captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. the justice department filed a lawsuit against b.p. and eight other companies to recover billions of dollars in damages from the gulf oil spill disaster. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill on the "newshour" tonight. we get the latest on the legal battle from john schwartz of the "new york times." >> lehrer: then, we talk to two business executives who met with president obama today-- motorola c.e.o. greg brown and honeywell c.e.o. david cote. >> ifill: and we track the progress on congressional action to extend tax cuts. first, kwame holman reports on the its lopsided senate passage today. >> lehrer: and judy woodruff gets the views of two house members on changing the estate tax. >> ifill: margaret warner

interviews elizabeth bumiller of the "new york times" about new intelligence reports on the afghanistan war. >> lehrer: and jeffrey brown profiles the unexpected partnership of a city and a leading dance company.çç hari sreenivasan almost three years ago, renown choreographer tray mcintire surprised a lot of people in the dance world by making boise, idaho, the home of his new company. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> well, the best companies are driven by new ideas. >> our history depends on new ideas. we spend billions on advanced technologies. >> it's all about investing in the future. >> we can find new energy-- more cleaner, safer and smarter. >> collaborating with the best in the field. >> chevron works with the smartest people at leading

universities and tech companies. >> and yet, it's really basic. >> it's paying off everyday. >> turning complex data into easy tools. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. united healthcare.çç >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and...

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: the justice >> lehrer: the justice department began legal action today against b.p. and other companies involved in the gulf oil spill. nine companies were named in a civil lawsuit aimed at recovering billions of dollars in the largest offshore oil spill in u.s. history. in washington, attorney general eric holder said the companies failed to live up to safety standards. >> we intend to prove that these violations caused or contributed to the massive oil spill and that the defendants are therefore responsible under theç oil pollution act.ç for government removal costs, economic losses as well as environmental damages. we are also seeking civil penalties under the clean water

act, which prohibits the unauthorized discharge of oil into the nations waters. >> lehrer: the oil rig explosion killed 11 people last april. an estimated five million barrels of oil spilled into the gulf. it's been called the worst offshore oil disaster in the nation's history. ray suarez takes our coverage from there. >> suarez: the obama administration's lawsuit is seeking an unspecified amount of damages from the companies. but so far, the government has not yet decided whether to pursue criminal charges. nor has it sued halliburton, which did cementing of the macondo well. john schwartz is covering this for the "new york times" and he joins me now. john, what were some of the companies named in the suit and the specific laws under which they're being sued. >> well, the partners in ownership in the well are in the suit as well as transocean, the owner of the deep water horizon rig and the laws that are being

citing here are nupl numerous. you've got the clean water act, the oil pollutionç act and theç are natural resources laws being disdiscussed as well. it's a big suit. >> suarez: one company designed the rig; one built it; one serviced it; one extracted the oil. is it hard to figure out who's responsible for what in a case like this? >> reporter: well, that's what the investigators have been doing both in the government and outside the government over the last several months, trying to figure out exactly what happened on the well in the days before the lowout. and if it was easy you'd settle it and everybody would go home. that's what the finder of fact is for. that's why we have juries and judges. >> reporter: well, the government has said it seeks liability without limitation. what does that mean? >> well, there's been a lot of discussion under the oil pollution act of a $75 million cap on liability. now, b.p. has said from the start they're going to waive that protection and, in fact, if the government can prove certain things like gross negligence,

the cap goes away anyway. and so the $75 million cap has been much discussed. i think the government felt they needed to put a flag down on this and say we're not going to be limited by that but that cap was gone anyway. >> suarez: but once you're seeking liability without limitation, does that mean if new underwater pools of oilç ae found, if you're already in the is found can the price tag continue rising even while the matter is still under litigation? or after? >> if new damage is found, i believe you could go back with new filings. but, in fact, what this is about now is a starting document, eric holder said today that this could be amended over the course of the... of the procedure and they didn't even cite what the damages are today. it could be in the billions of dollars but this is just a starting play. >> reporter: during the months of the spill, halliburton was mentioned prominently as one of

the companies involved in the macondo well. did the attorney general discuss why they weren't named in today's suits? >> he didn't want to talk about it, but he did say that it's an open document and other people could be named later. >> suarez: are the federal agencies that are pursuing this going to be using the findings from the recent presidential commission and its report or once something like this commences is the justice department, is the e.p.a., going to be doing its own investigation? >> well, the justice department and e.p.a. have been investigating all along, but once things go to trial, every possible piece of evidence goes into the hopper. >> suarez: meaning that there may still be facts in evidence... >> other investigations, otherç reports, everything goes in, everythingç gets before the jue in order to help figure out just what happened here. >> suarez: did holder mention... did the attorney general mention that criminal charges may still be in the offing or discuss what

