missile defense. i hope that the joint chiefs and general cartwright is an expert in this area and perhaps me to a lesser extent. they have provided assurance to people that this treaty in no way keeps us from doing anything that we had in mind for missile defense. there are some legitimate concerns, but i think they have been addressed. >> do you remember the christmas day attempted attack?

do you know what the threat level is heading into this christmas season? >> i believe he is talking to you, robert. >> merry christmas. obviously, this is true in the counter-terrorism meetings that the president has. the president's daily briefing, we are not going to get into commenting on the specific intelligence. we know that al qaeda and its toremist affiliate's want nci to do harm and damage in europe and the united states. we have good relationships with those governments in information sharing. we are taking all of the steps that are necessary to ensure

that we are doing all that we can, as we did earlier this year with the attempt in using the computer printers. obviously, we will continue to remain vigilant on this topic. >> any reaction to any of you on the julian assange being granted bail in england? >> understanding that you have not painted too optimistic of a picture in this assessment, there are reports on the ground from various sources and reports from intelligence agency reports which painted a darker picture, a picture of corruption, incompetence, weakness or absence of government in

afghanistan. a major challenge will be demonstrating that the afghan government has the capacity to consolidate the gains which forces make. what reason is there to believe that in the long run, you can prevail in a afghanistan? why not the absence of troops whenever? whether it is 2014 or 2020, why with things not go back to the way that they were? >> i think the key here is identifying our objectives carefully. what do we need to accomplish to achieve our goals? our goal is not to build a 21st century afghanistan. our goal is not a country that is free of corruption, which would be unique in the entire region.

our goal is what is necessary, what do we need to do, along with their partners and the afghans, to turn back the taliban's military and violent capabilities to the degree that the afghan government forces can deal with them and to provide some minimal capability at the local district and provincial level for security, for dispute resolution, for perhaps a clinic within an hour's walked. we are trying to work our way towards, just what do we have to do to be able to turn over security responsibility to the afghans with us in the background?

i think one of the things that the administration has done and one of the benefits of the protracted review a year ago, and the review that we have just been through, keeping us focused on not getting too ambitious. and not setting goals that we cannot achieve. and trying to have a minimalist approach that focuses on al qaeda and the taliban and on afghan capabilities, both military and civilian. the civilian peace is a challenge. we have 1100 u.s. civilians. we have thousands of partners of billions in afghanistan working to help provide that capital. i would argue that it is important not just to have it in the central government, but to have it at some level at the local provincial level. one of the virtues of the police of initiatives we are seeing is

that they are powered by the local tribal elders. they are taking leadership of this. as far as i am concerned, if they can provide security for that area, we have accomplished our objective. >> thank you. is it possible to draw a conclusion that the clear statement of success on the president's primary goal of defeating al qaeda came in counter-terrorism operations. the second paragraph of the assessment said most important, al qaeda's leadership in pakistan is more better than in 2001. tens with the fact that they're not addressing taliban momentum. those gains are fragile and

possibly reversible. i know that secretary gates said that this was not a time to do this. if the goals are being achieved, the main goals with counter- terrorism operations that do not involve the troop surge and the footprint of the counterinsurgency strategy, will that dictate the direction after july? >> i will start first and then secretary gates and general cartwright can come in. this is by necessity an overview. certainly, from our perspective, what you call counter-terrorism are part of the overall effort and cannot be separated out. that was one of the very vigorous discussions that we had in the review of 2009. i think that general cartwright and secretary gates can add to

this. it is hard to separate out what is necessary on the ground in order to support counter- terrorism efforts. to say that you can do one without the other. i would caution that conclusion. i think it is much more complex than just the short hand overview. >> i think also that you have to look at an integrated strategy. it is a balance. that balance is something that the commander on the ground is constantly adjusting. we have seen increases in the focus on counter-terrorism. focuses on sanctuary came in, whether they be al qaeda or taliban. it is not just in of afghanistan. it has to be in pakistan and afghanistan. we have the vantage in a

afghanistan of having boots on the ground so that we can defeat rather than disrupt. we have to defeat that kind of capability. you need both. this brings the structure to this. this brings the enduring peace to this. will the peace be able to endure. will the capability provide the sufficiency to endure as we go forward? that is the question that we are trying to answer. >> i would like to ask about the issue of the pakistani safe havens. they usually only do this after their own government has been directly threatened. you still have al qaeda and taliban leadership detected in other parts of pakistan. what specifically do you plan to

push the pakistani government? if they do not go ahead with this, what can the u.s. do? >> first of all, i would say that the pakistanis have indicated their willingness to move into other areas. as i mentioned in my opening remarks and as secretary clinton referred to, it is hard to overstate the impact of the flooding in pakistan and the role and the degree to which the military assets were drawn off of the border to be able to deal with the flooding. they also have to have an enduring presence in the places that they have cleared. to make sure that the enemies

that they cleared out do not come back as well karim like many of the things we have dealt with in pakistan, things will move in the right direction. it will probably take longer than we would like. i would say that this underscores the importance of a broader strategic dialogue between ourselves and the pakistanis. they are coming to have a better understanding of the threat that is posed to them by this and duquette of terrorists. it is not just the pakistani taliban that is a problem for them. the degree of cooperation and bilateral cooperation on both sides of the border is a manifestation. this is something we have wanted to do for a long time. we are doing it. we have wanted the pakistanis on the border for a long time.

14 months ago, i would have thought the idea of 140,000 troops on the border was not a possibility. the more confident they are that we have a long-term relationship in mind with pakistan, the more willing they are going to be to take actions that serve both of our interests. >> the president mentioned reconciliation. to what extent is that still a priority? also, remember and ambassador holbrooke, there is nobody out there in the conventional sense. >> as ambassador holbrooke said many times, there is no military

solution, which we have recognized. we have integrated a civilian- military approach. among the areas in which we are engaged is working with the afghan government on reconciliation and reintegration. from our perspective, this is not necessarily an afghan lead process. it is one in which the regional partners have interests. to some extent, stakes. we have dramatically increased our regional diplomacy. we are a working closely with a number of parties to explore what is and is not possible on the reconciliation front. at the end of the day, it has to be abscam lead. we are supporting president karzai's efforts.

i expect that we will be evaluating that. we believe that the increased military pressure is a necessary component of getting to a point where there would be a genuine discussion about reconciliation. >> thanks very much. >> now a state department briefing on the president's afghanistan and pakistan strategy. it is a little less than half an hour.

>> since i just came from a long briefing front -- with the president and the vice president, i wanted to say a few words about our team here at the state department who have worked so hard on this review and have worked so hard from the beginning of this administration. for these men and women who spend their days and often their sleepless nights to make this crucial mission a success, richard holbrooke was a mentor, a friend, and a boss. he was a leader that pushed each and every one of them to reach further, see better, and think

deeper. he took enormous pride. even representatives from other governments are working together. i have heard a lot of those stories in the last week. we are collecting them because people have shouts of recognition. he did that to you, too?

he recruited with a midnight text message. he recruited the best of the best. as we move forward and continue richard's work, i have complete confidence in this team. you will hear from frank in a minute. he has hit the ground running. he is a credit to all of these extraordinary men and women that even during these last difficult days, they have stayed focused on the job at hand. richard would be very pleased. he would expect no less. this would be the biggest complement that i could pay him. i am looking forward to continuing to have the benefit of their insight and their suggestions in the weeks and

months ahead. i am personally very grateful to each and every one of them. let me turn it over to t.j. or to frank? let me turn it over to frank. >> thank you, madam secretary. i appreciate the vote of confidence. as many people have said, we are deeply saddened by the passing of a ambassador holbrooke. as evidenced by the team put together here, he has put together the very best and brightest. so he would want us to continue the mission. this team has been actively involved in the december review process from the beginning. we were part of an interagency team that went to afghanistan. this team is involved in drafting the current policy. a statement has been released

and the findings have been released. i would make opening comments about the findings. then i will open up the questions. the whole team here could take any questions that you might have. i have a lot of backing. very comforting being up here. i have alex here who is one of our great counterparts over here. the first point i would make is the overall assessment shows that the administration implemented the president's policies has made progress over the past 12 months of achieving our goals in afghanistan and pakistan. we have been clear ride and realistic in this assessment. we try to make this a clear

eyed, realistic assessment. the primary objective was to prevent the core al qaeda from being a threat to the united states homeland. there has been significant progress in taking up the command and control apparatus in pakistan. this is here in terms of going after the sanctuaries. in afghanistan, we have made significant progress in stemming the momentum of the taliban, which was one of the core objectives of the present strategy. in some areas, reversing that momentum. those core objectives, we have made progress over this last year. when we have done in most cases, specifically in afghanistan, over one cause a 100 american civilians are now deployed to work hand-in-hand at

the most basic level with our military counterparts. in pakistan, which have enhanced a strategic partnership that every member of this team is actively involved in. it is moving from one that is transactional in nature to one that is strategic in nature. with that, i will open up the questions. >> i would like to talk about the idea that without the afghan government stepping up and being able to transfer to them the civilian efforts that you are trying to get together, how much of this is not going to be able to be sustained over the long term? some people seem to think that a hamid karzai is not necessarily

interested in the whole government's peace? a lot of that is just clearing up of corruption and delivering services. what he would like to do is cut a deal with the taliban so that u.s. forces can get out of the country. i wonder if you can respond. >> you make a very valid point. it is one of the primary findings of the review, the issue of governance remains a challenge. it is a very important question in terms of the areas that we have cleared militarily over the last 12-18 months. i think that the afghan government, we have worked with them to try to build capacity so that they can go into areas that we have cleared. you have to put that into context. this is a society that has been shattered by 30 years of war.

year attempting to do is a long- term effort to work with the afghan government to get them to be able to help with the transition of security. what we need that the most basic level, we are not in the nation- building business. we need to provide very basic capabilities so that we can transition our military forces. our national security forces have to be built up to a degree. there has to be a local level of governance that can do this. they can provide some very basic level of services that allows for the transition. part of this is what president karzai has done in the reconciliation. underpinning all of this with conflict. it is notable was the afghans are doing with the high peace council. they are trying to solve the underlying political issues.

