specifically, what has this lame-duck session accomplished in your view? for the democrats, 202-737-0002. for the republicans, 202-737- 0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can send us a tweet. this is from "the hill" newspaper this morning about what the senate did. the senate passed the tax package, and sending obama deal to the house. that is the headline in this article. it now heads to the house.

here are the senators who voted against final package -- -- final passage --

now, front page of the politico this morning. the lead article -- those are the two stories about what the house and senate are doing. we will get some more articles after we hear from you. john on the line for republicandemocrats.

what do you think? what has the lame duck session done? caller: it is what i call the best of compromise. i do not like some of it. the some of it -- i like some of it a lot. this past congress -- i think the president should be commended for the best game of pinnacle i've ever seen. he wins and he wins big. i think c-span should also bring this up -- whether or not the health care plan adds or subtracts from the deficit. and, can government create jobs? if you can bring up the speeches, bring up the jobs. they are there. thank you very much. host: lashaun tweets in --

ron, a republican in richmond, va., what has the lame duck session accomplished? caller: not a lot, especially if the president wants to cross the aisle. all tell you what we have -- have howard stern -- host: we will move on. what do you think about the lame duck session? caller: i'm not happy at all. how happy will people wilbe when they find out that unemployment is not helped a lot? the tax code makes your money worth more than your labor.

it is not too good if you have to work for a living. i am an independent. i used to be a capitalist. i'm pretty sure they murdered capitalism. it is dead. it's gone. the only people playing by it are at the bottom end of the totem pole, who have to compete with the chinese for jobs, or each other. host: tucson, ariz., robert. hi. caller: yes, my name is robert. please hear me out. i believe capitalism has always been about exploitation. even though we've gone through two hundred years of exploitation and capitalism -- i may not sound like a republican, but here's my point. no matter what you do in life, you have to pay the bills. somebody is out there trying to have you pay the bills. to have the bills paid, you need

taxpayers. if you diminish the taxpayers by making them that for, by exporting so many jobs all the time, you diminish the taxpayers. host: robert, tie this into the lame duck session. what does it accomplish? caller: in the long run, it will help someone. we've been in such a hole over the initial bush tax cuts. the bills are not paid, which is the essence of my conversation and the essence of the problem that we are in. i want to pay attention to it by letting my views known. host: thank you for calling in, robert. leo from dallas tweets in -- this is from "the politico"this

morning -- "the politico" this morning -- host: wayne is a democrat and your on the air. what do you think about the accomplishments of this lame duck session? caller: i think they have proven on both sides of the real, and the republican side of the aisle will never get it -- that the american people need jobs. ch does rate for the ridg

not produce jobs. they've had 10 years to produce jobs and they've done nothing but sit on their money. the infrastructure in this country is crumbling. our bridges, our electrical grid is and take -- everything we've built is crumbling. our water system -- every day is stopping commerce in an area and costing millions of dollars to fix one little break. if they were to fix the whole system, there would be fewer breaks. host: terry on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i know i only have a few seconds. during this lame duck session, congress will have to do something. when i look back at the marginal

tax rates -- even in 1960 at the highest, it was 91%. it went down to 77%. i'm talking about the highest marginal rate. that was on income over $400 ,000. even if they do nothing, the highest marginal rates are still half what they were during the kennedy years. as opposed to 70%. host: is it fair to say that you think the lame duck session has been successful and important? caller: my good friend, something's going to happen on january 1. it is only half of what it was when president reagan was sworn in in 1980. we would still be at half of that. what are the rich complaining about? host: from "the hill" this

morning -- that is from "the hill" newspaper, as is this article.

host: thomas in states bill,

n.c. o good morning. caller: good morning. .t is lame duck s the republicans got premature everything they wanted. once again, middle-class america got dumped on again. -- the republicans got pretty much everything they wanted. once again, middle-class america got dumped on again. status quo. that's all i've got. caller: good morning. my opinion on the lame duck session is that i think they should go with what is on the table, what the senate had passed. i'm one of the 99%. i unemployment ended on the fourth. many people say they're not hiring until they know about this tax increase. i think that's nonsense.