has to happen in order for that to move forward? >> well, that's the big shoe that's left to drop. the attorney general did say that there's no criminal indictment at this time. he said that that's... that that investigation is ongoing and he said they're making progress. he didn't say whether it would happen or not. >> suarez: john, can we talk a little bit about the mechanics? there are already thousands of lawsuits against b.p. and some of the associated companies involved in the well. when the attorney general of the united states announces a suit, what happens? do they jump to the head of the line? do they become just another co-applicant along with these other people who've already filed? how does that work? >> well, first of all, the federal cases were consolidated over the summer in a single courtroom in new orleans under judge carl barbiey. and that's called multidistrict litigation. the m.d.l. is consolidated in

new orleans. the united states joins it largely for purpose of discovery. that is the fact finding that has to go forward among the various plaintiffs gets all put into one pool and the unitedç states is going to have aç prominent role there. but in fact, the facts that have to be discovered for the various lawsuits should all be done together because that saved... it's all about efficiency. then there's an option later to separate out the suits and send each of the plaintiffs a separate way to other courtrooms or to continue from there, especially if things are moving toward global settlement. >> suarez: well, you mentioned this specific judge and new orleans. can we assume that the federal government, that that's where the federal government's case will be heard or is it where b.p. is headquartered? is it in washington, d.c.? and will it be heard by a judge or will a jury be impaneld? >> well, all those are questions to be worked out later.

but, you know, from the start b.p., halliburton, and the other companies have said they'd love to have their trial in houston where their headquarters are, where their american headquarters are and a place that would be more convenient for them. the united states government might prefer new orleans because that's the... that's where a lot of the other cases are being tried but it could go anywhere. >> suarez: john schwartz of the "new york times." thanks for joining us. >> happy to be here. >> ifill: still to come on the "newshour": c.e.o.s at the white house; the senate passes a bill to extend tax cut for everyone;ç the house debates the estateç tax; new intelligence on the war in afghanistan and a dance company comes to boise. but first, with the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: the lame-duck senate will take up a nuclear arms treaty with russia after all. the so-called "new start" treaty would cut the total nuclear warheads allowed to both countries. it cleared a key hurdle today, when nine republicans joined democrats to end delaying tactics. leading the opposition, republican jon kyl said it's

still not clear the treaty can get 67 votes for ratification-- one more than it got today. >> people have told you here they would like to vote for the treaty, but under the current circumstances, the way it's being jammed through, they can't do that. and i would just suggest the administration needs to take that into account when considering whether they will really have the votes that they need. >> sreenivasan: kyl argued the treaty limits u.s. missile defense options and is weak on verification. he called for delay until next year. treaty supporters like democrat john kerry pointed to a long list of past and present leaders who favor action now. >> why if the entire military establishment of our country and the national intelligence establishment of our country and the strategic command of ourç country are asking us to ratify this treaty. why do some senators know better than they do, and suggest that we shouldn't. >> sreenivasan: the senate is now set for a possible final vote on the treaty tomorrow. the house voted today to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

democrats pushed it through, mostly down party lines. so far, republicans in the senate have blocked a vote on repeal. president obama has urged final action before congress adjourns for the year. in southeastern iran, at least 39 people were killed when a pair of suicide bombers attacked a mosque. it was packed with shiite worshippers gathered for an annual religious ceremony. some 90 people were wounded. a sunni muslim rebel group claimed responsibility. the u.n. security council today ended 19 years of sanctions on iraq's pursuit of civilian nuclear power. the vote also ends sanctions on efforts to build weapons of mass destruction. that activity is now banned in the iraqi constitution. vice president biden presided over the security council meeting. >> as a founding member of the united nations, iraq seeks and deserves the opportunity to resume its rightful role in the community of nations. toward that end, this session formally acknowledges the significant steps iraq has taken toward fulfilling its obligations to the united nations incurred in the lead-up

iraq to ratify treaties that allow surprise inspections of its nuclear sites. at least 28 people were confirmed dead today after a boat loaded with 70 refugees capsized off an australian island. the vessel crashed into rocks during a storm off christmas island in the indian ocean. we have a report narrated by lewis vaughan jones of "independent television news." >> we need to get lifejackets down to these people. >> reporter: the wooden boat is full of people still clinging on as the swell throws them towards the cliffs; the waves smash the boat against the rocks tearing it apart. but even now, almost completely underwater, people are still huddled on the bow an eyewitness on the island described what happened. >> it was terrifying to watch and there was nothing, nothing