>> do you fear that this reconciliation effort is almost short in the eyes of afghan president karzai is almost a short cut or a substitute to the hard work of building and sustaining a government that will deliver those services? >> i do not see it that way. these types of conflicts come to a conclusion through a political resolution. that is an absolute fundamental part of how you end this conflict. >> the secretary mentioned that one priority was closing the gap between islamabad and kabul. could you give the reasons behind why that gap still exists? could you talk about how that complicates your worked and the mission going forward?

it seems the recently the threat assessments are moving. it is not what we traditionally thought of as al qaeda. is your judgment of where the threat is in afghanistan changing at all? >> we have had pretty good success in terms of narrowing the gap between afghanistan and pakistan. there have been a series of engagements. we have been holding a range of meetings. we have done a series of bilateral engagements. we have encouraged the government of pakistan to meet with the government of pakistan. president karzai going to " -- islamabad. we continue to push that. one of the key deliverable is that we have achieved is the

transit training rooms in afghanistan and pakistan. this team was very active and was fundamentally involved in getting that done. in terms of the threat from pakistan changing, we have always said that about sanctuaries in pakistan. it is a unique determination to say that they are distinct. i think there is a lot of interplay between them. our strategy has been to work with the pakistani government to dry up those sanctuaries. if you look back two years ago and you say, how many forces with afghanistan have in the frontier process doing this, for 140,000 would have seemed unreasonable. that is what the pakistani government has done. >> can you give us an idea of where the civilian government is

going to go going forward? i remember one thing coming up i got last year was the certification of afghan ministries. there were a lot of delays in that process. can you bring us up to speed on where that is? >> it is absolutely a priority. one of the points we have noted to the afghan government that is supported by all of the ministries is that we need to transport our ministries to the afghan government. we need to make sure that all of this is their said that there can be effective monitoring and transparency. we are making progress. >> as of june last year, there were only about three that have been certified.

i think that had been delayed. >> the process of ministry certification is complex. it is not by mary. we work with individual ministries to make sure they have the capabilities to implement these programs. the instrument of public -- the ministry of public health, we have a program that will deliver basic public health services to these afghans every month. our funding goes into that ministry. it is not as though the ministry becomes magically certified one day. we undertake that process with a number of different ministries. the moment we have funding and mechanisms that allow us to provide direct funding through the afghan government for a specific purpose.

we continue to work on that. we have added specific programs with the department of agriculture. this depends whether they have the resources to manage the funds to manage the programs we have agreed upon. >> there is a concern that that process is going slower than you would like it too. >> i think it has accelerated on the pace we've had expected it to. this year, we doubled to 27.5%. i think that we are confident that this is going well. i would ask that everything that we do is done with a strict measure of accountability. >> this is my question about where this is.

>> i think we will look at the conditions on the ground. i will listen to the ambassador's recommendations on where this would be as we move into the transition. >> do you in vision that changing in july it? is that only on the military side? >> it is more closely linked to 2014. they are building governments to try to do this work. i do not think this will be linked necessarily to the 24- hour timeline to clear this. >> one of the clear findings is the success that they have had in the field, doubling the number of staff in countries and

tripling the amount of staff we have in fields and truly partnering with the military so that this is joint a fax on the ground. if you look at the numbers, this is a dramatic improvement from last year. >> this quarter nation goes all of the way down to the district level. -- coordination goes all of the way down to the district level. >> there may have been some movement on this. what is the latest on the opening of consulates? >> there are two consulates in the process of being opened. we are looking at plants in terms of what will be our long- term structure in the country? >> when will they open? the staff is there. the facility is not i can get you the time.

>> there was some plan that you could get a hotel in one of those cities. >> we have a large civilian presence. what you do not have at this point is the final building an infrastructure to move in and call it a consulate. >> technically, it is a consulate? >> technically, it is a consulate. >> the review highlights the need to deny al qaeda leadership in the region. fed this led the pakistanis to send 140,000 troops to the region. the u.s. always insists on the fact that the war in afghanistan have a military solution and also a diplomatic

solution. how do you plan to do with the local tribal leaders to convince them or encourage them to deny al qaeda leadership safe haven? >> on the afghan side of the border, we have worked with the afghan government. reconciliation we look as an afghan-lead process. i think that would be the answer. >> maybe i will add this. one of the things we have done in afghanistan and pakistan in the last year is to dramatically increase our stabilization efforts in the tribal areas. you are seeing an increase in the number of community-based development programs. this is along the pakistan border in afghanistan. part of our effort is to make sure that people see the future

that lies with the government is a positive one. that comes with benefits, development, and so on. we have made a lot a progress in the past year in bringing resources, civilian resources, stabilization resources into those communities. >> i think your question was mainly directed at the tribal agencies in pakistan, i am not mistaken. the united states does not have a presence on the ground that does business with the government of pakistan. during the time we have had this relationship with pakistan, the president has suspended the act with travel agencies. it has not been hap -- possible to have that on the ground. the government of pakistan is developing a multi-year plan for the peace making integration of those tribal areas. we look forward to working with

them and supporting that. >> we go back to reconciliation. this is coming out of the nato meeting in brussels. -- he is trying to do everything in his power to recognize this process. this is not where we thought it was. can you give us an estimate about where you think the reconciliation process is right now? has it fallen back? is this going to happen at some stage? >> i think the afghans have made important progress on the reconciliation front. the series of meetings that have been doing around the country to try to get at some of the core issues that would lead to

reconciliation. i would point to president karzai and his administration. >> we have seen the kind of initial stages that pakistan was not really included in that. ambassador holbrooke has said how critically important pakistan was to reconciliation. can you talk about how you see that going forward? what about ambassador holbrooke's assessment that there was not kind of sum -- some kind of slow but on milosevich? there were not the heavyweight players that could make these deals on behalf of their whole groups because the group is so diffuse. do you see some kind of grand bargain were all of the groups are able to be reconciled? >> it would be way too early to reach a judgment on the final

point. what ambassador holbrooke bush tried to get at was the fractured nature of the taliban. the taliban as we understand it, you have the economy network. you have this in afghanistan itself. that breaks down into a number of groups. the taliban may get the guidance from pakistan. oftentimes, the operations have relative autonomy in a afghanistan. who, in the end, and do you negotiate with? >> what about in terms of pakistan's role in terms of reconciliation? >> pakistan has interests in the border area. at some point in time, there would be a discussion between the government of afghanistan and pakistan on these issues. >> you say that they have

interests. this whole strategy was about bringing in pakistan because it was such a critical country. what do not see their involvement in reconciliation as a key component? >> i think they will play an important role in reconciliation. the coal -- the core goals are to go after al qaeda and to dismantle their abilities. we have had good success at that. we have used the strategic dialogue in a manner that the pakistani government does not let them take military activities to go after the sanctuaries that al qaeda operates in in pakistan. >> they say that you can all go home early. [applause] -- [laughter]

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. you are all welcome to stay here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> more now on the administration review of the afghanistan-pakistan strategy. this is the pet -- the defense department briefing is half an hour.

>> thank you. our two debriefers probably need no introduction. she has a brief statement and then she will take your questions. >> good afternoon. this week we completed the review of the implementation of our strategy in afghanistan and pakistan as articulated by the leader of west point. our strategy in the theater remains unchanged. to eventually defeat al qaeda and prevent its return to pakistan or afghanistan. of challenges remain, there is real progress that we can build on. while there are improvements to be made, we do not anticipate any major shifts in our strategy going forward. over the past year, we have made great strides against cora al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan.

as the president noted earlier, a kind of leadership between afghanistan and pakistan are under more pressure than at any point since we invaded afghanistan nine years ago. we remain relentlessly focused on al qaeda because of the strategic nature of the threat that they pose and the group's pursuit of large-scale attacks and their influence on international terrorism. pakistan is central to our efforts to defeat al qaeda and prevent its three generations in the region. our relationship with pakistan has improved significantly through robust counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency cooperation. increased military assistance, and a long-term partnership that it includes the understanding of the pakistani

strategic needs. to understand that our goals with al qaeda are durable, we must help this. in afghanistan, we have assembled the necessary resources and put in place an integrated civilian military approach. our strategy in afghanistan is on track. we can begin a responsible, conditions based reduction of forces in july. we have stopped taliban momentum in much of afghanistan. in particular, we are pushing the taliban out of their strongholds. this has been reduced by isaf and the national security forces with counterinsurgency operations, expanded special operations, and the growth of security initiatives such as the afghan police program. this process does remain

fragile and reversible. we expect the taliban to -- to continue to fight back. this was a clear eyed assessment. we are realistic about the challenges going forward. going forward are challenges to consolidate and build on the progress we made in 2010. over the next six months, our policy agenda will focus on how to adjust our approach to solidify these gains. we believe we are on a path to lead this transition to lead security responsibility to the afghans in early 2011 and to have them nationwide in 2014. according to the time lines. i would like to give special thanks and holiday wishes to our troops serving in afghanistan and to their families.

it is their contributions and sacrifices that have made this possible. we are grateful for that. thank you. >> why do we not just art left to right. we are going this way across the front row. >> you are starting to see people question the whole strategy. richard armey, sandy berger, they are saying that if you do not see a change by july, you should look at a different mission, one of strict counterterrorism training. also training afghan security forces. general, i am interested in what you have to say about this. you came up with that kind of a plan that with the vice- president. you are going to be chairman of the joint chiefs in july. >> i will talk about the rumors at the end of the statement. the issue is one of balance.

