[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10569-S10573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        EFFECTS OF BUSH TAX CUTS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on what is an 
interesting point that I think needs to be made a few times because 
there has been a bit of discussion in this Chamber and questions in the 
public's mind as to how the President's tax cuts have affected the 
economy and affected Americans.
  If we were to listen to the mainstream press from the Northeast, for 
example, or to the mainstream commentary and to our colleagues on the 
other side, you would think the President's tax cuts were basically a 
benefit to the wealthy in America to the detriment to those who are not 
so wealthy. That is the basic theme--class

[[Page S10570]]

warfare. That is what we hear day in and day out.
  Well, the facts are in. The facts are in on the President's tax cuts, 
and they are very good for this country.
  To begin with, let's put in context when those tax cuts occurred. At 
the end of the Clinton administration, we had seen the largest economic 
bubble in the history of America. The stock market went up 
dramatically, way past real values, based on basically paper, as a 
result of speculation around the Internet. That bubble collapsed, 
forcing us into a recession. That was followed by the attack of 9/11, 
which was not only a traumatic cultural event for us, involving a 
horrific loss of life, it was also a huge economic attack on the 
American economy. Those two things together should have thrown us into 
almost a depression or certainly an extraordinarily severe recession.
  But what happened in the middle of this was that the President 
suggested cutting tax rates on all Americans. That tax cut came at just 
the right time because it softened the blow of those two huge economic 
events, those two extraordinarily recessionary events, and allowed the 
economy to bottom-out in a shallower and less harmful way and start to 
move back up dramatically. In fact, the practical effect of those tax 
cuts is the following because after 5 years, we know the facts, very 
interesting facts.