we could do. they were lying down-- some of them very sick, not moving. i saw children on that boat. i saw children and i can hear children screaming. >> reporter: children and babies were among those thrown into the water. rescuers threw ropes and lifejackets. so far, 41 people have been pulled to safety. >> a number of people have been rescued but sadly some bodies have been retrieved. it is difficult weather, difficult conditions. we have navel and customs vessels in the area and the rescue is ongoing.çç >> reporter: the boat was carrying asylum seekers mainly from the middle east. >> sreenivasan: in recent years, a growing number of people from iraq, iran and afghanistan have flown to indonesia. from there, they try to make it to australian territory by boat. unions backed protests and a one day general strike across athens today against the greek government's austerity measures.

as violence escalated, riot police tried to contain the protesters using tear gas and flash grenades. the crowds fought back, hurling gasoline bombs and setting fire to cars. the demonstrations were aimed at pay cuts and other changes imposed by the government. the irish parliament has approved a $90 billion bailout by the european union and international monetary fund. the emergency rescue was designed to keep fallout from ireland's debt troubles from spreading to other e.u. members. ireland's government was hit hard by its move to shore up banks, after the real estate collapse in 2008. concerns over europe's debt crisis weighed on wall street today. the dow jones industrial average lost 19 points to close at 11,457. the nasdaq fell ten points to close at 2,617. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: the nation's chief executive called in major corporate c.e.o.s today. the subject-- how to startç creating more jobs at a time when business balancaú:rqqás are

improving. president obama spent more than four hours behind closed doors with 20 corporate c.e.o.s today, appealing to them to help jumpstart the economy. >> we focused on jobs and investment and they feel optimistic that, by working together, we can get some of the cash off the sidelines. >> ifill: the cash the president was referring to amounts to $1.9 trillion now on corporate balance sheets. before the meeting began, the president said he would ask the private sector to join government in a shared mission. >> i hope to elicit ideas from these business leaders that will help us not only climb out of recession, but seize the promise of this moment-- ideas about tax reform, ideas about a balanced approach to regulation that will promote, rather than undermine growth. >> ifill: the economy has sent mixed messages in recent months.

a strong start to the holiday retail season spurred growth by nearly two and a half percent in the last quarter. but at the same time, the unemployment rate rose last month to 9.8%. that disconnect is apparently dsiving public ç a new "washington post"/abc news poll today found that nearly six in 10 americans-- 57%-- say that, in personal terms, the recession has not ended, no matter that economists say. more than a third say that someone in their household lost a job in the past year. and nearly three-quarters now say they have friends or immediate family members who have been hit with a job loss. government officials are asking for more business investment; business leaders are worried about excessive government regulation. today's closed door meeting was the president's latest attempt to get the private sector on board. that has included a tax cut compromise that cheered wall street but angered liberals

along-awaited trade deal with south korea. those steps may be working. according to a new survey of business executives, nearly half say they plan to hire in the next six months. shortly, after the meeting ended at the white house this afternoon, i spoke with two of the c.e.o.s who participated david cote of honeywell and greg brown of motorola. yes me, thank you for joining us. we understand you spent about four hours this afternoon with the president and the first question he;hdad for you is why so muchç cash is being left on the table at a time when business seems to be rebounding. what was your answer, mr. cote? >> well, i don't know if that was the first question that was asked but i would say look at the cash on the sidelines, it's the same issue we've had from the beginning is uncertainty of demand. if you're a c.e.o. you're going to be cautious about investing money in plants or hiring employees unless you can be certain of demand and that ice

the thing holding us up. we've gone through a very tough time. it really strained relationships around the board like it always does. we avoided a depression because of the president's action, that being said we've gotten the great recession and we've ended up with an opportunity to change the dialogue now and having government and business start talking together gives us the opportunity to start creating that certain certainty, developing that certainty of demand and causing people like greg and me to invest. >> ifill: mr. brown, we hear so much about tensions between the business community and this white house. was that evident today at this meeting and were you able to say yes we're going start hiring right away?ç >> so i don't think there was any tension in the room.ç i think that's been far overblown. i thought the tone of the meeting was constructive, collaborative and substantive. as david mentioned, we had a

wide-ranging discussion over several hours on a lot of different topics. if i were to capture the themes they were around job creation and economic growth. the good news is things are a lot better than they were a year ago or 18 months ago. the stock market is up. corporate earnings are stronger. the cash on balance sheets is more substantial. so the opportunities for us to grow and invest are right there so now we talked about how do we rally on the momentum with the extended bush tax credits, hopefully the approval of the korean free trade agreement. free trade agreements create jobs. so given some of that early momentum it's a critical juncture. we're in it together. where do we go from here? >> ifill: well, let's talk about the uncertainties. we'll go back to you, mr. cote, because we have heard that the bush tax cut extension whichç mr. brown just talked aboutç hasn't been done yet. the ratification of that trade