the balance should be constantly adjusted to the realities on the battlefield. what we have given general petraeus is a force that has the ability to do counter-terrorism and these types of activities. what is the balance any given time on the battlefield? you can move back and forth. my sense right now is that that balance and the adjustments he has been able to make have given us the gains. we are at 18 months on a 24- month time line that was set out as one of the original metrics. that was set as the marines arriving in this province in 2009. that is what set up are metric. we have six months in which we would expect to see progress in those areas. that is going to give us a good insight as to whether or not, some people have called this a

proof of concept decision. does it -- and does that metric hold up? do we have the right balance? what lisbon gave us was the idea of 2014. we looked at the correct strategy and move it out to 2014 for an afghan lead in security in particular. we have another signpost out there. post 2014 is the recognition of an enduring partnership going for it. what we have to do in the next six months is to be realistic about the evaluation. once we get realistic about an assessment of what this is, what does this look like? what are the conditions on the ground? >> he did not see his marines coming up for a few more years.

do you agree with that? >> it is a question of how much. if what we're saying that they will be there in exactly the number and character of where we are today, no. are there going to be marines in helmand province for an extended period of time, sure. it should be less than what we are doing today. >> to it you talk about the pressure that al qaeda leadership is under. what about all of the other groups in pakistan that have been killing americans in afghanistan? and u.s.-pakistani operations, have they done anything to diminish their capability to conduct cross border operations? can the u.s. succeed in afghanistan as long as those safe havens in pakistan exist?

safe havens in pakistan exist? >> do you want me to take it? >> i see this sanctuary issue. the extremist groups that are associated with it. particularly those that come across the border into pakistan as one of our strategic vulnerability is. there are any number of ways that we can address this. from unilateral u.s. activities to unilateral pakistani activities to partnering between the two of us. that is really what we seek. as we go through time, can we build the confidence? pakistan is a sovereign country. pakistan handling pakistan's challenges. they should be a contribution to our activities and then being a detriment. what i have seen in my time in

visiting and talking is that i never would have guessed that the type of activities that the pakistanis are engaged in, that we ever would have seen that. 18 months ago, when never would have seen that. the pakistanis have realized the threat inside their own country. that threat is not focused against afghanistan in all of those situations. are we seeing a cooperation to go after this thread in all situations? i think so. the intelligence is on the border. the monthly meetings we have now between the leaders on both sides of the border to coordinate the crossings on both sides of the borders and to make sure the trails where ammunition comes across are starting to become monitored on a regular basis. that activity is moving along in the last two months

that has in the preceding months. pakistanis are clearly focused on the threats to their country first. there are those that though we are concerned about on the other side of the border. is this cooperation improving? i am relatively positive there. i still count this as a strategic vulnerability. >> what about impact? as their ability to conduct cross border operations as of this day it significantly diminished? >> measurably diminished. we have been working with the pakistanis to interdict cross border operations. is it enough?

not yet. it is turning in a direction and turning at a measurable pace that we would want more. it is definitely starting to have an effect. >> there was a question about whether or not the u.s. would succeed in afghanistan. >> from the outset of the development of the strategy, which have seen the two as very deeply interrelated. as we degrade al qaeda's ability to operate from sanctuary and increased the ability of both the pakistani military and the pakistan-afghan military, you create a situation where do will have more local and regional capacity to deal with the problem. as the general said, that sanctuary is a strategic advantage for the taliban, for

all tied up, for the syndicate. -- for al qaeda, for the syndicate groups. >> secretary clinton suggested that increased u.s. development of economic aid would be the best strategy for freeing up the armed forces there working on the efforts with the floods. do you agree with that as being a key element? i have a separate question for you on a failed missile defense tests yesterday. >> given the ups and downs of our historical relationship of pakistan, they fear our abandonment. they are very much affected by the level of long-term commitment they feel from us to the region to work with them in a strategic partnership. that partnership has to be more than simply counter terrorism.

it needs to be a broad range as secretary clinton described. i think in broad terms, committing to help the pakistani government meet the needs of the pakistani people is part of building that partnership. the military is in many areas are very engaged in flood relief and unable to do other things because of the lack of civilian capacity. the more civilian capacity we can build up, the more the military can be focused on the counter terrorism and counterinsurgency operations we want to be working with them. >> the most advanced warhead that we had in alaska and california, a missile defense has been a stark issue on the senate side. is this more elementary? does this matter?

how concerned are you about the failures in a row? >> this is an interceptor that has some new capabilities. that have been built into it. we are in the process of testing. the tests up until now, we have had two failures. there have been a string of tests on the ground side that have been positive. we test in order to find out if something works. this has in been introduced, but only selectively. i am not the least bit concerned that we do not have the capability to defeat the rogue threat that the system has been designed against. we have more than enough interceptors to do that. as we understand what the cause of the failure was yesterday, as we start to understand that, is

the interceptor? is it some other component of the system? that has to be worked out. you want to eliminate as many of those variables as possible. what is new in the system is that interceptor. that is where we are focused right now until we understand this. i am going to be conservative in my recommendations about how many warheads are used as opposed to how many are retained of the older configuration. >> does it give you some measure of money is? -- of unease. this is the primary defensive system against north korea. >> this is not the primary version. we would like to have this capability because it gives us some things we did not have in the older version. i am not worried because i have

the edge. was it two failures that was of the same ilk? was it two very different failures? we just do not know those answers. >> i would like to ask for a clarification over what i think is a good message for the public. the public is being told that we are on track to start withdrawing troops in the middle of 2011 by president obama had planned. the decision about that withdrawal would be conditions based. what would prompt a reconsideration or a change from the track that we are on right now? in the first several months? >> i think that the july, 2011 date marks the end of the surge period.

mr. camp: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes.

mr. hensarling: i had not thought i'd come here to speak. i have been watching this debate in my office. i have envy for my colleagues that bring such passion and certainty in their vote as they come to the floor. i look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, i must admit, i consider it to be a successful negotiation because i am not sure i heard anybody who really likes the bill. perhaps that's the hallmark of a successful negotiation. i look at the legislation, it's the classic challenge, is the glass half full or half empty? i for one have decided it to be half full. mr. speaker, clearly there are items in this legislation that i find not just empty, but frankly, atrocious. yes, there's tax pork in this legislation. there's unpaid for extension of unemployment benefits.

mr. speaker, at some point, i would hope the majority soon to be minority, in this institution, would realize we've got to concentrate on the paychecks, the paychecks americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. if we're going to have them, they need to be paid for. worst of all, yes, what's happening to social security with the payroll tax. without putting any fundamental reform on the table, what i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is you who brought that to the table. mr. speaker, i made a pledge to my constituents, i told them i would fight any tax increases. i hold them i would try to bring certainty to this economy because that's what businesses need. trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting to come

into this economy, but yet the party who has been in control of congress for four years had the white house for two years, waits until almost christmas eve and we still don't know what tax rates are? there's no certainty. the only thing i am certain of is that if we don't pass this legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the american people on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on small businesses, on job creators, and yes, even the vilified wealthy. you know, mr. speaker, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some time now. look what it's got us. almost serial double digit unemployment and human suffering. mr. speaker, i ed have held a lot of jobs in hi life. i used to bus tables at the

holiday inn in college station, texas. i used to work on the loading dock, loading windows. i used to clean out chicken houses, which to some extent was sufficient training for the present occupation, but that's a subject for a different time. mr. speaker, in all those jobs i've held no poor person ever hired me. it was somebody who went out and risked capital and took a chance and built something. yet the left and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person. that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on the table, send their kids to college. i don't get it. my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this will add to the deficit. why didn't i hear that argument during the $1.2 trillion failed stimulus? i didn't hear the great angst and anxiety from my friends on

the other side of the aisle at this point when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. i didn't really hear it. will the gentleman yield two more minutes? mr. camp: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i didn't hear this angst and anxiety when my friends on the other side of the aisle brought us the first terror-dollar deficit in america's history butted back it up with the second trillion-dollar deficit in america's history. i didn't hare this concern. i only hear it now when we're talking about letting the american people keep what they earn. we're not even talking about a tax cut here. we're talking about preventing a tax increase. so i don't quite understand all of a sudden this great angst and concern about the deficit. and i might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit

which is the symptom, it is spend chg is the disease. we can clearly get rid of the deficit tonight. let's increase taxes 60%. 60% on all americans. let's more than double taxes on our children and destroy the american dream. sure, we can balance the budget that doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity. so to avoid a further job meltdown, and let me make it clear, mr. speaker, this is not any great economic growth package that's put before us. i don't believe this is going to be the cornucopia of jobs. what we're trying to do here is avoid further damage to a crippled economy that again has almost double digit unemployment on a serial basis. i wish we had at least 10 years of certainty of these tax rates. i'm sorry it's only two. i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, who say,

well, we could have got an better deal, i don't know. i wasn't in the room. i didn't negotiate the deal. maybe their crystal ball is clearer than my crystal ball. here's what i see in my crystal ball. i'm absolutely for certain in my crystal ball that come january, barack obama is still going to be president of the united states. in my crystal ball, harry reid is still going to be senate majority leader. that's what i see in my crystal ball system of maybe the friends on my side, maybe you're right. but you have a degree of certainty and clarity of the future i do not have. so personally, i'm not willing to take the chance. i'm going to cast the aye vote. i'm going to stop the job-killing tax increases, i'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty two years certainty to the tax code. and i'm going to fight to put this nation back on the road to

fiscal sanity because in this legislation, i see the glass half full. i yield back. the chair: the type of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the yom is -- the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the white house. while one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breakers in top 2% of our country. fear is that th bush tax cuts will become permanent and our future bill be dim. as america struggles with the

largest transfer of wealth. we should be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation and education. these are the real building blocks for a strong future for all americans. i'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general fund to cover social security payroll taxes. this is the first time in the history of social security that the firewall between the general fund and social security is being taken down. this is dangerous. it's about a bad precedent and one i believe we will all regret. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to a member of our committee, mr. van hollen, who has been working day and night on this

issue. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to have worked with congressman pomeroy and chairman levin on the amendment we will be voting on later tonight. while this house recently passed and democrats have been fighting to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98% of the american people, senate republicans made it clear that they will raise, that they will raise taxes on every american if they don't get a special bonus tax break for the very top 2%. in order to break that, president obama concluded he needed to cut a deal. what this amendment we will be voting on later tonight is give the american people a better deal. specifically it asks all of us to consider this question. in an era of $1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely

two weeks after the bipartisan fiscal commission's moment of truth report, should we really be borrowing $23 billion from china to give the wealthiest 6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year? think about it. $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates at a time in fiscal challenge in a nation of over 300 million people without any benefit for job creation or economic growth. mr. speaker, much of the deal negotiated by the white house is defensible, but i would say to my colleagues, if we can't agree now, that now is not the time to be giving the top 3/10's of 1% who are not clearly serious about bringing down the deficit. there is another way. we can adopt the amendment and will provide $.5 million

exemption and 45% maximum rate. that's identical, identical to the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on january 1 when the exemption would go to one million and the rate to 55%. in fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009. mr. speaker, we have to level with the american people. we got to start somewhere bringing down the deficits. and if we can't settle on the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which is the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that and say to the very wealthiest estates and

we are going to give you $23 billion to benefit 6,600 estates, how can we look the american people in the eye and say we are serious. i hope when this amendment comes up later today, we can make a deal that benefits all the people in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: the sirens of the election that were about the deficit and you want to add $1 trillion to that deficit. wake up and listen to the sirens to the people who are needing of help. i can't believe that you talked about this bill as fiscal

sanity. it's fiscal insanity, putting us in another $1 trillion of debt and the concept if you give the rich more money, it will trickle down. to the people that need to be rescued aren't paid for by trickle-down economics. the rich never paid for that. there isn't an ambulance in the country that is paid for by the rich, there isn't a sold year that is paid for by the rich, a school teacher. you are putting our country into debt and that's the biggest issue in national security and what's the debt commission said we couldn't do. this is insanity, we fix this debt by closing these tax loopholes and you want to give them away. shame on you. the chair: he members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan.

the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. to my friends on the republican side, we did this 10 years ago with the bush tax cuts and it didn't work. it's been mentioned over and over again and built up these great deficits, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan thaw supported so well and created the deficit that threatend our country to make us look like a future ireland, a future portugal, countries that are in great deficit problems that we are putting our country into. we don't need to be insane and try to do this over again. i feel like it's return to christmas past. christmas past. and you know, there is a book that says, from those who are given much, much is expected. but in this congress, from those

who have much, we are expecting little, we get little from it and giving them the biggest tax breaks of all. and to the people who die to the richest in our nation, we give them the steinbrenners who died with $1.1 billion and we will be giving them a free ride and the differences in the taxes 35% or 45%, $100 million. that is wrong and that is why i oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. tibtib what an honor and privilege it is to be a member of this house and to hear this debate that i have heard so much in the past. the road to prosperity is not through tax increases. the road to prosperity in america is not through class

warfare. my mother and father came to an america, a united states of america for a better life, for an opportunity, not a guarantee. an opportunity for their kids to be successful. for their kids to do well and pay taxes and do well for their kids. when you're voting on a bill tonight that extends current tax rates, the current tax code that represents, mr. speaker, three-quarters of this bill, that represents three-quarters of the quote, spending in this bill, and members of this body say we have to borrow to allow people to keep the money that they earn, where have we come? my father was a steel worker who

loved john f. kennedy, who proposed similar types of tax increases. my mother was a seamstress and neither graduated from high school. do they believe in class warfare? certainly not. the question is now, do we allow on january 1, the largest tax increase in american history? that's the question. i didn't negotiate this bill. if i were king, i would have certainly negotiated it differently. the chair: the gentleman has a right to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. >> can only people keep what they have today. does it cost the government money. think about that. the farmer, the farmer who is sick, who is trying to plan his

estate. would i support it being permanent? absolutely in the estate tax and let's eliminate it. but if this bill doesn't pass, a $1 million exemption occurs for that farmer planning his estate. how about the single mom with two jobs? trying to provide for her two kids. her taxes will go up. how about the teacher and the police officer raising a family, the marriage penalty? how about the small business owner who pulled me aside on monday and said i can't even plan my business. i would like to hire somebody and you folks in washington have known for how long that these tax rates were going to go up? last year, the majority party had 60 votes in the senate, had a clear majority in the house, you could have passed something and here we are 15 days before christmas and the grinch is

about ready to steal it. for so many americans who will see their taxes go up, mr. speaker, if this bill isn't passed. now there are a lot of things in this bill that i don't like, but the question today, mr. speaker, is do we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i could sit up here and pick apart this legislation, but when three fourths of this is the current tax code, three fourths allow for the current rates to continue so taxes don't go up on millions and millions of americans, mr. speaker, it really comes down to this simple logic, we cannot tax our way to prosperity, we cannot tax our way to fiscal responsibility. we must pass this bill. give two years for this congress, this president, this senate to come up with a better way, a more simple way to tax americans, allow them to keep

more of their money, provide for a way for capital to work in america's favor and allow america to be more competitive again with a tax code that makes sense. but the question today is, do we allow taxes to go up or allow americans to have some certainty for the next two years. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank the ranking member and chair for allowing me to support. i support maintaining the estate tax, exemption of $3.5 million. that's not what is in this legislation. i believe in the value of hard work and those who are able to succeed. some perceive the estate tax as undermining these values. americans with multi-million dollar estates are not the only hard workers.

we have social security recipients who have worked but see their benefits have deliped for two straight years now. what message does it send that we are giving 6,600 families a tax break on the average of $1.5 million each but can't find it appropriate to give our seniors on fixed income more breathing room a $250 check to allow them to pay their bills. the government's calculation tells us that the cost of living has not increased over the last two years but seniors in my district have done their own calculations. the cost of electricity, gas, health care have risen dramatically. i hope to support a bill that will benefit my constituents, but this bill does not and i hope the amendment will make it better. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is

recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: there are a lot of people that democrats believe for american values, keeping our water clean, our let and let live social policies but somewhere in the back of americans' minds they are worried that democrats will raise taxes. the democrats are going to deliver one of the largest tax cuts in history. here's a $20, for every $20 an american family earns, they'll get an extra dollar, an extra dollar for every 20 they earn. those earning millions may get 60 or 70 cents for every dollar they earn, but that extra dollar will help keep people in their homes. in addition to that, every american with a paycheck will

get a 2% raise this year 2,% off the payroll tax every paycheck. i know a lot of companies have frozen their salaries, federal employees have their salaries frozen. thanks to the leadership of barack obama, the people of america can rest assured they won't get a tax increase. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, the time is now for us to ask the one fundamental question before us -- what is in the best interest of the american people at this time. by american people, i mean every american from the top of the economic ladder to the bottom. especially those at the bottom. this is basically a 24-month stimulus bill.

by getting money to those who need it most, who will put it in the marketplace the quickest, which will help us create jobs. 70% of this entire $853 billion package will go to the low income and the middle income. there's no other way you put it. you talk about race, we dare not go home here today and raise taxes on the american people. we've got to cut the taxes, keep it down. ladies and gentlemen, you've got to realize that that lowest economic ladder, the lowest tax rate, is 10%. if we don't move, those people at the bottom that we care about, especially us on the democratic side, their taxes will go up 5050%. we've got to move this bill in the best interest of the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the sfrelt from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kay began. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kay began: tonight, well-meaning members of congress have been debating who will pay to clean up the mess left behind by president bush's failing economic policies, policies that included two tax cuts to the richest americans, at the very same time we're prosecuting two wars at the same time. we all know there is no free lunch. yet the senate is asking the house of representatives to designate this bill as an emergency for purposes of pay as you go, thereby failing to live within our means and driving our children deeper into debt. the senate also seeks to fix this more than by immediately turning over $129 billion of money we don't have to the very wealthiest americans. wrongly thinking that the republican inspired idea of trickle down economics will work today when it failed miserably

in the recent past. responsibility must begin somewhere. let it begin here with me. the reality is, there is no emergency that justifies handing out tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this time. instead, we should bring our children home from wars overseas and after paying for these wars, then determine if we with have any money left over for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. america cannot afford tax cuts for the rich. we don't have the money, they do. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. wiener. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. weiner: thank you, mr. levin. it doesn't take a great deal of courage to come to the floor of the house and say i'm in favor of low taxes. yeah, i think we'd all like no taxes, we'd like to have no

communal needs that we have, no national defense, no concerns about clean water. what we hear the fight about in leches and frankly every single day on the floor is who do we stand for? who are we defending? on this side of the chamber, we believe that those people in the middle class and those struggling to make it with through each and every year for the past two decades have been getting pushed further and further down need help. on the other side of this chamber are people who quite literally stood up all day today and say, i want to give tax cuts to people who make $1 million and $1 billion a year and wait for it, ladies and gentlemen, we want to borrow the money from the chinese to give it to them. i want the wealthy to be as wealthy as they can be. any of grudge against that. i want all of us to be that wealthy. but we should be a country that fights for those who need the help. we should not be a country that says you know what, if you're a billionaire, we want to give you

a little bit more. who is going to pay the bill? who is ultimately going to pay for this tax cut? it's going to be our children and grandchildren. to come to the floor and say, well, i want to help hardworking americans, i have to tell you, when the top 1% in this country are making as much as the next 25%, i think i know who we want to help. on this side, we want to help those middle class people and those struggling to make it and my republican friends all over this evening have been standing up for millionaires and billionaires. that's fundamental choice we have to make here. i believe this tax bill has fundamental flaws. if you believe you should be borrowing from social security to pay for a payroll tax, you like this bill. but i know a lot of americans don't believe that. i think what we should do, what we should do is make sure we fix the estate portion of this and then take a step back and say, you know what we should do? stand up for the middle class. the chair: the time of the

gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> as a new member, we have to stop putting difficult decisions, continuously put off until we are forced to make a decision in crisis mode as the clock clicks to zero hour. this vote has profound ramifications for every american and we are backed into a corner. where the current tax rates expire on all taxpayers if we do nothing. it didn't need to be this way. mr. reed: shame on the politicians whose inactions forced us on this precarious ledge. shame on the leadership of the past two years who put us into this box corner. good policy cannot be handcuffed by this sort of last-minute political guerrilla warfare. the process which brought us to

this point is inexcusable. so much so that the average middle class family in my district will pay more than $1,500 if we fail to act. our economic recovery in upstate new york continues to lag. preventing the pending income and estate tax hike that will hit every family and business in my district is paramount at this time. once this bill is passed, we must begin in the next congress to eradicate out of control spending. we cannot be put into this position again. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of my time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the house's speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute.