they should go ahead and pass it, instead of going back and forth with these debates. that's my opinion on all this. host: francis, a democrat in michigan. you are on the air. what do you think? caller: my concern about the lame duck session is that we favor the wealthy over the middle class and the poor. if we passed the tax bill as obama suggested, we are throwing crumbs everybody except the wealthy. they get money they do not even need. people have to consider how desperate people are. i'm in a low-income area. i worked all my life. i chose to work in a service industry. it was an independent organization. as a result, i get $575 a month

for the last three years. i think the ramifications of the tax cuts in terms of what states are going to get is going to profoundly affect poor people in this country and middle-class people. the infrastructure is breaking down because the federal monies that used to be available or not because of the tax cuts. host: thank you for calling in this morning. a tweet from the jazzchick -- from "the hill"this mor this mog --

connecticut, lou on the line for republicans. what do you think about this lame duck session? caller: as usual, those dirt bag left-wing democrats are trying to do away with don't ask don't tell, a policy for the military. there's no need to do that. it just causes issues. to pander to the homosexual community -- listening to these people calling in to c-span -- it is absolutely frightening how stupid. it is not the federal

government's job to take care of the infrastructure. it is connected's -- is connecticut's job to take care of their infrastructure. the government is out of control. you have to stop this. people have to stop looking to the government to take care of themselves. host: we will leave it there. arizona, napolitano to arizona in the wake of the border patrol agent's killing. jack in minnesota, good morning to you. caller: good morning. what has this lame duck session

accomplished? they're about to put the first nail in the coffin in the social security program. every senior needs to listen up. go to your google and google, " what are the effects of the tax cut holiday on the social security program?" they are muddying the line between the trust fund and the general funds. that's a strategy to eventually kill it or cut it to where it is no longer effective. fdr said that the payroll tax was in there to give the people that are involved in the program a moral and legal right to the money. if they take that payroll tax out, you are going to have the republicans screaming that it is something competing for our arms industry and our defense, and they will cut it.

the seniors need to call the rep and scream like -- i will tell you what. i think obama is definitely a one-term president. dirtrating with these burbl ball republicans, as the last caller said, is absolutely a mistake. thank you very much. host: oklahoma. jay on the line for republicans. what do you think about the lame duck session? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think are lame duck congress is doing nothing more than insulting the american people. it's very clear that the people spoken in november and congress is not listening to them. the question is -- i do not think the question is what they're doing. i think the question american people need to ask, why do we have the lame-duck congress in

the first place? if you go back in history, you realize that the reason it was established was because transportation was so poor that it sometimes took months before our congressmen could get back to organize a new congress. why do we have it now? we are allowing this to happen. it is not needful. another thing that goes along with this -- i have listened to the scholars. i've listened to c-span for a long time. i -- have listened to the callers. everyone who calls in, it is always -- how does this affect me? i do not get what i need. democracy was never intended to give anyone a living. it was to enable each of us as individuals to use the abilities that we have to provide our own living. host: sasha200 tweets in --

"the wall street journal" lead editorial this morning, "the final insult."s

host: that is "the wall street journal" lead editorial this morning. inside "the wall street journal" newspaper, "spending bill tests gop resolve."

host: john, democrat, new york city. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the biggest accomplishment of the lame duck

session is that the republicans have been exposed as the party that has priorities that do not match what the american people want. they are willing to have us be casualties. they are holding out on anything being done in this congress. that's my opinion. thank you. host: randy on the line for republicans. you are on the air. caller: this lame duck session -- nancy pelosi has held everything up. especially a balanced budget. they're going to try to pull the same trick they had last year with health care. everyone's complaining about the tax breaks for the rich. it's not a tax break for the rich or anybody else. your taxes are just not going up. bill clinton raise them.

george bush said you are paying too much taxes. now they're just not raising our taxes. the tax break for the rich is a bunch of baloney. one more thing, with the republicans taking over the house, it's a good thing, people. this system was set up for everybody to work together, to compromise. it is checks and balances. listen to the democrats and how they are windhining. you can just feel that they are so mad about this. they've got to work together. host: that is randi, a republican in wisconsin. this morning, a tweet -- albany, kentucky, robert on the line for independents. caller: i just want to say

something about lame duck session. it is good in one way, but bad in the other. you have people on the republican side saying that they are doing the wrong thing. and then you have democrats saying they are doing the right thing. i just think they should throw it away and do what they need to do. they need to take these jobs that they have in china and other countries and bring them back to america, so everyone has a fair right to have a wage to live. you have the americans have been so many problems trying to survive. i've been out of a job for a year-and-a-half, but i'm not complaining about it. with this tax cut, it's not really helping us, but it is. especially for the rich people

-- is helping them like no tomorrow. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: one of our regular tweet ers, drdunc -- borger, texas, dora on the line for republicans. caller: i just want to say that this country does not have an income problem. we have a spending problem. take a look at the omnibus bill. i know that the new federal article listed senator but i have earmarks, heard a report that 90% of the earmarks were democrat earmarks. at any rate, there's so much

pork in that bill. during the hearing, every democrat said we have got to raise the taxes on the rich to pay these bills. they are not paying the bills. they are spending more money. like i said, we have a spending problem, not in income problem. host: from "roll-call" this morning --