deal hasn't been done yet does that make it more uncertain for you as well? things like the free trade agreement should happen. we've been arguing since the phoenicians whether free trade is good or not. every free trade in society does better. here we sit 3,000 years from the phoenicians having the same argument. when it comes to the tax deal that was cut, i think it's very important for the short term it needs to get done because we have a fragile recovery. but we need to recognize that the compromise we arrived at is not the compromise we'll be needing two or three years from now. the national debt that was on the fiscal commission, as you know, is going to grow from $9 trillion this year to $20 trillion in 2020, even with four

and a half% g.d.p. growth. this is the worst kind of compromise to fix that problem because we're reducing taxes and increasingç spending and at soç point in the next two or three years we need to shift. it needs to be more taxes and less spending if we're going to solve that problem. >> ifill: mr. brown, first i want to know if you agree with what what mr. cote just said but what should governments in your opinion be doing to jump start the economy and what should business be doing? >> so i do agree with what david just said. the good news is it appears the bush tax credits will go through. the good news is beginning free trade agreement with korea, with hopefully, panama and columbia and the transpacific partnership that takes some uncertainty off the table but in the meantime we still have a spending problem and things like entitlement reform and reining in our government spending is

fundamental and i think that we're involved in those discussions. you just saw the deficit commission give a set of recommendations. i think the business community will have every opportunity to weigh in on that. i completely agree that over the next year or two that will be front and center and high priority. >> well, explain to me how you extend these tax credits and at the same time try to approach the goal that you both laid out of reducing the deficit for the future. >> becauseç i think that we'reç early early stages of the economic recovery and so we don't want to and i completely support it. i think we're unified here. you want to maintain that level of growth. and while the economy's growing again, it's not growing in a rate it needs to. it's 2.4% or 2.5%. we'd like it north of% or 3.5%. so any unintended consequence that could dislocate or disrupt that kind of growth trajectory is a risk that's not worth taking. i think that was the collaborative judgment that was

made toward that. >> ifill: mr. cote, what role does regulatory uncertainty play and what you see as a long and short term goal that comes out of a meeting like this. >> well, you want certainty in everything, of course, and when there's concerns about whether it's regulation, tax policy, free trade agreements, any kind of uncertain city not good and just needs to get sorted out. so yes, we talked about that also and the need to make sure that there's a good cost benefit rationale for any regulationç that'sç promulgated and at the same time making sure we understand exactly what we're doing and we provide certainty. so i thought it was a... so i agree with greg. >> couric: does that mean more regulation or less? >> make sure you have smart regulation. it's not a case where all information is bad or all regulation is good which some people like to polarize into. you need smart regulation in a sophisticated, complex society

to be able to operate and create the right foundation. there's really a question of making sure you have to right regulations to ensure that you have american competitiveness globally. >> ifill: david cote from honeywell and greg brown from motorola, thank you both so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> it's a pleasure >> lehrer: president obama scored a victory today, when his deal on the bush era tax cuts cleared the united states senate. "newshour" congressional correspondent kwame holman reports. >> mr. mcconnell, mr. menendez... >> reporter: the overwhelming majority on the senate floor were in support when the final vote came. >> the yays are 81, the nays are p19, the motion is agreed to.ç >> reporter: in the end, most democrats swallowed doubts about extending bush-era tax cuts even for the wealthy. florida's bill nelson said the choice was clear. >> without action on january 1, those fortunate enough to have a

job would see a significant drop in their paycheck as the middle class tax cuts enacted 10 years ago also expire with the effect that the taxes would be going up all across the income spectrum. >> reporter: republicans negotiated the deal with president obama, but some such as tom coburn of oklahoma voted "no" because the $858 billion cost is not offset by cuts elsewhere. >> we're going to run trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see right now with no grown-ups in the room saying it's time to quit doing that. >> reporter: still, party leaders touted the tax cuts and the extension of jobless benefits through 2011. the spirit of cooperation in the senate did not$,tend to aç mammoth bill funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year. democrats and a handful of republicans want to wrap $1.2 trillion worth of spending measures into a single appropriations bill.

