got hired by a poor person. [laughter] so, if house speaker nancy pelosi, or as i now call her, san francisco nancy, would just stop were obstructionist tactics, we can get our economy moving again. host: tomorrow morning on c- span, our conversation will continue among our guests will be the president and chief operating officer of the financial services forum. we'll talk about regulation and its impact on the u.s. economy. there is a meeting taking place wednesday at the white house with 20 leading executives to talk about regulatory reform, taxes, and the deficit. we'll also talk about the u.s. detainee's at gitmo and the house is likely to vote failing to fund gitmo off the coast of the u.s. in cuba. finally, we'll talk about the

financial quiz on financial literacy. that is all to morning on "washington journal," 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

john has the first question. guest: thanks. this week the senate voted not to proceed to the defense authorization bill which contained a repeal of the 1993 don't ask don't tell law which bars openly gay people from serving in the military. there is now a free-standing repeal of the don't ask don't tell law -- bill out there and folks are wondering how that might become law. how would you see that happening? perhaps as an amendment to a continuing resolution to fund the government or the dream act? what do you see as the path forward? >> well, i believe that the majority leader, harry reid is going to use the particular rule which i believe is rule 14

which will put that directly on the calendar, and then he can attempt to bring it off the calendar so it would be subject to a filibuster if and when he tries that. i think he wants to try that, he very much support that is language that we put in our defense bill. and i think that that is probably the best route to go it. but that's, again, subject to a filibuster. and we've seen the republican filibuster, what they've done to the don't ask don't tell repeal when it was part of the defense authorization bill which by the way was totally appropriate since the original language setting that policy in place was part of a defense authorization bill as you point out, i believe, 17 years ago or so. but that's probably the most logical way it would be done. >> you don't sound optimistic, chairman. >> you know, fill busters in

the senate take a lot of time. and i hope we can get it done one way or

thoon might result from a court decision. >> along those lines, we keep thursday when the procedural motion failed, we all kept waiting. this probably dooms this legislative effort for years because republicans of course take control of the house in january, democrats majority shrinks. do you agree, does this doom it for years or is there some hope next jeer this could come back and be successful? >> i have hope it could be successful if we can't get it past this year. and i would be hopeful at least that we could get it passed next year for a couple reasons. number one, it's important. it's very, very strong. it's probably 2-1 people feel

we ought to just end the discriminatory policy. secondly, because more time will have passed which will permit more hearings to take place, some of the opposition to the repeal of don't ask don't tell came from people who felt there should be even additional hearings beyond the ones that we already had. and that could be, those hearings could be held if we had more time to do it. even though there will be more republicans, the public support for the repeal is very, very strong. and sooner or later, and i hope it's sooner this year and i hope if not this year then next year, that that public support for the end of this policy would persuade enough republicans to end that filibuster. >> what about the overall defense authorization bills' prospects? where do you go from here with so little time available? there's talk about some kind of a stripped-down version of it

that would be with the most controversial elements taken out. are you actively talking about that or planning on talking about that, something that could conceiveably be approved by unanimous consent in the senate? >> we're exploring all options because this would be the first year in over 45 years i believe that we would not pass a defense authorization bill. if we don't pass it. that bill contains critically important provisions for men and women in uniform and their families. for their training, their equipment, their health care. it is unconscionable, i believe, to have held up that bill by filibuster since the bill would have been open to amendment and people who oppose it had repeal of don't ask don't tell could have offered amendments on the floor to eliminate the language which we were able to put in committee to repeal the don't ask don't tell provision. everyone says they want a

defense authorization bill and i'm just looking for vares alternatives as to how we might be able to still get that accomplished. it's an 800-page bill. as you know it's very complicated bill. and there's a lot of provisions in that bill which need to be resolved. >> can you talk about what some of the things are that the pentagon absolutely cannot do unless they are authorized? and is there a talk of a plan b here? i know the continuing resolution in the house that passed the house has some authorities for pay and bonuses and what knot attached to it. it looks like as a fallback measure. so tell us what the really, really must pass items are. >> well, there are provisions for pay, for benefits, for bonuses for health care reform, for family support. there are even changes in the criminal code, in the uniform