"roll callle is in article this morning. coleen, go ahead. caller: this lame duck session makes me sick. the republicans taking the president hostage to make him agree to a plan of more benefits for the wealthy people and less taxes -- they should be paying 39% like they did under clinton, even though the republicans had control of the senate and house since about 1992. this country has just gone downhill in the last 20 years.

all we talk about our republicans and democrats. what about the people? the people that have gotten so wealthy over the last 10 years or 20 years. we have far more millionaires than we used to have -- even in the last 10 years. we have far more poor people, hungry people, and people without jobs. i think we need to stop. just of talking about petty things and get this country back in balance. get the corporations back on the land, instead of offshore islands. roll out the lobbyists -- throw out the lobbyists. host: thank you. front page of "roll call" this

morning -- host: front page of "roll call" this morning. diane on the line for democrats, hi. caller: i'm very upset with the republicans using blackmail. i cannot believe that the party -- tea party people are so ignorant to let them prey upon them. they are ignorant just to get into office and get power. i'm wondering why the millionaires and billionaires do

not speak out and say we're not going to support the republicans. all have any conscious but alat -- because the american people are the ones that need jobs. after all, the american people have invested in their companies and their stock, like bill gates, murdoch, and several other millionaires and billionaires. i do not understand why they do not speak out for the american people. host: we will leave it there. stan miller tweets in -- front page of "politico" this morning --

where did she go wrong, this article asks. host: that is in "politico" this morning.

in "roll call" this morning -- it goes on to talk about him running against jim jordan of ohio, who will be on this program in about 10 minutes or 15 minutes. are women saying no to palin?

of the women surveyed, 80% would back obama over palin. finally, this political tidbit, rep bachman is republican's klobuchar.take on amy clob michigan, mike on the line for independents. you are on the air. what has this lame duck session accomplishmed?

caller: the last time i heard this was in the reagan administration and they had a trickle-down effect. i did not see anything trickle. that leads me to the last thing i've heard -- jobs, jobs, jobs. that is a concern. i think ross perot had it right when he said nafta would pretty much have the giant sucking sound of your jobs. host: dallas, you're on the air. caller: the lame duck session, for me, i do not know why they think the rich are the problem. the people considered rich -- the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes. the bottom 4% pay less than 10%.

this country has more millionaires. [inaudible] thank you. host: akron, ohio. caller: i cannot believe the gop is complaining about working until christmas. they have stalled each and every bill, including the start treaty, which was supposedly voted on during the summertime. i will be working christmas day myself. a lot of people i know will be working christmas day. the troops are giving up their lives -- risked their lives every day of the week. i cannot believe the gop complaints about that. furthermore, the most historic vote ever taken by congress in my lifetime was 12 years ago when they voted to impeach president clinton in a lame duck session of congress after they lost seats in both houses of

november -- in november of 1998. they did that knowing full well they did not have the votes to impeach clinton. i cannot believe the gop is complaining that they have to work until christmas. host: next call. barry in alabama, what do you think about the lame duck session? caller: first of all, good morning. happy holidays to all the american people. i think this congress has forgotten about the low income, the typical american people. i feel as though the whole house, the senate, and everything else -- it should be refurbished. they're forgetting their direction. they're forgetting about the american people. as far as tax cuts for the rich -- i know plenty of philanthropists in the city right now they're giving away money, houses, furniture, clothing, and everything else

they can for the low-income people. they need to reevaluate themselves before they start out doing what they're doing in this process. we just do not know what they're doing anymore. host: thank you. the hill" om "u newspaper -- host: this is the lead editorial in "the washington times" this morning. "lame duck on steroids."

mich pete, democrat, the tro igan. what are your thoughts? caller: i understand fully what the republicans did. they are sucking out everything they can suck out of this. there's no question about it. on the democrat side, bottom- out. they are bombed oummed i understand completely on both sides.

there's too much posturing. unemployment is 9.8 percent in this country, which is huge. if you add in all the of the people who are not able to make ends meet, you are looking at a 17%. when we were at the height of the depression, before world war ii, it was at 25%. that's not far away if you really think about it. there are a lot of greedy people in this country. that's the bottom line. i think that's what both the sides are forgetting. they're losing this in the cracks. you have people that cannot even put food on the table. you need to make sure that these people can put food on their tables and pay the gas bills and electric bills to keep the heat on. this is where they're losing the track. host: we will leave it here. in "the new york times" --