ms. pelosi: thank you -- the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for his leadership on fairness, for growing the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs. that's some of what is done in this bill. i think i want to use my time to make some distinctions here. president obama and the democrats have supported initiatives to protect the middle class. we are fighting for the middle class, we are wanting to grow the economy, and to create jobs and reduce the deficit. so we must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it meets those tests. this legislation on the democratic side of the ledger does create jobs. and the demand helps redeuce the deficit. for example, unemployment insurance provisions in the legislation, economists across the board tell us, return more money to the economy than almost

any initiative you can name. people spend that money quickly, these are people who are looking for work, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their unemployment insurance is spent immediately injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. low income tax credit, refundable. child tax credit, refundable. all of this placed in the hands of working class people -- working families in america, again, spent immediately, injecting demand, creating jobs. college tuition tax credit, very important for america's working families and their children. so here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits 155 million americans. we have tax cuts for the middle class across the board. everybody gets that tax cut. but in order for the middle class to get that tax cut, the

republicans insist that those who make the top 2% in our country, that they get an extra tax cut. adding billions of dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. to add insult to injury, they have now added this estate tax provision. an estate tax provision, new mind you, the democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million americans. in order for the president to get those terms accepted, republicans insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to 6,600 wealthiest families in america. 6,600 families.

holding up tax cuts for 155 million americans. is that fair? does that meet any test of fairness that we have? again, this $23 billion, not creating jobs. this $23 billion increasing the deficit. by 8% in the fiscal year. think of what we could do with that $23 billion. we could triple our research in cancer and diabetes. i think that means something to all americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families. we could give a $7,000 raise to every public schoolteacher in america. we could create investing in new technologies 780,000 jobs. 780,000 jobs. instead, we're giving a bonanza

to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in america who really don't need the help. it's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, most egregious of all, the estate tax provision they have that benefits not 1%, not .5%, but .25% of the american people. we have to borrow that money from china and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren. and that is not good policy. it does not have a favorable impact on the deficit. it does not create jobs. it does not grow our economy. it does not stimulate growth in

our country. so i hope that our colleagues will vote favorably for the pomeroy amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue. on that, the 99.7% of all americans are exempted. 99.7% of all americans are exempted from paying estate taxes under pomeroy. but we had to get that up for 3% -- get that upper 3% in this legislation in order to benefit 155 million americans. these figures have to be engraved in our being. 155 million, you can't have that unless 6,600. i've said it other and over. then on top of all of that, on the democratic side of the ledger, we have the green

initiative, 1603, that the senate put in the bill. this is just a very positive provision. for renewable energy, wind, solar, etc. but the republicans said, that is the limit. we won't accept any more. until all of the initiatives for innovation that have been passed in the past few years that should have been extended, we said no to innovation, we said no to the future, we said no to keeping america number one for encouraging our competitiveness. so if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments in the future. if we're talking about being number one, we have to be -- to have an innovation agenda to do it, the republicans said no to that. they only said yes to tax cuts for the wealthy. mr. speaker pl weiner says, we recognize -- mr. wiener says, we recognize success, we all want to be part of it.

god bless them for having the wealth they have, whether it's inherited or earned. we recognize success and the job that wealth does to create jobs, etc. but we also want to reward work. we want to reward work. in order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one quarter percent of america's wealthiest families. i hope my colleague as they review this, this is very difficult. nobody wants taxes to go up for the middle class. everybody gets a tax cut in this. we don't see why we have to give an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and extra extra estate tax benefit to the top one quarter percent. as members have to make up their mind about this, i hope they will vote for the pomeroy amendment to this legislation

and they have to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held hostage to pay a king's ransom in order to help the middle class. we cannot allow taxes to go up come january 1. previous speakers said, we have to look to how we were forced to this ledge. yes, let's look at how we were forced to this present car youse ledge. this situation, we were in a deep recession, president obama was a job creator from day one with the recovery act and pulled us back from that recession. the financial crisis that they created, president obama pulled us back from that. and, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? remember the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit. now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in

christmas bonuses. and these republicans in this house of representatives are saying, we don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 billion, more money in giving bonuses on wall street, think of it, over $100 billion and we want to give them a free ride in terms of paying their fair share. so when it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the deficit, investing growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep america number one, i applaud president obama for his side of the ledger. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid for this is so high at a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction, the republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of over $100 billion for people in our country who need

it the least and again, where it does not create jobs. so members will have to make up their mind as to how we go forward on the bill. but i hope all of them in their consideration of it will vote for the pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most egregious, with stiff competition mind you in this bill, the most egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit and not creating jobs. i commend the chairman of the ways and means committee, all of our colleagues who have had to explain to all of the misrepresentations that had been made about what this legislation is about. and again, i salute president obama for getting in the bill what is in there. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid by our children and grandchildren to the chinese government to pay for the increase in the deficit that the

republicans insisted upon. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the senate, in the house and controlled the white house for the last two years. and as we know in the house, the majority can pretty much do what they want which was demonstrate with the stimulus bill, obamacare, yes there is explaining to do. why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? why didn't the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election? now as americans face these tax increases, now a few short days before the end of the year, and now because there is a bipartisan compromise and passed

the senate 81-19, there is a recognition that there is no time to be playing games with our economy. the failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers and further delay our economic recovery, and for those reasons, i support this bill and i reserve the balance of this -- time. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. braley: the house will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit. while this package includes several programs i have supported, i cannot support the underlying bill. as recently as last week, i voted to give every american a tax cut by making the middle-class tax cuts permanent

to american families, consumers and business owners who drive our economy and i voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist families who are struggling in this difficult time. those were some of the good things included in this deal. unfortunately, the merits do not outweigh the bad things. i cannot justify mortgaging our children's future to provide a christmas bonanza and i refuse to increase the deficit by $81 billion to provide a tax break to the westiest people in this country and balloon the deficit by $23 billion and provide an average tax break of $1.5 million to 66,000 a year and i urge no. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky.

the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized. ms. schakowsky: the speaker was talking about how republicans held hostage in favor of 6,600 families who will get this inflated break on their estate taxes. who are the families? the tea party movement have a vast and under the pomeroy amendment that family would realize over $2 billion extra dollars. the walton family, wal-mart, combined worth, $87 billion, his family will pay less -- $7 billion in taxes, republican proposal versus the pomeroy. the gallow family, the campbell soup giants, combined wealth, $6.5 billion, the mars candy

company, $33 billion in wealth. their estate taxes will go down $2.5 billion. are these the people that this congress is supposed to represent? let's vote for pomeroy. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: two pieces of legislation tell us about the value of our republican colleagues. this bill will take $114 billion in revenues out of social security, helping them make the case in a self-fulfilling prophecy that we can't pay everything we want. earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal to give each social security recipient $250, not $2

50,000 or $250 million. people who are going to be face ing an increase in medicare because we learned there wouldn't be a cost of living. we couldn't afford $250 to older people who are having trouble paying their heating bills but can afford to $114 billion who will get eight times $250. the values of the republican party are revealed by this and we are in this situation because of dishonesty. when they passed the tax cut in 2001, they didn't want it to -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. frank: not simply are they showing their values, they said by the way, are you going to give $250 to warren buffet. they want to give $250,000 to

warren buffet. but the reason we are in this bind, in 2001 and 2003, george bush and the republican majority wanted to pass very large tax cuts despite the professed concern about the deficit, we now see from this bill that the slogan is deficit smepificit. they made very bad tax policy and i voted against it. they made major changes in the tax code and they did that roller coaster with the estate tax. that was their effort to hide the true amount. so they have only themselves to blame. but let me return. they couldn't afford $14 million to give $250 mill -- 250 to but $114 billion out of social

security. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed, we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second problem we have is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we went from the clinton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs created to eight

million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $14 trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what this legislation will do is literally ask the american middle class to borrow $200 billion to pay for tax cuts. this is not an objection to wealthy people. they are generous and can create jobs. it's about whether that job -- that dollar borrowed will produce a job for an out-of-work american and it won't. so there are other alternatives to what is before us.

we should not be borrowing money that will be productive. what we should do is the very simple alternative that isn't even considered. we can extend the middle-class tax cuts as president obama wants to, but stop it at $250,000. invest the savings in deficit reduction in half and infrastructure development. we can, as mr. frank said, provide $250 one-time payment to the folks on social security who haven't had a cola increase in two years. we can have a piece of legislation that will borrow less, reduce the deficit and create more jobs. our responsibility fundamentally is to the american middle class and they know at the end of the day, they will have to repay it. their sons, their daughters. the bond holders will be ok, but

the middle class will pay. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: does the gentleman have further speakers? if not, i'll close. mr. levin: we have at least one, if not more. mr. camp: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: we have one additional speaker who will close. you can go ahead, mr. camp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we've heard a lot of debate on the floor this evening but let's look at what employers and economists are saying about this legislation and this agreement. the national federation of independent business, the largest organization in the country representing small businesses, senate passage of the tax compromise is a good

step. the first stope encourage the certainty that the ha small business community needs and has repeatedly asked for. knowing their tax liability will remain low and including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the family business are key components to a small business' ability to move forward, grow their business and create jobs. changes to this compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small businesses need. we encourage the house to take up this measure quickly and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form. the business round table says, restoration of these provisions lifts an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ more workers and grow the economy. the u.s. chamber of commerce, enacting this bipartisan framework forged by the president and congress is one of the best steps washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our employers from hiring, investing, and growing their

businesses. what does economist mark zandee say, frequently cited by the speaker as an important voice in economic matters? the compromise reached this week by the obama administration and congressional republicans would be good for the economy next year. we really -- it's too risky to play games with the economy. we need to stop this massive tax increase in its tracks. support this legislation in its current form, oppose the pomeroy amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, is recognized for such time as he may consume.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have just come through a wrenching election. wrenching in large part because of the pain being experienced by our constituents. some more than others. a pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. we all heard that pain, we all heard that concern. at the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt.