  No. 1, the revenue to the Federal Government has increased 
dramatically as a result of the tax cuts.
  No. 2, interestingly enough, high-income Americans, the highest 
income Americans, the top 20 percent of Americans in income are paying 
a higher share--a higher share of American income--of the income tax 
burden of America than they did under the Clinton years.
  No. 3, low-income Americans, those people who are in the bottom 20 
percent who don't pay any income tax to begin with, are actually 
getting back from the Government in the form of direct subsidy through 
something called the earned-income tax credit more money than they 
received in the Clinton years.
  So you have the situation where the Federal share of revenue taken 
out of the economy is back to its historic level: 18.2 percent. So we 
have a situation where the Government is getting more revenue, where 
the tax laws are becoming more progressive, and where the economy 
recovered, creating 5.7 million jobs.
  Now, how did that happen, one might ask. How can we get more tax 
revenues if we cut taxes? How can the high-income people in this 
country be paying a higher burden of the taxes if we cut taxes? The 
other side of the aisle rejects that concept. They say: You just have 
to keep raising taxes. Raise taxes, raise taxes; you always get more 
revenue.
  Well, it doesn't work that way. Something that--if you just think for 
a moment, it is pretty obvious--is called human nature intervenes. If 
you raise taxes to a level that people perceive is unfair, and 
especially if they are high-income individuals, they can afford to, and 
they do, figure out ways to avoid paying taxes by investing in things 
which give them deductions. So tax revenues don't go up dramatically if 
you raise revenues. In fact, the way you raise revenues is by making 
the tax burden fair. You make it fair so that high-income individuals 
pay those taxes and are willing to go out and invest in activity which 
generates income, which is productive and actually creates jobs, which 
in turn generates economic activity, which in turn generates more 
revenue to the Federal Government.
  That is exactly what has happened as a result of the President's tax 
cuts. We are now at a fair tax burden, so people, rather than avoiding 
taxes, are willing to pay taxes. People are now willing to invest in 
taxable activity, and the Federal Government is benefiting from a 
robust recovery, there is job creation, and more people are paying more 
taxes, and the high-income people are paying even more in taxes.
  I brought along a few charts to explain this more precisely. This 
chart reflects the fact that in the last 2 years--these are the 
revenues to the Federal Government, and these are the increases in 
revenues--in the last 2 years--this is the period when we had the 
Internet bubble and we had the 9/11 attacks, when the war began. This 
is where the tax cuts came into place. There was a dip in revenue as a 
result of the recession, the Internet bubble, and the 9/11 attacks, and 
then those tax cuts started to work, and people started to produce more 
economic activity, make investments, create jobs. As a result, in the 
last 2 years, we have the 2 highest years of increase in revenues of 
the Federal Government in the history of our Government--the 2 highest 
years. So there has been a big jump in revenues to the Federal 
Government, another result of which is that our deficit has dropped 
precipitously. It has gone from a $450 billion estimate down to $270 
billion this year.
  This chart reflects the fact that we are now back, after the 
recessionary event--well, the blue line reflects the historical level 
of the percent of gross national product that is usually paid in taxes: 
18.1 percent. That is the blue line here. The black line represents how 
much we are spending as a government. The red line represents how much 
we are receiving as a government. You can see it goes up and down.
  What happened was, in the Internet bubble, when people were 
manufacturing money basically through paper, there was a huge amount of 
revenue generated as a result of mostly capital gains. But when that 
bubble collapsed and when we were hit with 9/11, the economy dropped, 
and the incomes dropped. Down here is where we made the tax cuts, and 
then the economy started to come back. So now we are back at a 
historical level of revenues for the Federal Government. We are 
actually above the historical level right now. We are getting 18.2 
percent of gross national product into the Federal Government.
  A very interesting fact is that the high-income individuals in 
America today--these are the different quadrants, the different groups, 
people who make $15,000, people who make about $34,000, $51,000, 
$77,000. And then people making over $184,000--that is the high-end 
income earner in America.
  Those folks are now paying almost 85 percent, essentially 85 percent 
of the Federal income tax burden; the high-income Americans. That is a 
pretty progressive system when you have the low-income people, those 
with $34,000 or less, actually getting money back, and the high-income 
individuals paying the top 20 percent paying 84 percent of the tax 
burden. That is called progressive taxation. That is after the tax 
cuts.
  In fact, prior to the tax cuts, during the Clinton years--this is a 
chart of that top 20 percent--the high-income individuals during the 
Clinton years were paying 81 percent of the taxes, whereas now, under 
the Bush tax cut, they are paying 85 percent of the taxes. Again, I 
point out, if you think about it, this is actually just common sense. 
If you have a fair tax law, people who are in the high incomes, who 
have the knowledge, the ability, and accountants to invest their money 
in a way that either pays taxes or doesn't pay taxes--if they believe 
the tax burden is unfair, they are going to invest in a way that avoids 
taxes. They are going to buy interest-free bonds or buy highly 
depreciating assets. So they reduce their tax burden. But if you give 
them a fair tax burden, they are going to do things that are taxable, 
and that is good for the Government and actually it makes the tax law 
more progressive--a very important fact.
  As I mentioned, low-income individuals under this President are 
actually getting a better deal now than they did at any time in the 
history of the country. This is the line, what low-income people pay. 
Actually, it is a payment to them because this would be the line where 
they would pay something. Since this President has become President, 
low-income individuals are receiving more in direct payments as a 
result of the earned-income tax credit and other credits which they 
receive than they ever received before.
  You can compare this to the Clinton years. Low-income people, the 
bottom 40 percent of earners in America, basically received about 1.5 
percent back in payments to them. They weren't paying any taxes. Under 
President Bush's tax plan they are getting almost 3 percent back. So we 
have created a tax system now which seems to be doing everything right 
in that it is generating a historical level of Federal taxes--how much 
we should take out of

[[Page S10571]]