"the drive to scuttle the obama healthcare lot is highlighting the role of partisanship in america's courts."

host: "the financial times" lead editorial this morning is on the health care law.

host: that is "the financial times" editorial this morning. back to your phone calls, e- mails, and tweets. here is an e-mail. this is jack -- i do not know where he is from. -- in whtiting, new jersey bayville, new jersey, you are on the air. go ahead.

caller: hi. just want to talk about unemployment. i feel that we are being lied to. it took this country 20 years to engineer to send all our jobs overseas. i do not believe that we're ever going to get jobs back in the near future. if we are going to get any jobs, it's only going to be a the infrastructure, and that is only going to be for construction workers. i do not know the percentage, but it makes a very small percentage of the workforce. i just believe we are being lied to. i want everybody to be aware that, and that is why there's no talk about any jobs being created. it is taboo. they're not supposed to talk about it. i am unemployed. i wish i could have a job, but it's not happening. i hit the pavement for about six

months straight. there are no jobs out there for me. host: thank you for calling in. "this is from "the daily caller ." scalia will speak to members of congress about the separation of power. it is a special privilege to have him address the first of what will be regular seminars teaching constitutional scholars, bachman said. in his 24 years of service on the high court, he has distinguished himself by his approach to constitutional interpretation. that event is happening on january 24, and hopefully c-span cameras will be allowed to attend the event.

we do not know yet at this point. very quickly, a couple more articles. as you probably already know, the information about the afghanistan policy review is starting to leak out. the president is speaking on that today. that will be carried by c-span live. are some of the headlines on this. this is "the wall street journal." they say -- this is "usa today." and "the financial times" front page -- from "the washington post" -- "debate is likely to focus on troop withdrawals." they have a poll here that says 60% of the american population

says afghanistan is not worth fighting. in "the new york times" -- they have a specific article on a specific region of afghanistan. finally, this is a full-page advertisement in "the new york times" this morning and it is taken out by getup.org.au. "wikileaks are not terrorist." "australians condemned calls for julian assange to be labeled a terrorist or to be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

as thomas jefferson said, information is the currency of democracy. publishing information as wikileaks has done is not a terrorist act. our soldiers served side-by- side. experienced the consequences of terrorism together. to label wikileaks a terrorist organization is an insult to australian and americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism. -- acts of terrorism." this is the website. ww.getup.org.au. coming up, we have two commo congressmen. up next, republican jim jordan

of ohio. ♪ ♪ >> the united states v. richard nixon, saturday. >> it is somewhat simple, but the very important issue of criminal justice, and that is whether the president can withhold material evidence from the court merely on his assertion that the evidence involves confidential

communications. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio. nationwide on xm channel 132, and online. this sunday on c-span, the newest supreme court justice, elena kagan on the confirmation process, and her relationship with chief justice roberts. sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on c-span. americanh, c-span 3's history tv continues with nixon's solicitor general robert brok, and his reaction -- bork and his reaction to the so- called smoking gun tape. and historian richard francis on why one of the judge's of the

salem witch trial recanted his guilty verdict. telling the american story every weekend. seeing the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman jim jordan is a republican of ohio and just recently elected as the chairman of the republican study committee for the 112th congress. congratulations. guest: thank you. host: first of all, what is the republican study committee and what is your agenda? guest: they have been around for a number of years. it's the conservative caucus on capitol hill. i like to tell people we are supposed to be the conservative conscious for republicans in the nation's capital. our job is to make sure republicans act like republicans. dick army has an appropriate line. he says, when we act like us, we

win. when we act like them, we lose. our job is to make sure we act like us, and republicans do the things we told the voters we were going to do when we ran for the job. that's our agenda. that is our goal. host: you have two items in the lame duck session i want to talk about, spending bills and tax bills. let's talk about the tax debate that will start today. guest: i have real problems with this bill. i will be honest with you. i think everyone understands now that we should extend the rates, that we should not raise taxes on families and small businesses, especially in a timely one the economy to grow. we want a job creation to take place. we have unemployment compensation that is not paid for. we also have some of these tax credits that are being renewed that i think have marginal

benefits at best. frankly, i disagree with them. if you take mass transit, you get a tax credit. those are the kind of things that make this problematic. more importantly, we just had an election six weeks ago where the american people said -- do not raise taxes and with the spending. here we are with a bill that is helping on the tax side, but is continuing the deficit spending. more importantly, when you couple that with the other bill you referenced, the budget bill, the omnibus bill, whatever title they're going to give its -- 2000 pages of more spending and all kinds of earmarks -- that's very frustrating to the american people. i'm certainly opposed to the omnibus senate bill. host: the tax bill that goes through the house, how will you vote? guest: i plan to ino. -- i plan to vote no.