so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges. growing our economy, creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. the american public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree. that on which we can compromise. this house in fact passed two pieces of legislation. weeks ago and months ago. months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my republican colleagues talk about certainty and i agree with them.

we need to give certainty to families, certainly to businesses, and yes, certainty to those whoever worried about estates. they'll expect that of us. and we passed 12 months ago the continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption. and a 45% rate. but that language -- languished in the united states senate. it languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. that was unfortunate in my view. because i think that was an

appropriate rate and i will vote for it on this floor. embodied in the pomeroy amendment. and then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. all individuals. no matter how rich or no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped. and very frankly, there were only a few members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition. but as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we will take something we want.

that's not good for the american people. and it's not good for our country. and very frankly, only three or four members of the republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, knot withstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate. and we agree. it was not enough. the president of the united states has a responsibility to all americans and like every president, he can't get everything he wants. to that extent, he's like us. we don't get everything we want. this bill does not represent everything i want. those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned i am about this debt and deficit. you have seen me vote on this floor, sometimes in the small minority against steps that i

thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return. this bill, the president of the united states believes, and i believe, will have a positive effect on the economy and i think we need that. and unlike some of my colleagues whose views i share but i have reached a different conclusion, i will vote for this bill. i don't want to see middle income working people in america get a tax increase. that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up. but i'm also concerned about the deficit and i know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. i'm for pay-go. my children, you ask them, would say they're for pay-go because they don't want to pay our

bills. they're going to have their own bills. unfortunately, the president and we when confronted with alternatives, do we extend unemployment insurance when employment is at db when unemployment is at a 9.6% to 9.8% rate or do we let them languish with uncertainty. not certainty about planning wlorn their $7 million estate can be planned. we don't have a deal on upper income taxes or estate taxes increased from $7 million to $10 million per couple. my friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together, we need to come together in dealing with this debt, we need

to come together in dealing with tax reform, we need to come together in growing jobs. that ought to be the agenda of this next congress and every congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the american people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have. now, ladies and gentlemen, on the republican side, very frankly, i have not seen your economic philosophy work. jack kemp and i served on the committee, but i don't think supply side as worked -- supply side has worked. it has the proposition if you do less, you get more. nothing i have done in life instructs me if i do less, i get more. and because of that, because of the concept if you simply cut taxes on those who are wealthiest in our society,

somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated. not one year did that happen. it happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1% were going to pay just a little more in 1993 and all of you opposed it. all of you, to a person. you said it would destroy the economy. your leader at that point in time, dick armey, said that this would tank the economy. he was 180 degrees wrong. in fact, we experienced the best economy we've seen in this country in my lifetime. 22 million new jobs in eight years. 216,000 jobs per month. in the private sector. but unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst

economy, the worst job production since herbert hoover. now i'm going to vote for this bill. i think it does help the economy. we are paying too great a price for it. frankly, i don't need a tax cut. that's not to say i don't want a tax cut. but it will not affect my life. and it will not affect the economy. and it will exacerbate the debt. that's not good for my children or for our country. i would urge all of us as we vote on this piece of legislation, whatever decision we make, to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. that's why the president has made a deal a lot of us don't like. because we think that it was

unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion and because we limited it, in terms of that, just the upper income, that we did not have to pay the price. we needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving. having dollars in their pockets to grow the economy. that's worth the price. we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing so we cannot depress at the same time we tie to grow. -- we try to grow. but we grow in the short-term and we solve the deficit in the longer term. i'm going to vote for the pomeroy amendment. then in the final analysis, i'll vote for this bill. i believe that folks need certainty. as has been said.

i urge my colleagues as we vote on this legislation to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what america wants us to do. come together as we did in 1993 -- as we did. in 1993 we didn't. some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness. ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who like this is bill. and therefore the judgment is, is it better than doing nothing? some of the business groups believe it will help. i hope they're right. not only do i hope they're right, i hope they respond and create the jobs. that we know they have the resources to do.

this is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why i will vote for it. it could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we're giving to the wealthiest in america in job growth. it's a bill that will help those who have been unemployed for week after week after week. and whose arnings has grown and grown and grown. ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it. but let us, when we do so, pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come. i yield back the balance of my time.

as we denied them safe havens within afghanistan, their ability to carry al these kinds of terrorist acts will be diminished. that is why we talk in terms of 18 to 44 months. >> are you worried about the perception that you are sugar- coating this? can you also talk about s.t.a.r.t. a little bit? >> i think we have been very conscientious all along in terms of trying to be realistic about the prospects. i think that those of you who have listened to general and thosebriefings who have talked to us, i hope we have been realistic in terms of realizing the challenges as

well as the successes. there are governance issues, civilian capacity, pakistan me safe-havens -- the pakistani safe-havens. we want to focus on those to come. where is it going better or as well as we like and where is it not? we can focus our resources on addressing the shortcomings. >> i think if you start from the context that we inherited two years ago, you can understand why we think on the one hand we are making progress and on the other hand we have a long way to go. i do not see that those two spots are in any way canceling

each other out. i think they are very realistic. when we came in to this administration, we had very little in the wake of an understanding with pakistan that the extremists who threatened us were allied with extremist that threaten them. they're creating a syndicate of terrorism. when we came into office, the pakistanis had agreed to a peace agreement with the pakistani taliban that was persistently extending their territorial reach. we pointed out firmly that this was not a strategy that would work for them and, in fact, we

had very strong objections to it because it would provide greater and greater territory for allocate and their allies to operate again. -- al qaeda and their allies to operate again. pakistan moved troops all of the indian border. they waged a conflict against their enemies who happens also to be the allies of our enemies. they began to recognize what we see as a mortal threat to pakistan paltry -- term sovereignty and authority. that was not something that was predicted two years ago that they would do. they have done it. they have also maintained a civilian government against great odds. it is something that has provided more legitimacy to our interactions with them. we have started what has turned

out to be a quite effective strategic dialogue with them, engaging the whole of their government with ours. we also brokered better relationships between pakistan f -- between pakistan and afghanistan. we brought in agreement that they were trying to reach in 1963. we believe we are creating a better context in which we are waging this struggle against al qaeda and their extremist allies. those kinds of things really get the continuing attention that we paid to them because we see them as building blocks, not just as one-off events. i do not think you'll find any rosy-scenario people in the

leadership of this administration starting with the president. this is been a very hard-nose review. we were encouraged by the vote yesterday. we have good reason to believe that there is a growing willingness on the republican side to look at the merits of this treaty and to understand what it means to not only american security, but the continuing effort to create the relationship with russia that has brought us a lot of benefits in the last two years, including the benefit of russia resupplying our troops. i think it is worthy of the senate's ratification. it is in the line of arms-

control agreements going back many years that have won an overwhelming bipartisan support. it is part of the efforts that we see moving forward well to bring russia and europe and the united states closer together to cooperate on what the threats of the future are. >> first i want to go back to the question about sugar coating. what is fundamentally different is that we had one basic metric against where to judge progress. that was the construct of 18 to 24 months. that takes us to july 2011. will this be able to be applied? there is another set of metrics that we can use to judge our projects -- our progress as we

go forward. the transition to afghan control of security has to control between then and 2014. after 2014, the proof that we are in a partnership with the afghans, does metric give us signpost by which we can judge our progress. i think that was an important concept. all of the joint chiefs of are very much behind the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the united states and russia will have to recapitalize their nuclear arsenals. we have the transparency to understand the rules that the structure to that activity. we need this and we need it bad. i think the last piece of that that gets overlooked is that this is a relationship between our country.

it is much more than just relying on the street. there is no prohibition to move forward on our missile defense. a single approach to deterrence is just not relevant as we move into the 21st century. we need this treaty in order to move in that direction. >> is it fair, secretary clayton, to come to the conclusion that we have made a lot more progress on the afghanistan side that the pakistan side? second, you're referring to the civilian leadership of pakistan. -- you were referring to the civilian leadership of pakistan. >> i would argue that we have made progress with pakistan.

i think the president and each of us have alluded to some of the signposts of the progress. we still have a lot to do. the floods were a major challenge to the people of pakistan and to our strategy because we had adopted an approach to change that we were doing aid to be more responsive to what the pakistanis needed. i state we have made progress. -- i think we have made progress. as with any question about the leadership or who is in charge, we deal with the entire government. we talk to the president. i deal with the civilian leadership. we also talk to the military

leadership. admiral mullen has developed a positive relationship with the pakistani general. we are in constant communication. there are certain decisions that are made by different leaders within their governments, but it would be a mistake and it is a mistake that we have made continuously over the last 63 years, to move away from the democratically elected civilian leadership of pakistan. our goal is to support that leadership and to help them understand how to deliver and show that democracy produces results for people. we intend to do that. our answer is we deal with the leaders of pakistan and we do it in a governmental approach.

our strategic dialogue has given us the mechanism to be able to do that. >> are you surprised at how hard -- has a relationship with senate republicans -- are you surprised at how hard it has been for you to get a budget or to get s.t.a.r.t.? >> they may have a different view, but i do not think it has changed at all. they have always been hard. they were hard in the last administration. >> do you think you'll be getting your defense budget? >> i think they will be wrapped around the axle on a lot of the issues they are tied up in now. the defense budget and the defense authorization bill for a long time has not really been a

partisan issue. it has had many democrats supporting it along with the republicans. i have had the advantage with the armed services committee and the appropriations committee that i deal with. they are very supportive of the military. i feel like i have had a great relationship with them. i would like to add one comment on the strategic dialogue. when we had these strategic dialogue meetings that includes secretary clinton and myself, it included ambassador holbrooke and admiral mollen -- our counterparts in that are not just the general. it is the finance minister. it is the finance minister. in reality, it is a whole

government approach with these guys. >> do you feel like it's been politicized? >> i think that there were some genuine concerns. particularly on the republican side, but not exclusively on the republican side. it was about the modernization of our nuclear enterprise and a reluctance to go forward on s.t.a.r.t. without the assurances that the resources would be available. i think there are some misunderstandings on missile defense. i hoped that the testimony of the joint chiefs in general car right, who is an expert on these areas, have provided reassurance to people that this treaty in no way limits anything we have in mind or what to do on a missile defense.