code of military justice which would make prosecution for rape easier. there's hundreds of provisions in here. it's an 800-page bill. some of them, it depends on whose definition of what's important. but the military construction, i mean, there's all kinds of provisions that are critically important and some of them -- >> not just important. they're absolutely essential by statute. for example, military construction projects. they absolutely have to be authorized. >> pay. >> across the board pay raise. >> either authorized or hopefully in an authorization bill where they belong, or in an appropriation bill where they do not belong and i think it would subject that bill to a point of order for legitimates on an appropriation bill. i don't know if anyone would want to use those poirds because we're talking about support of our military but nonetheless they are in

jeopardy if we don't pass an authorization bill much more complicated legislatively. and even if we can get some of them done in an appropriation bill, if we can't pass the authorization bill there's a whole lot of them which simply timewise we could not figure out how to get noon an appropriation bill. >> let me ask you about the broader question about the defense bill. you've been here 32 years and as you say we haven't gone without a defense authorization passed in 48. why is this happening? put aside don't ask don't tell for a minute. why is this happening? why can't congress agree? we've seen all kinds of partisan rankor before, that's for sure. what's going on here? >> the opposition to the language on don't ask don't tell was so strong that they fill bustored the bill. and if you bill buster a bill, we've got to get 60 votes. the public i think is beginning

to get it that the senate doesn't operate by majority rule. they're beginning to get it that we've got to change some of our rules, and i hope we'll change some of those rules in january by the way where the filibuster particularly on the motion to proceed is so abused. but i think the public understands. the majority under the current rules cannot run the senate. if there's a filibuster. >> excuse me for interruptly but particular at the end of the year. >> less leth me press you on this. not to minimize the significance of don't ask don't tell. but 48 years. vietnam war was certainly a devicive issue in congress and the country. and i can go through the 70, 80s, and 90s. is it the democrats won't compromise, republicans won't compromise? what's different about the political mood that makes this thing such a stalemate all of a sudden? >> why we had 100 filibusters this year by republicans.

>> we've got a minority which has a minority probably or perhaps a minority of the minority but which is used and i believe misused and abused to prevent things from coming to the floor. and that was not done at least to such an extreme in prior years as it was done in this congress. and we've got to find a way to change, i believe, the rules. now, hopefully we can change them on a bipartisan basis to eliminate the abuses. the senate is a place where extended debate is supposed to be kind of the hallmark. as we have seen this week where we got one member of the u.s. senate whose on the floor hour after hours, that is his right and i'm going to protect that right but in terms of proceeding to a motion to debate where people are preventing debate, not protecting debate which what

the senate should do, we should be protecting extended debate. the trouble is that the rules which are set out to protect extended debate have been misused to prohibit, prevent debate from occurring at all. >> but that's a key issue. that's the one area where i think we can get some reforms. >> but if don't ask don't tell is the reason you can't move forward with the bill, why not have separated that as a stand-alone bill when you knew this was going to be such an obstacle back in september-october and move forward with the defense bill? >> i would say probably the strongest supporters of that bill, of that repeal believed that the best hope of getting that repeal accomplished was to put it in a bill where logically it belongs, by the way. ok? now, if this is not as though this was sort of dragged into a bill, an unrelated bill.

this subject of don't ask don't tell belongs on the defense authorization bill because it was a defense authorization bill which created the policy or put it in law, more accurately, the begin with. >> but on that point about what stopped the defense authorization bill. it wasn't really a don't ask don't tell. was it? because, ironically, a super majority, not -- a super majority of the senate supported passing the bill and supported repealing the don't ask don't tell. but it was blocked because it was tied to unrelated issues because republicans wanted to have a vote first on taxes and on funding the government. so, i mean, don't we have an ironic situation here where it's not -- that's not really it, it's because it's getting wrapped in with larger politically charged issues? in other words, it's not really the will of a minority even being thwarted.

it's a super majority that supported this. >> well, the -- we didn't get 60 votes to proceed and the reason we didn't get 60 votes to proceed is what you're driving at. i'll read you one part letter. we will not agree to invoke cloture, which means to proceed, on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increases currently awaiting taxpayers. in other words, they took the position -- now, you'd have to ask mitch mcconnell and 41 other republicans, why sit that they decided nothing would pass the senate until we resolved the issue over taxes in the next funding bill? it was a tactic on their part, obviously, to get something done that they felt was more important than the defense of this country. which is the particular version

of tax cuts which they favor, particularly. i would say that would by b the single thing. and they want to force that resolution which they hope will favor them and they used the defense authorization bill and all the other legislation, by the way, in order to achieve that goal. >> you want to ask about the tach issue? >> since you've given me an opening there. >> it was a great seg with you. >> as things now stand, are you going to vote for the tax bill that was introduced thursday night? >> i don't like the bill so that doesn't mean i'm going to necessarily vote against it because it may be a better option than not passing it. but i not only have problems with the bill, particularly the estate tax provision which is a just gift to the wealthiest people in this country. they don't need it. that upper income tax cut is again i think something like