we will see if that changes. unfortunately, the chairman of the rules committee decided not to make my amendment. there were several of us republicans that offered amendments. some of them made this tax cut permanent. there were a lot of good amendments. unfortunately, the democrats decided not to make those. if it stays the way it is, i will be voting no. host: what happens if the bill goes down? guest: simple arithmetic. our numbers get better in january. our numbers get better. i think our chances of doing a better deal for small business owners and families is second grade arithmetic. you have a better chance of getting the kind of things we're supposed to get done. keep the tax rates low

permanently. keep the inheritance tax at 0. the democrats want to raise it 45%. you pay for it by making cuts somewhere else. that's what the american people want us to do. i think the chances of getting that done is better when we have numbers that think the way we do. host: if it goes down today in the house, what is the next step? what happens on january 31 -- december 31? guest: harry reid said this yesterday. this congress does not end until january 4. think about the games the democrats are playing right now. the 2000 pages -- they are playing all kinds of ridiculous that bill.h why can't we redo the tax bill? if there's time for them to haggle about the spending side, why can't we say -- let's fight

for a better deal. we still have two and half weeks left in this congress. we can get a better deal for american taxpayers. host: will you be here this weekend working? guest: it is likely. host: will you be here through christmas? guest: that is harry reid's call. 's credit, demint they're saying we will make them read the whole thing. i hope they do. think about this. we've had two years of crazy spending in this congress. here we are in the lame duck session spending even more. that should be offensive to american taxpayers. it is certainly offensive to me. host: jim jordan is our guest. he is the incoming chairman of the republican study committee. he's a republican from ohio.

he represents the northwestern part of ohio. he's a member of the budget committee, the judiciary committee, and the oversight and government reform committee. very quickly, two more questions before we go to calls. the wikileaks hearing is happening today in the judiciary committee. what will be your angle of questioning? guest: i want to hear from the experts on this. there are many who think that this whole episode is a breach of national security and mr. julian assange should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. i happen to be one of those individuals. i'm looking forward to hearing from people who have a broader background in this part of the law. i believe the gentleman should be prosecuted for jeopardize in our national security. it is that important. host: in "roll call" this

morning, there was an article about sherrod brown and it tested you against him. are you running for the senate in 2012? guest: i do not plan to do that now. my focus is on the republican study committee. while i guess i have not dismissed it, i'm focused on the republican study committee and what we can get done host: one more question. the tea party caucus. justice scalia is speaking to them. guest: i would venture to guess, although i have not compared lists, every member of the tea party, this is probably a member of the republican study committee. many of them have already signed

up. we are going to be 168 members. my guess is that everyone in the tea party is in the rnc as well. host: phone call from frederick, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to thank you for taking a tough stand on all of this spending. the democrats felt that the stimulus package was too small. they thought that if they could spend $2 trillion, it would get rid of unemployment. is this their rationale, spend even more money to help unemployment? guest: i think it is. i believe the democratic party is the party of government. they think the answer to any concern, problem in the

economy, problem in our country, the answer is bigger government. a natural look to bigger government, more spending, as a so-called solution. i think it is straight from their playbook, the only playbook they have. host: devon springs, louisiana. caller: i would like to ask the representative a couple of questions. i do not know what polls he looks at, but all the ones that i have seen, about 70% of the people wanted to drop the tax cut for the rich people in the united states. we are not stupid out here.

can you tell me what three presidents ran up the most debt in u.s. history? host: thank you. congressman jordan? guest: i certainly did not say the american people did not get it. the poll i was referring to was taken on november 2, where it was clear the republicans were for not raising taxes on any american. your claim that most people support taxes on the wealthy, i do not agree. the american people spoke loud and clearly, we are tired of the spending and we want to repeal obamacare. host: did you want to address his deficit question? guest: i can look back and probably -- reagan -- well,

highest deficit compared to gdp, president obama. i know president bush added to the overall national debt. but you think about what the democratic congress and president obama has done in the past year, you have to wonder. host: bill king in an email -- guest: can we look at defense and consider efficiencies? i think we can but we have to remember where we're supposed to spend taxpayer dollars, constitutionally, to protect american people. that is where our money is supposed reallocated.