i think there were some legitimate concerns. frankly, i think they have been addressed. >> i am wondering if any of you can comment on what the picture is a into this christmas season? >> this goes to you, robert. [laughter] >> mary christmas. -- merry christmas. [laughter] >> this is true in the counter- terrorism meetings the president has. we are not going to get into commenting on the specific intelligence. we know that allocate and -- we knew that al qaeda and its affiliates want to end seek to do harm in damage in europe and

the united states. we have good relationships with those governments and information sharing. we are taking all of the steps that are necessary to ensure that we are doing all that we can. as we did earlier this year with the attempt in using the computer printers. obviously, we will continue to remain vigilant on this topic. >> 8 reaction from any of you to julian assange being granted bail? >> understanding that you have not painted too optimistic a picture in this assessment, there are reports on the ground

and from intelligence agencies that paint a darker picture -- a picture of weakness or absence of government in afghanistan and your own comment that a major challenge will be demonstrated as the afghan government consolidates. what reason is there to believe that in the long run you can prevail in afghanistan? why does not the absence of troops weather in 2014 or 2020 that things will not go back to the way they work? >> i think the key is identifying our objectives carefully. what do we need to accomplish to achieve our goals? our goal is not to build a 21st

century afghanistan, as the president said. our goal is not a country that is free of corruption, which would be unique in the entire region. our goal is what is necessary -- in my view -- why do we need to do along with our partners and the afghans to turn back the taliban's military and pilot capabilities to the degree that the afghan government forces can deal with them and to provide some minimal capability at the local district and provincial level for security, for dispute resolution, for a clinic within one at a worse walk. what we are trying to work our way toward is just what do we

have to do to be able to turn over security responsibility to the afghans with us in the background? i think one of the things the administration has done and, frankly, one of the benefits of the review a year ago in the review we have just been through is keeping us focused on not getting too ambitious and not setting goals that we cannot achieve and trying to have a minimalist approach that focuses on al qaeda, the taliban, an afghan capabilities, both civilian and military. we have 1100 u.s. civilians, we get thousands of partners civilians in afghanistan working to provide that capital.

we want to have it in the central government in kabul, but also at the local district provincial level. local security -- they are empowered by the local tribal elders. they are taking leadership of this. as far as i am concerned, if that can provide security for that village or that area, we have accomplished our objective. >> thank you. it is hard to see the assessment and draw a conclusion that the success of the president's primary goal came in counter-terrorism operations. i think the second paragraph of the assessment is most important. the al qaeda leadership in

pakistan is weaker. that same paragraph ends with the fact that u.s. troops are arresting taliban momentum. it adds that those gains are fragile and possibly irreversible. secretary gates said this was not be tied to read litigate, but if the goal is to achieve these main goals with counterterrorism operations that do not involve troops or the heavy equipment of the counter- insurgency strategy, where that dictate the direction after july 2011? >> first, i will start and secretary gates and general cartwright can continue. this is by necessity an overview. certainly from our perspective, what you call counter-terrorism successes are part of the overall effort and cannot be

separated out. that was one of the very vigorous discussions that we had in the review of 2009. i think general car right and center chair -- and secretary gates can add to this, but it is hard to separate out what is necessary on the ground in order to support counter-terrorism efforts. to say that you can do one without the other -- i would caution that conclusion because i think it is much more complex than just a short-hand overview. >> i think, also, that you have to have an integrated strategy. it is a balance. that balance is something the commander on the ground is constantly adjusting. we have seen increases on our focus on counter-terrorism at times. to be able to get at them, to

stop them, to thwart them. it is not just in afghanistan, it has to be in pakistan and afghanistan. we have the advantage in afghanistan of having boots on the ground so we can defeat rather than disrupt. we have to get that kind of capability as we look towards pakistan. that has to be in partnership with pakistan. that does not mean we have to have american troops on the ground. we can have both. this is the piece that we talked about that is fragile. will we be able to endure? will we provide the sufficiency to endure as we go forward? that is the question we are trying to answer. >> i would like to ask about the issue of pakistan. the pakistani government has made some moves, but usually

after their own government has been directly threatened. you still have a al qaeda and taliban of leadership in pakistan. what specifically do you plan to do to push the pakistani government, and if they do not go ahead with cracking down on this? >> first of all, i would say the pakistanis have said they are willing to move into other areas. but as i mentioned in my opening remarks and as secretary clinton referred to, it is hard to overstate the impact of the flooding in pakistan and the degree to which the military

assets were drawn off the border to be able to deal with the flooding. they also have to have an enduring presence in the places that they have cleared. to make sure the enemies they cleared out do not come back as well. like many of the things we have dealt with with pakistan, things will move in the right direction. it will probably take longer than we would like, but they have made clear their intentions. i would say, though, that this underscores the importance of the broader strategic dialogue between ourselves and the pakistanis. they are coming to have a better understanding of the threat to them by the syndicate of terrorist. i think the degree of cooperation on both sides of the

border is a manifestation. this is something we wanted to do for a long time. we are now doing it. we wanted them to be on the border for a long time. 18 months ago, i would have thought that it was an impossibility. i believe that the relationship we have with them and be more confident that they are that we have a long-term relationship in mind with pakistan, i'd think be more willing date will be to take actions that serve both our interests. >> the president mentioned reconciliation. is that still a priority? also, remembering ambassador holbrooke -- where does this

stand? >> as ambassador holbrooke said many times, there is no military solution. that is why we have an integrated civilian military approach. among the areas in which we are engaged is working with the afghan government on reconciliation and a reintegration. -- and reintegration. this is necessarily an afghan- lead process. it is also one in which the regional partners have interest and, to some extent, stakes. we have dramatically increased our regional diplomacy. we are working closely with a number of parties to explore what is and is not possible on

the reconciliation front. at the end of the day, it has to be afghan life. we are supporting president karzai's efforts. i expect that we will be evaluating that because we believe that the increased military pressure is a necessary component of getting to a point where there can be a general discussion about reconciliation. >> thank you very much. >> now, a state department briefing on the president's afghanistan-pakistan strategy. this is a little less than half an hour.

has been actively involved in the december review process for the very beginning. we were part of the team that went to afghanistan. we have been actively involved in the current policy being implemented now. a statement has been released. i want to make some comments about the findings in the december review and then i will open it up for questions. the whole team can take any questions you might have. [laughter] it is very comforting sitting up here. i have one of our great counterparts over there. the first point i would make is that the overall assessment, i think, shows that the

administration has decided on december 2009 has made progress over 12 months in achieving our core objectives in both afghanistan and pakistan. we had a realistic in this assessment. this has been very difficult and a tough foreign-policy challenge, but we have tried to make this a clear assessment. the primary objective was to prevent the court al qaeda from being a threat to the united states homeland. we have made significant progress in taking alabama the command and control apparatus of al qaeda in pakistan. there has been significant help from the pakistani military. in afghanistan i think we have made significant progress in stemming the momentum of the

taliban, which was a core objective of the president's strategy. those two court objectives have made progress over the past year. we have done it in both cases. over 1100 american civilians are now deployed to work hand in hand in afghanistan with our military counterparts. in pakistan we have done this to a strategic partnership that every member of this team has been actively involved in. this has improved the relationship with pakistan to one that is strategic in nature and allows us to achieve greater cooperation with the government of pakistan on our shared strategic objectives. with that, i will open it up for questions. >> i would like to talk about the idea that without the

afghanistan government standing up in transferring the civilian efforts that you are trying to get together -- how much of this will not be allowed to be sustained in the long term? a follow-up to that, some people seem to think that president karzai is not necessarily interested in the -- that is just a lot of clearing up corruption, delivering services -- he would really like to cut a deal with the taliban so u.s. forces can get out of the country. i was wondering if you could respond to both of those. >> you make a very valid point. it is one of the primary findings of the review is that the issue of government remains a challenge. it is a very important question in terms of the transition to

afghan lead in the areas we have cleared militarily of the last 12 to 18 months. the -- we have worked with the afghan government to try to build capacity so they can get into areas we have cleared. this is a society that has been shattered by 30 years of war. it is a very poor country. what we are attempting to do is a long-term effort to work with the afghan government so they can take over and help with the transition of security. what we need at the most basic level -- we are not in the nation-building business -- we need to provide some basic capabilities so we can transition our military forces. afghan security forces at to be built up to a degree. there has to be some level of local government that can

dispute adjudication and provide some basic public services that allow for the transition. part of this involves what president karzai has done on the reconciliation part. it is notable what the afghans are doing with the height peace council and what they are trying to do to solve the underlying problems. >> do you fear this is almosttion effort kind of a shortcut? >> no, i do not. in the reconciliation is part -- secretary clinton said that these come through political resolution. that is a fundamental part. we have to give credit to the afghan government.