the economy for Federal taxes; it is generating huge revenue for the 
Federal Government; the highest income people in America are paying by 
far the greatest share of it, 85 percent, much more than they paid in 
the Clinton years; and low-income Americans are getting a benefit from 
the tax rebates which we give them at the highest level in history and 
about twice what they got under the Clinton years.
  Probably as important, if not most important, it has generated 18 
consecutive quarters of economic growth. This has led to almost 5.7 
million new jobs--and having a good job is the key to economic 
prosperity.
  What we have accomplished is pretty impressive with these tax cuts. 
Yet we continue to hear them be vilified by the Democratic Party and 
our liberal colleagues. They just want to keep raising rates. They want 
to go back to the Clinton years when they would raise rates and thus 
reduce the amount of taxes that the high-income individuals would pay 
because they would invest in shelters or find ways to generate income 
that were not as taxable. As a result, it also impacted low-income 
people because under the Clinton years we actually had low-income 
people getting less benefit. It probably significantly reduces this 
economic recovery which is a direct result of the fact that there is a 
tax burden today which creates an incentive for the person who is 
willing to take a risk, an entrepreneur, that person who has a great 
idea, that man or woman who says: I want to go start a restaurant. I 
have an idea I want to try out to build and sell. That individual who 
is a risk taker and a job creator has a tax climate which says: If you 
are successful, we are going to give you a benefit. That would be 
curtailed.
  The other side of the aisle, my liberal colleagues, they want to 
raise the tax on capital. They want to raise the tax on dividends. They 
want to raise the tax on income. All of those things are going to have 
the practical effect of stifling economic growth, stifling revenues to 
the Federal Treasury, and undermining the entrepreneurial spirit of 
America and the effective use of capital, which is a bit of an economic 
argument, but it should be pointed out.
  When you maintain a low tax burden on capital--capital being savings 
and things people are willing to invest with, money people are willing 
to invest--that money flows to its most efficient use. But if you put a 
high tax on capital and savings, people put it in places where it is 
not efficiently used. They put it into tax shelters to put it in hard 
example terms. If you are an entrepreneur and you are going to go out 
and start something and you have a 15-percent tax rate on capital, you 
are going to take a risk. You are maybe going to invest in building 
that new software or that new computer technology system or starting 
that new restaurant with that money. You are going to invest. But if 
you have a 30-percent tax--which is what the Democratic Party and our 
liberal colleagues want to return to, on capital--you are going to say 
to yourself: I don't want to pay that much in taxes, so I am going to 
invest in a tax shelter. I am going to invest in something that 
probably doesn't make a whole lot of money, but at least it saves me 
taxes.

  It is not an efficient way to use money, and it is not an efficient 
way for an economy to run and it skews investment arbitrarily, which is 
totally inappropriate and counterproductive and would certainly not 
lead to these types of numbers where you have economic growth for 18 
quarters, where you have 5.7 million jobs created.
  We have the Federal Treasury with the two largest tax revenue years, 
two largest years of revenue in the last 2 years, where you have the 
highest income people in this country paying the largest share of 
Federal taxes in the history of the country, 85 percent; where you have 
the lowest income people paying no taxes and actually getting more back 
as a result of credits and benefits under the tax law than at any time 
in history. And where you have an incentive, most important, for the 
entrepreneur, who is the essence of America's economic strength, to go 
out and take risks, invest, and create jobs.