20, 25% of it goes to one-third of 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. so i have real problems. ok? with those and some other provisions. however, i also have some real problems with the process that if we cannot even vote on amendments such as changing that estate tax provision to go back to something more reasonable, and if we cannot vote to strike that tax cut for the wealthiest americans, we are not even given an opportunity to vote on it, that causes me some real problems as well as the substance of the bill. so you put those two things together. if we're not allowed to even vote on those changes, those of us who believe that this bill should be repaired, then i have a double problem with this bill. i haven't decided how i would vote but i would have a double

problem if we cannot even change the bill. >> you said nothing positive about the bill. why not rule out a yes vote? >> there are a number of positive things in the bill. >> such as? >> unemployment benefits extended, very important tax provisions for middle income people that are in there. we've got i think some really stimulative parts to that bill. i hate to just see taxes used to stimulate the economy, by the way, particularly since most of those tax cuts are going to the upper bracket and i don't believe in trickle-down economics. but nonetheless, there are some provisions that will stimulate the economy, some of the expensing provisions so-called on purchases by businesses so they can take as a deduction all in the first year rather than depreciating their purchases over a number of years. those are very useful provisions. >> chairman, i think we should have a discussion about the start treaty since we have you here as our guest. where that stands now, as congressional quarter sli reporting the two main

senators, republicans are on board. what's next? >> in the senate, again, you've got to get 60 votes. now, with the treaty you've got to get 67 votes so you usually don't face a filibuster on a treaty. but because we're up to the last say, six, eight, ten days of this session, if for whatever reason a significant minority want to stop that debate from succeeding or completed, they probably can stop the debate. i don't know if it's because they oppose start or because they want us to do their version to tax cuts before we begin start. i don't know what the motivation is and i don't easily and i try to avoid attributing motives to people. because it's complex. motives are complex. but the votes are there, i believe, just the way they were there for the defense authorization bill. but there are also ways of a

minority near the end of a session preventing 60 people from acting or even 67 people, which is two thirds required for treaty ratification. >> is there enough time to do taxes, fund government, start, and defense authorization and are you making any kind of argument about the relative importance of defense authorization versus start since it may come down to a choice between the two? >> well, i've made that argument as chairman of the armed services committee that i would think it's critically important the defense authorization bill be brought before the senate, and that's why finally the majority leader sort of said yesterday, hey, if we don't get this bill started this week, it can't get done even with don't ask don't tell repealed. in other words, practically there's no way to get it done. so i made the argument it had to be this week if we're going to get a defense bill, with or without the don't ask don't

tell. because as you well know, you've got to have a couple days on the floor, you've got a day and a half of post-cloture time so called even if there are 60 votes. you've got to go to conference or do something similar to conference with the house of representatives. you've got to allow time for amendments. we usually spend weeks on this bill on the floor. there's usually months taken for conference. we've got to do that in a week. i don't make that judgment. it's of relative importance defense authorization, our troops are very, very important. but the start treaty is a very significant thing. obviously we have to fund the government. and if we can resolve that tax issue. >> clarifying the defense authorization. i hear a glimmer of hope that even though you didn't get the cloture vote this week you might still be able to pass it. but that would have to be in some kind of a stripped-down

form. right? >> it could not have don't ask don't tell. >> boo sides that. things like alternative engine and abortions in military hospitals. pretty much all that stuff would have to go. is that a fair assessment? >> no. it would be in a changed form. the house has adopted a bill and our senate committee has adopted a bill. so hopefully we could try to find common ground between those two bills as one alternative. even though there are eight in the case of the senate-passed bill in our committee it's 800 pages, i think the house bill is 1,000 pages. but the staffs are very familiar with those provisions. >> and you're doing that work behind the scenes now. >> we're exploring various options for how to get this done. >> i want to wrap several of these things that we've been talking about don't ask don't tell in particular, defense authorization, tax cuts and start. is the president and his administration giving you strong enough support? are they pushing hard enough for these things? >> generally i think they are.