but republican leaders objected to that approach. among them, john thune of south dakota. >> i mean, it's inexcusable to think that we have to pass a $1.2 trillion bill, 2,000 pages, which we just got less than 24 hours ago and that's the way you're going to fund the government. and, they're going to load it up with all this special-interest stuff to boot. >> reporter: the house already passed a bill to fund the government through next september that freezes current spending levels. lawmakers there readied today to take up the tax cut measure. the hang-up in the house was an estate tax provision that sets a top rate of 35% on values above $10 million. many democrats instead want a top tax rate of 45% on estates of more than $7 million. republicans warned any move to change the tax cut deal now might jeopardize the entire package. in the "washington post" today,ç maryland democrat chris vanç hollen vowed to try nonetheless

writing, "we don't think it's fiscally responsible or fair to provide a tax-cut bonanza to super-rich estates." for his part, president obama again urged lawmakers to come together and finish the job. >> i know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of congress on both sides of the aisle object. that's the nature of compromise. but we worked hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy, and we cant afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat. so i urge members of congress to pass these tax cuts as swiftly as possible. >> reporter: the house could vote on the tax cut package tomorrow. >> lehrer: it is on that estate tax provision where judy woodruff picks up the story. >> woodruff: we now get two opposing viewpoints on the estate tax that has been a key sticking point for many house democrats. republican representative kevin brady of texas andçç democratic representative

earl pomeroy of north dakota join us from capitol hill. both men serve on the house ways and means committee. thank you for being with us. >> hi, judy. >> couric:. >> woodruff: now, representative pomeroy, it's our understanding this compromise would mean a tax only on a very small, relatively small, 3,500 estates in the entire country. why do you think it's unfair? >> we think the agreement reached on the senate side simply went too far in terms of basically taking out estate tax as a revenue item for this country. we prefer an approach taken in 2009 and that's what an amendment that will be considered on the floor would substitute in place of the senate deal. in 2009 we had the smallest level of taxation on the states in 80 years. 99.8% of the estates in this country had no tax at allç ande

believe thatç that's an appropriate way to resolve this thing. the senate deal gives away over two years an additional $23 billion just as you mentioned to the wealthiest few families at a time when we're dealing with record debt and deficits and tremendous spending cuts ahead. why would we want to devote $23 billion to the wealthiest few families in this country. >> woodruff: given that, why do you think it should become law? >> well, i think the death tax is wrong and it's as close to an immoral attack that we have. there's something moral about family farmers and businesses to work up a nest egg. some of them work for generation to do that and then when they die have the government swoop in and take as much as half of everything they've earned. i think the death tax needs to go away permanently. short ovúáhat, the common ground lot of our family farms and family owned business.

that wasn't created. this that number didn't come up in washington, our local small business people, our local newspapers and grocery store own xwloers said if you can't eliminate it completely this will allow many of us to survive. so i think that common ground is what we ought to stick with and i don't think 45%... i don't think the government deserves half of what our hard-working americans spent their lives to build up. >> let me straighten a couple facts out there. of course the 45% is on the amount over $7 million for a couple. so there's zero on the first $7 million and 45% over that. and an average estate would be about 18%, almost the rate of the capital gainsç tax. again,ç across the country, you're not having family farms and small businesses lost to the estate tax. at the '09 levels they would have to have amount net over $7

million. this thing makes it go away for 99.8% of the families in this country, and that's a level we ought to have. >> woodruff: let's stick, though, to what is in this proposal and representative brady, just to be clear, you're arguing this is still onerous even as we understand it it would only affect something like 100 businesses across the country. >> no, that's not true, there's at least 44,000 that will be affected by the estate... the death tax if the law is allowed to continue through and starting on january 1 where it goes... comes back fully to life. a number of them are protected by the common ground, the compromise that was reached in this bill, but i'll tell you we're sitting here saying it's no big deal. aç small business@qerson has to go to the bank twice, to pay the death tax on the grandfather's rafrjt and now the father's ranch, they're struggling to make ends meet.

five generations they've worked that soil and now government wants, again, more of what they've earned. and so i don't care whether it affects one or 6,000 or 44,000. that tax is wrong. it needs to go away. >> woodruff: well, representative pomeroy, we know there are a number of farms in your state of north dakota. why aren't you sharing this concern about the affect this could have on slowing down the economy? >> those are the same talking points they were using when the estate tax was at much lower levels. nationally there were very... there were fewer than a hundred farms at the' 909 levels. fewer than 10 had to liquidate any assets, 10 in the entire country, and these are the wealthiest few. now, at a timeç when we wereç going to make deep and painful cuts in order to deal with these deficits, why would we want to take $23 billion and basically give an enormous additional tax