  The numbers are in. This hyperbole we hear from the other side of the 
aisle--which is a function of 1950s-Galbraith-Harvard University 
economics which says, if you just keep raising taxes on people you are 
going to get more revenue--a stake was put in that by John Kennedy when 
he cut taxes. Another stake was put in that concept by Ronald Reagan 
when he cut taxes and got economic growth. And certainly the final 
stake has been put in it by the fact that we have cut taxes, we have a 
fair tax system now which incentivizes people to go out and be 
productive and causes them to be willing to invest in things that 
generate revenue, thus creating jobs. So that idea doesn't work.
  It only makes sense probably if you are a former theater critic who 
happens to be an editorial writer for the New York Times. There is no 
economic theory that can stand up any longer because it doesn't work. 
The tax burdens, as are shown by the numbers in this country, are 
pretty close to where they should be because we are generating huge 
growth, huge revenues, and we have an extraordinarily progressive 
system of taxation where the highest earners pay the most.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I didn't come to the floor to speak about 
our economic situation, but I get so inspired by my colleague from New 
Hampshire that it is hard not to respond to at least a portion of it. 
Let me just make a comment about where we are with this economy of ours 
because the implication in the presentation was, boy, these tax cuts 
for wealthy Americans really did help this country.
  In 2004 the economy grew at 4.2 percent. Yet the median family income 
in this country fell and poverty increased. This is the first sustained 
period of economic growth since World War II that fails to provide real 
income growth for the average working family in this country. The fact 
is, wages and salaries are now at a lower percent of the GDP in this 
country than they have been since they started keeping score in 1947; 
some progress for working people.
  I admit, the folks at the top of the ladder are doing really well 
because the economic program provided by the majority and by this 
President says ``let's provide the largest tax cuts to the wealthiest 
Americans because we believe it will all trickle down someday to the 
rest of the American people.'' But, it will not and it has not and, 
regrettably, we now have a dramatic increase in indebtedness. We are 
going to borrow close to $600 billion in the coming year in budget 
policy and $800 billion in trade deficits. That is a total of $1.4 
trillion in a $13 trillion economy. So, that puts us over 10 percent of 
red ink in a single year.
  This is working real well? I'm sorry, that doesn't even pass remedial 
economics. That is not why I came to the floor to speak, but it is hard 
to ignore cheerleading for an economic policy that has put this country 
up to its neck in debt, hurt working families, and enriched the most 
wealthy Americans.
  I came to the floor today and asked for some time because I wanted to 
talk about what I have been seeing in the newspapers and what I read 
this morning in the newspaper. The President, yesterday, went on 
another political trip, and the President, in Alabama, said that the 
party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrats, are the cut-and-run 
party. That follows Congressman Hastert, the Speaker of the House, 
suggesting Democrats are coddling terrorists. That follows comments by 
the majority leader of the House, Congressman Boehner, suggesting that 
Democrats care more about terrorists than the American people.
  This stuff is way beyond the pale. Cut and run, the President says? 
Cut and run? What kind of talk is this? I don't understand that. Is 
someone in this Chamber suggesting that we cut and run someplace? Not 
that I am aware of. Not one person I know of is suggesting we cut and 
run.
  But it would be worth us talking about whether our fight against 
terrorism is a fight that is tough and smart because I don't believe 
the current fight is very tough or very smart.
  You know, it is probably useful for us to review some history. So, 
let me do a bit of that, since the President is suggesting that his 
party is the party that