so there is always a reluctance by me and other conservatives to cut national defence. can we look at that, are their savings to be gained? i think so. when you look at the situation we are in today, gdp debt 2 ratio, you have to look at everything. unfortunately, what happens a lot from the left, the first place they want to look at is national defence. as a conservative, that is the last place i want to look. we can look there, but we should be looking elsewhere first. host: a tweet -- guest: i plan to vote against this bill. i am for keeping the tax cuts. i do not like the spending. if you just think about it in

simple terms, this bill says we will keep current rates in place, the inherited tax will go up. death tax will also go up. then there are additional billions of dollars. you can see why conservatives have problems with that. host: talking to your colleagues, have you gone most members of the republican study committee will also vote against it? guest: good question. we had a rather vigorous debate yesterday at our weekly republican luncheon. not all members of the study committee were there, but those super dissipated, it was strongly opposed to the bill. -- those who participated, it was strongly opposed to the bill. you will see significant numbers vote no on this bill.

host: the republicans will have, what, 338 seats? guest: 242. host: so you have over half of the membership. do you see yourselves as a strong voting bloc? guest: well, there is a diversity of opinion in the rnc. we do anticipate having an influence, because that is why we exist. we need to start to make sure that republicans act like republicans. some of the things that we have pushed for -- i introduced it on behalf of the rnc, the only balanced budget. imagine that. we will continue to push for spending cuts, a balanced

budget, and reform in our social welfare spending programs. host: eve in lebanon, tennessee. you are on with jim jordan. caller: i have always been a democrat but i have changed and become a republican. guest: you have seen the light, god bless you. caller: well, i am having my doubts about that now. when you passed this bill, republicans got with the democrats and put earmarks into the bill that is just swine, crazy stuff. i wonder why the republicans signed this bill, approved it,

knowing all this money was being no?t and not say and that is why i became a republican. guest: well said. i could not have put it better. by the way, there are two bills. there is a tax measure and the big spending measure. the tax measure does have some costs to it, but you are right on both accounts. there is new spending in both bills. the election in november was to stop the spending. i could not have said it better. host: chrisnbama tweets -- guest: we are at a point in american history where if we do not deal with our entitlement plan and -- paul's

those of us who support it, is about saving social security. that is a promise government had made to its citizens. we have to change some things. we need to protect those systems. i think paul is on the right path. he also understands, which most conservatives and now americans now get, we have a shrinking window of time to address our fiscal situation. if we do not, we will be reading not about greece, spain, portugal. we will be reading about the united states. the numbers get to be so bad. the sooner we deal with this, the easier it is. if we can address this earlier, maybe not as difficult to get things moving in the right direction. host: minnesota.

diane, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: i was in wisconsin this weekend and it was pretty bad. i bet it is the same in minnesota. caller: i have snow up to my neck. i am a democrat, i have seen the light. i am a christian but sometimes i have a hard time with republicans because they think they are the only questions on the face of the earth. -- christians on the face of the earth. we are not unintelligent. the reason we are in this mess is president bush. our dear president is working to take care of things that he was handed. i hope you do well in congress.

your goals of getting things done, representing the people are wonderful, but how do you get republicans to act like republicans? guest: remember what we told the voters we were going to do. remember what this election was about. it was, i believe, about repealing obamacare, not raising taxes, and getting spending under control. if we do those three things, that is what the voters put us in power to do. that has to be our goal. host: there is an article in "politico" about the appropriations committee and the fact u-turn down a seat. why? guest: i was never really officially offered a seat.

i think it is difficult to be the republican study chair and also on the appropriations committee. that has never been the case. my focus was to be the next chair of the rnc. also, if you are on appropriations, you cannot be on any other committee. that is a will have in congress. i like the work that i get to do issa.arodarrell we can find where the ridiculous spending is taking place and take care of it. i have had a great time working on that committee for the past two years. but we have good folks on that committee. they will do a great job. host: louisiana. dana, republican line.

caller: i am a little frustrated with the media. all they are doing is attacking the gop. the new electives and not even their passing these laws. the democrats still have control of the house and senate, and white house, yet, the media keeps reporting is the gop that is doing this. the gop does not have control. i believe the gop is coming back stronger, i believe in 2012. we will get it back right in the senate, too. the democrats have control. that should be your only message until you get in the house. guest: you are right. it is basic math. they controlled the house.

second, the fact that the media does not give us a fair shake, that is par for the course. again, we need to do the right thing. it does not matter what the press says. just stay focused on what we said we told the voters but we would do. if we do that, good things will happen for america. host: what is your relationship with john boehner? guest: it has been good. we have been torn around in the southern and western part of the district. speaker painter -- boehner, his record in this town has been conservative. no earmarks, he has been good on taxes. pro-life, pro-family. he has been solid on those.