break to the wealthiest few families of this country. it doesn't make sense. >> if i may, mr. leverett of texas who wrote me that letter doesn't think he's a talking point. he's a family and struggles to make ends meet. i also point out we would have under mr. pomeroy's rate the second-highest death tax among the globe. and finally the democrats have raised taxes of more than $600 billion to this session alone. not one dime went to reduce the deficit. in fact, all of it went to double the spending. so the truth is, i think government needs to start sacrificing by tightening its belt, balancing its budget, getting back and living within its means. let's not burden all of this poor spending decision in washington. why take it out on the backs of family-owned businesses and family farm? >> here's what kevin isç sakzn. we need to tighten our belt, we need to cut wasteful spending and we need to give a great big tax cut to the wealthiest few

families of this country. it doesn't make sense. >> earl, we've ran this play before. >> woodruff: i do want to ask representative pomeroy to pick up on that point you just made though. that essentially you are saying that even the wealthiest shouldn't be asked to pay an extra amount. >> my own view is you look at the '90 levels, that was the level of tax on estates, lower than when ronald reagan was president, lower than when president bush was president, lower than when president george w. bush was the president. it was the lowest level we'd had in nearly... in 80 years. and this year, of course, it went away and everyone seems to recognize that zero estate tax isn't going to happen. >> woodruff: and representative brady sounds like you're saying the standards have changed here. >> i'll tell you what i think is that you can't tax away back to balanced budget. we'll have to cut realç spendi. and by the way, that death tax, the proceeds of those families who create businesses out of the

garage, run up their credit cards, years and years to make ends meet. that's not the government's money and we shouldn't burden them with it. we've run this play before. the alternative minimum tax is put into place to over only 200 millionaires. today it would reach 25 million middle-class americans. i don't trust this government in the way they do business. >> woodruff: representative pomeroy, what has your leadership? the house, the democratic leadership? the house, told you in terms of how much of a change they want you to make. we've heard the president say to the house don't make a change. the senate republicans have said if the house changes this in any way they're going to reject it. >> a year ago the house voted to establish the estate tax permanently at those '09 levels. passed it almost a year ago2 today. and we want to have anç amendmt vote on basically the same proposition.

so we would substitute the 10 million exclusion.... >> woodruff: even if that means scuting the whole thing? >> at that point we send it back to the senate and they have a decision to make. the senate has a decision to make. would they have tax go up on everyone because they want to take care of that wealthy, that estate tax exclusion exposure for the wealthiest 6,600 families in this country? we think that we've improved the package by making the amendment in order and approved. >> woodruff: a final short comment from mr. brady. >> you made the point for me, judy. this is a horse for those who want to kill this bill and allow taxes to go up, damage our families, damage our small businesses, we're going to fight hard against it. >> woodruff: we hear you and we will leave it there for now. representative brady, representative pomeroy. >> thank you.çç >> ifill: next, new intelligence reports on the war in afghanistan and to margaret warner.

>> warner: tomorrow, the white house presents its long-awaited review of how much progress has been made in the afghan war since the president's surge of u.s. forces there. today, the "new york times" and "los angeles times" reported on two classified national intelligence assessments-- one of afghanistan, one on pakistan that have gone into that review. the nie's represent the collective view of 16 u.s. intelligence agencies. they were said to offer a gloomy view of the state of play, especially when it comes to pakistan's unwillingness to take out afghan militant sanctuaries on its territory. for more, we go to elisabeth bumiller, a pentagon correspondent for the "new york times." elizabeth, welcome back. now, there have been a lot of intelligence assessments all along this...;hthe process of this war.ç what makes these special. >> these... well, because they're current or relatively current and because one is focused on afghanistan, one is

focused on pakistan and right now it's the moment for viewing afghanistan and they're important because they're going to represent all the views of all these intelligence agencies with, i would say, a very heavy input from the c.i.a. and the defense intelligence agency. they're the main drafting agencies. >> woodruff: so the headline on your piece, and the lead was essentially more negative in tone, certainly, than what we've been hearing from secretary gates or general petraeus, the commander of u.s. forces there lately. how so? >> they are more focused on the problem of pakistan. i mean, there's not... overall there's ablarge area ofç agreement. i mean, the military agrees that pakistan is a big problem and it's the analysis that there will be... there will be very limited chance of success without pakistan flushing out insurgents in its region with afghanistan. and the military says yes that's a problem but we think we can do

it without pakistan which is an interesting shift because all along they've been trying to push foz get rid of those insurgents and now they're saying well, we don't think it's going happen, we'll just press forward. >> woodruff: one thing i just wanted to clarify is to what degree you've actually seen these... >> well, that's what i made clear in the story. i have not seen them, however they were number of american officials described them to me and my colleagues so we got descriptions from a group of people. >> so back to the findings, i want to get to pakistan in a minute. jwr8:y first çuz all do they dispute what general petraeus and secretary gates have been saying that u.s. u.s. forces have been fighting against the taliban, especially the south. >> no one disputes that. helmand province and kandahar province where the extra forces have been concentrated. there are 20,000 marines in helmand province alone.