in the case of taxes, i don't like the way they push but i can't say they're not pushing hard. in the case of start they clearly want us to do start. and in the defense authorization, i think a very strong statement came out of the president the other night after the republican filibuster succeeded in defetting it. so i think, yeah, they are pushing hard and one of the questions will be as to whether we will state long enough to get some of these things done. and i hope we stay as long as we need. we don't have many days capa if we come in after christmas but it would add a few days, if we stayed in monday, tuesday, wednesday before christmas. you can pick up a few days. and if it will make a difference, and i think it can, but that's a majority leader and the leadership decision. i would hope we would take those few extra days also to get don't ask don't tell passed. >> when i ask democrats that same question, i get that same

answer. certainly the administration is behind. certain they're strong. should the president be talking to people about start? should he put on the full-court press? is he? >> i think he has talked to a lot of people about it. the one thing i'm not satisfied with the presidential push is i believe that he should use the bullly pull pitt to say something like this on taxes. this is the thing i believe in as president. go through the list of things he believes in. i don't believe in tax cuts for upper bracket people or that estate tax bonsa for the rich that some people want. and i'm going to fight those. and the way that i think the president needs to fight them is to say that he is going to use the all of the power he has of a bully pull pitt and urge the senate to stay in right up to new years and if the republicans at the end of december want to continue to

filibuster, a tax bil which is aimed at helping middle income people instead of um upper income people, that is something which they will have to take on their own heads. that's the problem. is that i don't see that kind of a willingness to fight that hard where he will take that kind of a position. and that's what's necessary. the senate and the house, these are tests of wills. and we need all the help we can get from the president. is the help there? yes. does it come to the extent that i would like to see it in the way that i would like to see it? no, it has not come in that form which i think is essential to come down in the right way. and what i believe to be the best way in terms, for instance, of the tax bill. >> there's a couple minutes left. >> we talked about the dysfunction of the senate quite

a bit. and start raises that question also, doesn't it, because here you have a situation where on don't ask don't tell repeal you had a super majority that favored it but somehow couldn't get clear. on start, you've got the foreign policy establishment of the republican party that supports testimony this. so why is it that you can't get republican support for something like that? >> because a significant number of republicans decided that they would filibuster anything that did not fit their order of business. it's very -- i've never seen a letter like this. i won't read it again but i've never seen a letter like this. 42, that's enough to block the senate from acting, because you need 60.

42 senators signed a letter saying they will stop any legislative business that doesn't follow what they want to get done. so they're setting the agenda, and what they're saying is you've got to do the taffle thing first and you've got to do the government funding second. and we're not going to let anything else come first. even if you can't get those done. even if there's a week that we waste trying to negotiate something obthose items. there it is, we're not going to lift the senate function on legislative business until their priorities are addressed. i've never seen that before sflt senate. >> why do you think the public doesn't hold them accountable for this kind of thing? >> first, these are procedural issues. >> arcane stuff. >> and the people get up and argue the other side saying,

well, the funding of the government is the most important business or these tax cuts are the most important business. and that are very important business but to say nothing else that's important can get addressed until those items means that it's their agenda that they've decided that, come he will or high water. in the place. >> wicki leeks, what do you or your committee plan to look into this issue? >> we're getting briefed on these leaks and they are serious and i think most of us believe that people who leak information which is classified ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and held accountable in any way possible for the damage that results to our nation and to the american people. >> legislation then? >> it's a complicated legislation. but the legislative body that would look, the committee that would look at it would not be us so much as it would be the judiciary committee. and i don't know if they're starting to look at legislation or not. >> thank you for being on

"newsmakers." >> good to be with you. >> and we're back with our reporters. i want to begin with the defense authorization bill and what you heard on that from the chairman. >> well, it's not at all clear what's going to happen next on this bill. i think the biggest enemy is time. they just have so little time left even if they go the first during christmas week and a few days after christmas. it's just really hard to imagine that they be able to do the repeal of don't ask don't tell or the defense authorization bill. it may have been a mistake for them to do this cloture vote this week. they didn't know whether they had the votes to move the bill forward but they did the vote anyway. and that might have been a miscalculation. >> it sounded though like he is planning to bring this bill to the floor in some form of form. and you pressed him on does it get stripped down into some take