[[Page S10572]]

is muscular and the other party is weak.
  Winston Churchill once said: The farther back you look, the farther 
forward you see.
  Let's look back, August 6 in 2001. On August 6, 2001, the President 
received what is called a Presidential Daily Briefing which said that 
``Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States.'' That 
was the heading of the briefing received by the President: ``bin Laden 
determined to strike in U.S.''
  Here is what the 9/11 Commission report said, and I will give you the 
page numbers. After that briefing to the President on August 6 of 2001, 
``bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.,'' here is what the 9/11 
Commission said they found, on page 260: The President, ``did not 
recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General, nor 
did he recall whether his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, 
had done so.''
  On page 261, the 9/11 Commission found that the President's National 
Security Council never met to discuss the possible threat of a strike 
in the United States as a result of the PDB that said ``bin Laden 
Determined to Strike in U.S.'' Imagine that, the President was told, on 
August 6, 2001, that ``bin Laden determined to strike in the United 
States'' and nothing was done.
  In fact, the 9/11 Commission found, on page 262, no indication of any 
further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top 
advisers regarding the threat of an al-Qaida strike in the United 
States.
  The Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, page 262, did not 
recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat in the 
weeks prior to 9/11.
  Finally, it says this, page 265 of the 
9/11 Commission report:

       In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response 
     to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have 
     a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. 
     Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic 
     surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. 
     State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to 
     implement the FBI's effort. The public was not warned.
  Those are the facts of what was and was not done by the President and 
his advisors after they were warned on August 6, 2001 that ``bin Laden 
was determined to strike in the United States.'' Those are not my 
facts, but the facts on the record from a bipartisan commission that 
investigated following the specific warning of August 6.
  Now the President is saying, ``Cut and run.'' Let me describe a bit 
more history. The President and his advisers also said there were 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We now know they were not. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  He said the aluminum tubes were being purchased to reconstitute 
nuclear capability in Iraq. We now know those who told us those were 
facts knew that there were other facts at hand inside the 
administration that disagreed with their conclusion, but they never saw 
fit to offer that to the Congress or the American people.
  Mobile chemical weapons labs, we were told, were a significant 
threat. The development of mobile chemical weapons labs in Iraq, we now 
know, came from a fellow code-named ``Curve Ball.'' He was the only 
source. One source. A man named ``Curve Ball,'' apparently someone who 
is probably an alcoholic and a fabricator. A single source tells this 
country there are mobile chemical weapons labs in Iraq, and this 
country, through the Secretary of State, tells the world that it's a 
fact. Yet, it turns out to be a fabrication. One source, a drinker and 
a fabricator, told someone about it and it becomes part of this 
country's national dialog.
  Yellowcake. I don't need to go much further about yellowcake from 
Niger which turns out not to have been true either, with forged 
documents, mind you.
  And Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, in Prague, turns out not to 
have been true.
  As a result of all of that, the war on terrorism took a detour and we 
went to Iraq. We are now in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was found in a rat 
hole. He is now on trial. Is that good? Sure, it is good. He was a 
repressive, brutal dictator who murdered people. Sure, that is good 
that he's out of power.
  We are now in the middle of a civil war. Yes, we can describe it that 
way, probably a low-grade civil war, but a civil war in Iraq. That is 
where we have American troops stationed at present. And the President 
just says, stay the course. If anyone suggests, maybe we ought to have 
a discussion about being smarter and tougher in winning that war, the 
President says you believe in cutting and running. Being at war 
deserves thoughtful debate, thoughtful debate about how to win that 
war, about the detour from the war on terror. Just saying cutting and 
running, that is thoughtless debate, in my judgment.
  Stay the course? Stay the course? How? Where? When? For what? The 
fact is, it is a mess. We have ourselves in a mess. We cannot pull 
American troops out of Iraq. None of my colleagues, I believe, have 
suggested we should. None that I am aware of have suggested we should.
  But stay the course? Shouldn't we be smarter, tougher, more 
effective, and make course corrections when necessary? Course 
corrections that will give this country a chance to succeed rather than 
fail? We have debates about wiretapping in the context of all of this 
because the President has decided he is going to speak about Iraq in 
the same context as the war on terrorism. Of course, they are 
different. They are related somewhat now because we went to Iraq, but 
they were different. So the President talks about wiretapping. I am for 
wiretapping conversations between al-Qaida and the United States.
  I say, wiretap, eavesdrop, find out what terrorists are saying. But 
no President, no Republican and no Democratic President, ought to have 
the right to indiscriminate eavesdrop and wiretap on all Americans.
  We do not even know what this has been about. We do not know how 
extensive it has been. We don't know how many Americans have been 
listened to, how many records have been looked at. Yes, let's wiretap 
and find out what al-Qaida operatives are saying in telephone calls. 
Let's also protect the basic liberties of this country as we do so.
  Last week, we had three people testify before a policy committee 
hearing, with a combined service to this country of over 100 years. 
They were all combat veterans from Iraq. They led our troops. Two 
generals, two-two star generals and a colonel. One of the two star 
generals was offered a promotion to a third star and had a bright 
promising future, but he turned it down and resigned. He did that 
because he could no longer serve under the Secretary of Defense and 
follow a flawed strategy and policy.
  Here is just one example of what they said. They repeatedly asked for 
more troops in Iraq. As commanders of their units they repeatedly asked 
for more troops and repeatedly were turned down.
  That is at odds with what we, all of America, were told all along the 
way by GEN. Tommy Franks and General Myers. That is also at odds with 
what General Pace has stated standing next to Secretary Rumsfeld and 
standing next to President Bush. These Iraq combat veterans said we 
repeatedly asked for more troops. We needed more troops to finish the 
job and do the job, to prevent the growth of the insurgents in Iraq, 
and we were repeatedly denied. That is at odds with everything the 
American people have been told.
  That's not all. Body armor? A young man told me he signed up to go to 
Iraq, felt it was his duty after 9/11, quit school to do it, and when 
he gets there his mother, an elementary schoolteacher, had to go online 
on the Internet to purchase body armor to send to her son in Iraq.
  Colonel Hammas said, we know we have better armored vehicles to 
protect our soldiers than the up-armored Humvees. We know we have 
better armored vehicles. We have already produced 1,000 of them. Why 
are we not mass producing those vehicles? At the end of World War II we 
were producing 50,000 airplanes a year to support that war. This 
country mobilized and said, we are in a war, we are going to win it, we 
are going to produce what is necessary to support our troops, to 
protect our troops. Right now, we have better armored vehicles, but we 
are not producing them. We have not marshalled this country to fight 
this war, to protect our troops, to win. We have not mobilized this 
country.