you send 20,000 marines almost anywhere, there's going to be a change and there has been, and in places like marjah, that have been considered a failure, there have been some relatively stable in parts of it. and there has been success around kandahar and the districts around kandahar which is a spiritual home of the taliban. the question is how sustainable is that. can this be... how many more marjahs do you need to do as one white house official said to me not too long ago andç can theç afghan forces do it on their own once the u.s. leaves? >> woodruff: and that takes us back to what role pakistan is and will play. so tell us a little bit more about what these n.i.e.s at least say about pakistan's role. how extensively they're assisting the afghan taliban. and other insurgents who are in the border area and cross over? >> well, i don't think it's just the n.i.e.s, i think it's the entire obama administration

right now acknowledge what is a big problem is this is is that the pakistani intelligence service is using these proxy insurgent groups on the border to... they go right across the border, commanders were saying that last week in the eastern part of afghanistan that they go right across the border, they plant homemade bombs, they attack american forces and then they go right back across to pakistan for rest. >> warner: rest and relaxation. >> resupply, refitting. we're only at"jar officially inç afghanistan. >> warner: so doze do these reports or at least what you know about them say whether the pakistani military at the highest levels is just allowing this to happen or because there are rogue elements assisting them or whether, in fact, the pakistani military at the highest levels is engaged in this? >> i can't answer that question. they certainly say there are rogue elements with the pakistani intelligence service. they also say that there's been basically lip service paid by general kayani, who's the head

of the military in pakistan. you know, general petraeus just last week praised kayani for saying "yes, we acknowledge it's a problem." but that's basically what the pakistanis have said for two or three years. >> warner: you've said general petraeus thinks he can "win" the conflict. i shouldn't use the word win, because he doesn't. but get to a reasonable conclusion without assistance from pakistan. what'sç his rationale?ç >> well, i don't know that he's come out and said that explicitly. but from what i hear from military sources is that right now we're doing it, the question is... >> warner: because we're degrading the taliban. >> killing taliban or capturing taliban on the border in the border region. >> and the strategy right now-- it's not perfect-- is to continue doing this in a point that in a number of years afghan forces can at least contain and manage the problem on their own. that's a big, big if. >> warner: so very briefly, we

only have a couple seconds left. what's the headline going to be out of the review tomorrow? >> some progress, more needs to be done. >> warner: but meanwhile stay the course tactically, strategically? >> the next big assess element come in the summer and that, the white house is saying, is many t more important assessment. >> warner: elizabeth bumillerç, "new york times." thank you.ç >> lehrer: finally tonight: a leading dance company and a small western city learn to move together. jeffrey brown has our story. >> reporter: lunchtime at a sprawling hewlett-packard facility in boise, idaho. with some 3,000 workers, this is one of the area's largest employers. all is routine, until a dance breaks out. the "trey mcintyre project" is

at it again, presenting what it calls a "spurban"-- a spontaneous urban performance. for the group's leader, one way to build a new and loyal audience is to go directly to where people live and work and let them make a personal connection. >> we'll go into an office or into a park or into a restaurant, do our dance and get out. just for the sake of that. >> reporter: and the idea is to just what? make it as in your face or as part of somebody's life as you can? >> yeah. "oh, my gosh, i actually just saw that dancer two feet away from me and it's a real person and i saw how hard it was or i saw the look on their face.ç orsomehow connected with the energy." >> reporter: trey mcintyre is the choreographer and founder of the company, which consists of nine dancers who tour 22 weeks of the year throughout the u.s. and abroad. they're all steeped in traditional ballet. but the 41-year old, wichita, kansas-born mcintyre then adds

elements from modern, jazz and other styles. he says all of his work is grounded in an american sensibility. >> something about growing up in the heartland. you know, i'm from the great plains. and there's some sense of like standing in the place where you are and feeling the earth around you and that sense of space i think that finds its way into the work. >> reporter: for nearly 20 years, trey mcintyre had a successful freelance career as a choreographer working for some of the leading ballet companies in the world. when he decided to settle down and start his own group, he surprised a lot of people in the dance world by doing it here in boise. boise is an attractive and very livable city of 200,000 people.ç it has an active cultural community, but isn't known as an arts capital. given his reputation, trey mcintyre was expected to settle in, say, new york or san francisco. but he wanted something different. >> for me to follow that