he is saying the right things, pushing the congress in the right direction. but again, it is still the rnc's mission to make sure that we continue to push the nation in a conservative direction. host: pete, foxboro, massachusetts. republican line. caller: you are talking about these tax cuts for the rich and everything, but i do not believe in that. you have to do your job. a month ago, i was watching a subcommittee for afghanistan reconstruction perio. i think it was general mccloud.

i was sitting there watching congressperson brown, killing his hands, not asking the right questions. he spent all of his time saying what a great job he did serving our country. that was two-thirds of his questions, his military career. what about his career as a cpa or something? guest: a started talking about this issue of class. it is not wealthy americans or not -- it is all americans. when it comes to reducing the tax burden, we should reduce the burden for taxpayers. i just get tired of this idea

that there are always the different clauses of americans. if you pay taxes, your taxes should not go up. it is a much better principal to follow for our country than dividing us into these labels. host: what the think about governor kasich turning down federal funds for training construction and jobs? guest: i think he is going to do a wonderful job. he will do in ohio would chris christie has been able to do in new jersey. i support turning that money back. 35 miles per hour will be the average speed of this high-speed rail. people in the department transportation support the concept told us from the beginning that it would lose $70 million from the beginning.

so the proponents were admitting that it would lose money. -- $17 million from the beginning. i thought it was a waste of money. the governor did as well. i believe over all -- and i spoke with him a couple of times on friday. every time he is, like, let's fix the buckeye state. host: how did you vote on don't ask don't tell? guest: i voted no. the general said it best. it could jeopardize the men and women fighting in harm's way. i just disagree with changing the policy. particularly, when we are in two theaters. and when our military leaders,

officers, say this is not the right thing to do. i will continue to vote no if they continue to bring it up. host: james. peoria, illinois. democrat line. caller: first of all, on don't ask don't tell, if you have never served, you should not comment. i served in vietnam with gays and they were just as much soldiers as anyone else. secondly, on who spent the most money, george bush did. he had a balanced budget, money in the bank. he spent all of that and ran up the deficit. president obama has no money, businesses were not spending money, the government had to spend the money.

republicans have not helped this president one bit in the two years he has been in office. my question for you is, are you going to join your colleagues to defeat this president or will be work for the people? thank you. guest: first of all, i appreciate your service to the country. my job is to work for the people i represent in ohio. they send a message on november 2 that they want us to come here to stop the spending, stop obamacare. you said that obama had to spend because of the situation he inherited. well, at what point do we say that it is not working? i will agree with you, george bush spent too much money.

some of these bailouts started with president bush, the t.a.r.p. program and the auto bailout, but it was taken to another level with this congress. so if big spending, big regulations, taxation's record to get us out of this mess, we should have been out of this and long time ago because that is all we have been doing. we know that does not work and the people know that. that is why they have changed course on november 2. all this stimulus is not working. let's do what we know and lower taxes to get the economy moving. host: days. dover, new york. republican line. caller: how are you this morning? the last person stole my thunder

a little bit. i was wondering, where was this out raid when we gave a $2 trillion tax break, started a $2 trillion war, made adjustments to medicare? i was a republican. i am calling on the republican line but you all say one thing but you do something totally different. the bush administration brought this country to its knees. you were handed a perfectly wonderful economy and you drove into the ground. america is suffering for it now. the inheritance bill. you know lager protect the top 2%, you are protecting the top

.25%. guest: well, i was not there when a lot of that happened. i will say some of the spending in the prior administration i voted against. i voted against the auto bailout, t.a.r.p.. i thought that that was the wrong direction to go. did president bush and the republican congress spend too much money? yes, i think they did. but that does not mean it is ok for the democratic white house to then spend even more. i believe republicans learned their lesson, those that were here at that time. i think you will see a shift of how we allocate taxpayer dollars. if you do not, the voters will hold us accountable. it is critical that we do what

we told them we would do. host: you took the seat of mike oxley. tell us about the fourth district of ohio. guest: it is god's country, north western central ohio. we have some wonderful companies in our county. many small colleges as well. i spent my whole life there. i love the privilege to serve the families there in ohio. host: so why did you get your bachelors at wisconsin? guest: i had a scholarship in wrestling. i went there to compete in wrestling. we have a son that is competing

there right now and later on we will have a daughter who will be going there. host: you got your masters at ohio state, a law degree at catholic university. next phone call from mary. caller: i have a couple of comments. first of all, elections are not polls. they are local. people are unhappy with their particular person. that does not go into the details of bills. let me finish. 70% of the american people are against taxes for the rich. if there was to be a compromise, you could never raise the level from $250,000 to $1 million or something. you do not need to give the rich a tax break again. second, that. you know what?