[[Page S10573]]

  Don't believe me, talk to the generals who have been there, who now 
are risking their reputations by being willing to speak out now on 
behalf of the troops who can't speak, who can't tell us these facts.
  There is an old saying, ``A lie travels halfway around the world 
before the truth gets its shoes on.'' But finally the truth is getting 
fully dressed. We need the truth and the facts to understand what this 
country confronts. This country has great capabilities. We should be 
one nation indivisible. We are not these days. There is too much 
shouting. There are too many slogans like cut and run.
  We should be one nation as we confront this terrorism that threatens 
our country. We should be one nation as we search for ways to deal with 
the conflict in Iraq and to protect American soldiers who are there on 
behalf of their country.
  Most importantly, we need to be tough and smart as we take on these 
challenges. This is a new war, a different war, the war against 
terrorism and the circumstances that our troops find themselves in, in 
Iraq, fighting a war against an insurgency that doesn't wear uniforms. 
This requires us to be smart and tough, requires us to change tactics 
and strategy when necessary and to have a national discussion about how 
we succeed as a country.
  Yet this President will hear none of it. He will not hear and he will 
not listen. He is content to go to Alabama and say that those who 
openly question anything he does are people who suggest we should cut 
and run. I regret that.
  What we need to do, it seems to me, is to accept advice from some of 
the best minds in this country. Bring people together, Republicans and 
Democrats, conservatives and liberals, academics and others, bring them 
together and let's get the best of what everyone has to offer instead 
of the worst of each.
  Let's bring people together in this country. Let's stop this 
nonsense, one side is coddling terrorists, one side wants to cut and 
run. That is a playbook we have heard before. It is tired. It is limp. 
It makes no sense. It divides this country.
  I ask the President, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of 
the House and others, stop this sort of thing. Let's join together and 
work together to find ways to solve problems; to, as I said, be smart 
and tough in ways to defeat terrorists, take on these terrorists as one 
nation.
  If I sound upset by what I read in the paper today, I am. I don't 
think it is worthy of the kind of debate we ought to experience in this 
country.
  We have seen it twice leading up to the last two elections. We saw 
the fellow who lay on a battlefield losing one arm and two legs 
bleeding for his country. We saw him tarnished in television 
commercials. Political commercials equated him with Osama bin Laden, 
questioning his courage and commitment to his country. It made a lot of 
people sick to see that sort of thing.
  Maybe we can have a national debate that elevates the discussion of 
this country a bit. Maybe we can have a national debate that sets a 
little higher tone. I hope so. We can agree that this country is in a 
tough fight, one we need to win. We will not win this fight if we have 
these kind of political tactics continued again, one more time, the 
next 30 days before the election, the third election in a row 
questioning someone's patriotism, questioning someone's commitment to 
their country.
  They did that even with the generals. The general, the two-star 
general who refused a third star and resigned instead, who commanded 
the first infantry division in Iraq, had his commitment to his country 
questioned. Why? Because he had the temerity to speak out, to say, ``I 
was there. I was leading my troops, I was asking for more troops and I 
was turned down.'' People need to know that.
  We shouldn't be questioning the motives or patriotism of people who 
have committed themselves to their country, who have dedicated their 
lives to their country, our country.
  Let's elevate this debate. Let's come together. Let's act as one 
America. And let's fight these terrorist groups. Let's succeed and 
prevail, together.
  Yes, let's find a way to accomplish our objectives in Iraq. Let's do 
that. If it takes more troops, let's do that. If it takes a different 
strategy, if it takes changing the course, let's do that.
  But let's do it together. Let's not get on Air Force One and go to a 
State six or eight States away and suggest that your political 
adversaries want to cut and run. That hardly serves thoughtful debate 
in this country. This country deserves better. Democrats and 
Republicans need to come together and speak out and speak up for the 
interests of this country.
  But, to do that, we have to listen to each other. We have to listen 
to people like the generals. We have to listen to people who might 
disagree with us. We can't be stubborn. That's the only way, together, 
we will win against the terrorists.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized, under 
the previous order, for 15 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________