traditional path, it wasn't really exciting. i like more of the idea of getting back to: why do we exist? you know, why have a dance company in america at this point? to come to a city that was less developed in terms of its dance audience, where we could really bring it in on the ground floor and not only be a part of developing the arts community but developing the city as a whole. >> reporter: plopping yourself down in a new town is one thing. getting people to not only accept, but embrace you, is another. john michael schert, a dancer who serves as the company's executive director, says at first they met some skepticism. >> "why did you choose boise?ç and why, if you're so great?" because they hadn't seen us.ç they hadn't seen us perform. they hadn't seen the art. they hadn't seen us in the streets. all they knew was supposedly this really good choreographer and his company are moving to town.

so why? >> reporter: schert set out to convince and cultivate the town. >> everyone from politicians to the president of the university to the c.e.o.s of local corporations. so we were able to meet leaders of high influence in the community. but i also mean everyone! trey is a tall guy. he's 6 foot 6. >> reporter: he stands out. >> yeah. so were walking down the street, people walk up to us and say, "we're so happy you're here. we're so happy you moved here, we're so happy you're part of the community." >> reporter: to that end, the company makes regular visits to local hospitals and schools like the garden city community school. dancers performed for the students. and taught some basic skills, like how to spin without getting dizzy. they're trying to build and broaden their adult audience as well, for example, inviting the public to watch the process ofç creating a new dance.ç

they also shoot dance videos that stream online. >> i'm really interested in film as a medium and constantly exploring ways that dance can be communicated to people besides being on the stage. >> reporter: so far, it seems to be working on all levels. the dancers talk about being treated as rock stars in town. >> people recognize us, which is a new thing for me, to be recognized on the street or in a store. >> reporter: what do they do? >> they say, "oh, my gosh. do you dance for trey mcintyre project?" >> reporter: for their part, a number of local businesses provide the company with free or low-cost services. dave krick, owner of the red feather restaurant has donated food and drinks for dance events.

>> they've made our community more unique. they've brought something to our community. a group like that could have come here just because they wanted to be left alone. but that's not what they did. they moved here because they wanted to be part of a place. they wanted to be part of the community. and they are very much a part of this community. >> reporter: perhaps happiest oç all is boise mayor dave bieter who admits that dance wasn'tç exactly his thing before all this. >> i'd like to say i'm informed about dance companies all across the country but i'm more inclined to know about the linebacker part of the world. ( laughs ) >> reporter: the mayor now proclaims himself a convert. it didn't hurt that trey mcintyre created a new dance in honor of basque culture. boise is home to the largest basque population outside spain, including the mayor. better yet, the company has quickly brought publicity and prestige. in return, the city this year gave the group $25,000-- its largest-ever arts grant-- and named it its first official

cultural ambassador. >> the more we study it, the more communities all across the country study it. the jobs they create, the economic development they foster. and then the name that you get from it, especially with the travel. we don't really have another group like it that takes our good name all around the country and even all around the world. >> reporter: in tough budgetary times for both cities and art groups, trey mcintyre thinks others might look to the boise experiment.jjp>> i think this dç model that could be viable in other communities. the potential's unlimited in that way. it's clearly vital to the next step of what's going to make the arts survive in the united states. >> reporter: in the meantime, the rest of the country will have a chance to see the trey mcintyre project perform when they begin their next national tour in january. >> ifill: just today, the trey

mcintyre project's role as cultural ambassador expanded, as the state department named it one of four american dance companies that will represent the country on a 2012 world tour. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: the justice department began legal action against b.p. and other companies involved in the gulf oil spill. president obama's tax cut deal with republicans won senate approval. it goes now to the house. and the senate also forced an end to delaying tactics and voted to take up a nuclear arms treaty with russia. and to hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, for what's on the "newshour" online. hari? >> sreenivasan: on "art beat," watch more of jeff's conversation with trey mcintyre and a performance by his dance company. our political team is tracking the tax cut debate on capitol hill in their daily "morning line" dispatch, find that on our politics page and on "the rundown" news blog, judy reflects on the life ofç veteran diplomat richard holbrooke and looks at shiftingç attitudes toward public service. all that and more is on our web site: newshour.pbs.org.

>> lehrer: and again, to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, are ten more. ç

>> ifill: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on thursday, we'll have analysis of the obama administration's policy review of the war effort in afghanistan. i'm gwen ifill. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you on-line. and again here tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> this is the engine that connects abundant grain from the american heartland to haran's best selling whole wheat, while keeping 60 billion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. çç and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org