>> the white house mentioned that one priority was closing the gap. what is your assessment of the reasons behind that gap and why it still exist? does it exist in a way that complicates your work in the mission going forward? in pakistan, the objective was to degrade al qaeda. the threat assessments are now moving. is your judgment of where the threat is in pakistan towards u.s. interest changing at all? >> to the first question, i would say we have had success in terms of narrowing the gap between afghanistan and pakistan. there had been a series of engagements. we have been holding a range of meetings. we held a trilateral between the

three countries. we have had serious bilateral engagements. we had the courage the government of afghanistan to meet with the government of pakistan. -- we have encouraged the government of afghanistan to meet with the government of pakistan. we continue to push that. we have achieved the trade agreement between afghanistan and pakistan. in terms of the threat from pakistan, we have always looked at the sanctuaries in pakistan. groups can operate from the set -- groups can operate from their sanctuaries. we the determination that they are the state. there is a lot of interplay between them.

if you look back two years ago at how many forces pakistan had in the frontier provinces, we would have guessed 140,000. that would have been unreasonable. >> could you give us a sense of where the -- where we are going to go forward? one thing that came up a lot last year was certification of the afghan security forces. could you bring us up to speed on where that is? >> i'll ask someone to come up and help me with that. >> it is absolutely a priority. one of the points that we have noticed is that the afghan -- we

need to transport our resources to the afghan government. the process that we are undertaking is making sure that all the mechanisms are there so that they can be -- said that there can be monitoring and transparency. >> as of june of last year, there were only three that were certified. i think that has been delayed. >> the process of administering certification is complex. we work with individual ministries to make sure they had the capability to implement specific programs. an example of that is the ministry of public health where we have worked with them to establish competency to implement a program that gives basic health services to afghans.

it goes into a specific program. it is not that a ministry becomes certified that one day. at the moment we have of funding mechanisms with six different afghan ministries that allow us to provide direct funding for specific purposes. we continue to work on that. this year we have added programs with the ministry of education and the ministry of agriculture, which did not previously exist. undertaking that process is an examination to make sure they have the ability to implement the programs we have agreed on. >> there is a concern that that progress is going on a little slower than you would like. >> it is a celebrated at the pace we expected it to. this year we doubled our

resources to 27.5%. we continue to read some of the targets that we outlined at the conference last summer in july. everything that we do is done with very strict measures of accountability. we have no interest in rushing that at the expense of accountability. >> with the civilian components go? >> we will look at the conditions on the ground and listen to i eikenberry's recommendations. >> do you envision that changing in july? >> i think the review of the shares in all the civilian side will be closer to 2014. it is a long-term effort. they are trying to do development work. i do not think that will be

linked necessarily to the 24- month time clock. in fact, one of the clear findings of this process over the last year has been the success the civilians have had bringing resources into the field. chitterlings the number of staff we have in the field and surely partnering with the military so that our effects are truly joint effects on the ground. if you look at the numbers, it is a dramatic improvement over last year. i think the review underscores that. it was a coordination all the way down to the district level. >> there may have been some movement on it, but what is the latest on the opening of the

consulates? >> there are two of being opened. we are looking at plants. at this point there are just two plans. the staff is there. the facilities are open. i can give you the time. >> we have a large civilian presence. what we do not have at this point is a final building an infrastructure ready to move in a call it a consulate. technically it is a consulate. >> the review highlights the need to deny al qaeda's

leadership in the tribal region and the importance of the strategic partnership with pakistan which led them to send troops to that region. since the u.s. always insist on the fact that the war in afghanistan has a military solution, is -- how did you plant to deal with the local tribal leaders to convince them to deny al qaeda's leadership in safe haven? >> of the afghan side we have worked with the afghan government. we repeat -- we view reconciliation as an afghan process. we support president karzai. >> one of the things we have done both in afghanistan and in

pakistan during the last year is to increase our stabilization efforts in the tribal areas. what you see is a significant increase in the number of community-based programs. part of our efforts is to ensure that people see that the future that lies with the government is a positive one and that that comes with benefits, development, and so on. we have made a lot of progress in the last year in bringing the resources, not just military, but civilian resources into those communities. >> i think your question was mainly directed at the travel agencies in pakistan if i am not mistaken.

during the time we have had disengagement with pakistan, it has not been possible to implement that on the ground because of the military and political situation there. the government of pakistan is developing a plan for peacemaking and integration of the tribal areas. we look forward to looking -- we look forward to working with them and supporting that. >> this goes back to reconciliation. secretary gates said in brussels that he would recognize the afghan-led process. could you give us an assessment of where you think the reconciliation process is right now?

as it advanced at all from where we were in brussels? >> i would point to what the afghans are doing. they are making important progress on the reconciliation. there is a series of meetings they have been doing around the country. i think it has progressed. president karzai and his administration or working on a reconciliation. >> we have seen the initial statements that pakistan was not really included in that. ambassador holbrooke said al the important pakistan was to reconciliation. how do you see that going forward? also, what about ambassador holbrooke's assessment that

there are not necessarily the kind of heavyweight players that make these deals on behalf of their whole group because they are so diffuse. do you see some kind of grand bargain where all the groups can be reconciled? >> we cannot make a judgment on the final point. just -- as we understand it, that breaks down into a range of different groups. the taliban may give guidance from pakistan. oftentimes they operate with relative autonomy in pakistan. that is what ambassador holbrooke was referring to. that is why we are following the

afghan lead. >> what about pakistan's role in reconciliation? >> i think we would recognize that pakistan has interests in the border area. i take it some time there will be a discussion between the government of afghanistan and the government of pakistan on related issues. >> i am sorry. if i could just follow, you say they have interests. this whole strategy was about reining in pakistan because it was such a critical country. would you not see their involvement in reconciliation as a key component? >> i think they will play a role in reconciliation. i think the strategy was to go after al qaeda and does spanish -- and diminish and disrupt al qaeda. we have had good success with that. we had used the strategic dialogue in a manner to allow

the pakistan a government to have trust in us. >> you can all go home early. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i can only sort of get people to consider that we have a

serious case where the obama administration is trying to create new law through changing interpretation of existing law. >> as the justice department considers the legal case in congress weighs its options, see what has been said about wikileaks online at d.c.'s ban video library. it is washington your way. >> i get a few moments, house debate on a bill extending tax cuts for all income levels. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern. our guest this morning include two u.s. senators. the house is back in session at 9:00 eastern. >> a couple of light is best to tell you about this morning on our companion network, c-span3.

there will be a forum on deficit reduction. guests include the urban institute. that is it 9:00 eastern. at 11:00 eastern, john brennan at the carnegie endowment for peace. he will talk about yemen and the fight over terrorism. >> the new supreme court justice, elena kagan, on the confirmation process, her adjustment to the court, and her relationship with chief justice john roberts. that is sunday at 6:00 27:30 p.m. on c-span. >> late thursday, the house passed a bill that extends jobless benefits for 13 months and extends tax cuts that expire at the end of the month for two years. it now goes to the president.

this part of the debate is a little more than one hour. recognized for four minutes. mr. hensarling: i had not thought i'd come here to speak. i have been watching this debate in my office. i have envy for my colleagues that bring such passion and certainty in their vote as they come to the floor. i look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, i must admit, i consider it to be a successful negotiation because i am not sure i heard anybody who really likes the bill. perhaps that's the hallmark of a successful negotiation. i look at the legislation, it's the classic challenge, is the glass half full or half empty? i for one have decided it to be half full. mr. speaker, clearly there are items in this legislation that i find not just empty, but frankly, atrocious. yes, there's tax pork in this legislation.

there's unpaid for extension of unemployment benefits. mr. speaker, at some point, i would hope the majority soon to be minority, in this institution, would realize we've got to concentrate on the paychecks, the paychecks americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. if we're going to have them, they need to be paid for. worst of all, ye what's happening to social security with the payroll tax. without putting any fundamental reform on the table, what i would say to my friends the other side of the aisle, it is you who brought that to the table. mr. speaker, i made a pledge to my constituents, i told them i would fight any tax increases. i hold them i would try to bring certainty to this economy because that's what businesses need.

trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting to come into this economy, but yet the party who has been in control of congress for four years had the white house for two years, waits until almost christmas eve a we still don't know what tax rates are? there's no certainty. the only thing i am certain of is thaif we don't pass this legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the american people on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on small businses, on job creators, and yes, even the vilified wealthy. you know, mr. speaker, we've heard the clas warfare rhetoric for quite some time now. look what it's got us. almost serial double digit unemployment and human

suffering. mr. speaker, i ed have held a lot of jobs in hi life. i used to bus tables at the holiday inn in college station, texas. i used to work on the loading dock, loading windows. i used to clean out chicken houses, which to some extent was sufficient training for the present occupation, but that's a subject for a different time. mr. speaker, in all those jobs i've held no poor person ever hired me. it was somebody who went out and risked capital and took a chance and built something. yet the left and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person. that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create jobs so that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on the table, send their kids to college. i don't get it. my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this will add to the deficit. why didn't i hear that argument during the $1.2 trillion failed

stimulus? i didn't hear the great angst and anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at this point when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. i didn't really hear it. will the gentleman yield two more minutes? mr. camp: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i didn't hear this angst and anxiety when my friends on the other side of the aisle brought us the first terror-dollar deficit in america's history butted back it up with the second trillion-dollar deficit in america's history. i didn't hare this concern. i only hear it now when we're talking about letting the american people keep what they earn. we're not even talki about a tax t here. we're talking about preventing a tax increase. so ion't quite understand all of a sudden this great angst and

concern about the deficit. and i might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is the symptom, it is spend chg is the disease. we can clearly get rid of the deficit tonight. let's increase taxes 60%. 60% on all americans. let's more than double taxes on our children and destroy the american dream. sure, we can balance the budget that doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity. so to avoid a further job meltdown, and let me make it clear, mr. speaker, this is not any great economic growth package that's put before us. i don't believe this is going to be the cornucopia of jobs. what we're tryinto do here is avoid further damage to a crippled economy that again has almost double digit unemployment on a serial basis. i wish we had at least 10 years of certainty of these tax rates. i'm sorry it's only two.

i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, who say, well, we could have got an better deal, i don't know. i wasn't in the room. i didn't negotiate the deal. maybe their crystal ball is clearer than my crystal ball. here's what i see in my crystal ball. i'm absolutely for certain in my crystal ball that come january, barack obama is still going to be president of the united states. in my crystal ball, harry reid is still going to be senate majority leader. that's what i see in my crystal ball system of maybe the friends on my side, maybe you're right. but you have a degree of certainty and clarity of the future i do not have. so personally, i'm not willing to take the chance. i'm going to cast the aye vote. i'm going to stop the job-killing tax increases, i'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty two years cerinty

to the tax ce. and i'm going to fight to put this nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because in this legislation, i see the glass half full. i yield back. the chai the type of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the yom is -- the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the white house. while one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax bres