-- comment. democrats are americans and i am tired of you people saying that we are not. guest: these elections were nationalized, i just think they were. the question was, do you support what the democrats are doing? while there is always a local element to an election because there is someone running for office, these elections, without a doubt, were nationalized. there were very popular democrat to people like but because they supported cap and trade or health care, were thrown out of office. people like a ike skelton, gene taylor, seen as conservative democrats because this was nationalized.

the idea that this was localized, i do not believe that. host: there is a lot of talk about the partisanship on capitol hill. have you made any friends on the democratic side? guest: the national taxpayer union ranked our agenda the most conservative in the entire congress last year. one of the guys that i am good friends with is dennis kecinich. -- dennis kucinich. he is a wonderful guy. he was on our daughters wedding. dennis gave our son in law his nomination to west point. we invited him and he said he

was coming. i jokingly said, this is not the west side of cleveland. the people think like i do. we had some relatives who were liberals and now they like me a little bit better now that they know that i am friends with dennis kucinich. host: a viewer tweets in -- last question from nile, michigan. dave on the republican line. caller: i would first like to defend for george bush. i get tired of the democrats. f it was not for clinton's negligence, he would not have had those two words he was confronted with. i know they want to blame on iraq.

that was the front he chose to fight the al qaeda gang. no army ever won in afghanistan. he knew where he could win the war. also, these democrats keep calling up back talking about the rich. i will tell you one thing. they never got a job. they should be happy that the rich are working hard and providing jobs for the democrats who want to tax the hell out of them. i get so frustrated. host: ok, days. we get the point. guest: well said. host: this just in. mike pence it also says he will vote against the tax package because he says it will do little to create jobs.

guest: it is a good point. if you want to provide certainty, you make the tax cut permanent. the idea that two years will give them the certainty that they need -- we talk about providing certainty. let's do the right thing. i think mike is taking a courageous stand there. host: are there enough of between liberal democrats and conservative republicans to stop this bill? guest: you saw senator brown rail against this bill from the left, particularly on the tax cuts issues, and then turn around and vote for it, but unfortunately, you will see most of the democrats go for it in the house as well. they will be trying to raise the

death tax. that is astonishing. i think it will be difficult for us to stop this, but it is the right thing to do, in my judgment. host: one of the first bill that will come up in congress is the debt llimit. how will you vote? guest: and there is no way i will look for that unless we have dramatic cuts to spending. these are not cuts around the edges, promises for reform in the future. it has to be real reform for conservatives to even consider it. host: jim jordan, the chairman elect of the republican study committee, a member of the budget judiciary and oversight reform committee. thank you for being on "

washington journal." a little later on the program, we will look specifically at the earmarks included in the senate omnibus bill. up next, democratic congressman anthony wiener. first, a news update. >> more on remarks earlier from mike pence, the no. 3 republican in the house. speaking on nbc, he said he will not be voting for the tax-cut package in the house today because he believes the measure in his words, "will do little to create jobs." he also says that it is a tough call because no republican wants to see taxes go up. defense secretary robert gates is weighing in on the omnibus spending bill, in a statement released yesterday. he is urging congress to pass the bill this week before adjourning for the holidays

because, in his words, it will allow the pentagon to pursue critical initiatives, like increasing the number of special operations forces. the legislation includes $150 billion for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the latest assessment of the wars shows progress in degrading the taliban, but warns those gains are fragile and reversible. the president is said to make an announcement on the report this morning. those are some of the latest headlines. >> i am the education program specialist here at c-span. each year we conduct our studentcam documentary contest. we asked students grades 6 through 12 to think about issues facing our nation. this year's theme is washington, d.c., through my lens.

select a topic that interests you. once you have your topic, you can begin your research. your goal is to fully research and develop your topic, provide different points of view, and include c-span footage in your five minutes to 8 minute documentary. e-mail us any questions you have. we cannot wait to see what you can do. >> the c-span that works. we provide coverage of politics, american history, and it is all available on tv, online. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicle. it is washington your way, the c-span that works. now available in more than 1 million homes.

host: we are now joined by congressman anthony weiner, democrat of new york. this is on the front page of politico. will you be supporting the tax bill package when it comes onto the house floor? guest: we will try to make it better. the issue is not whether the deal was done by the president but whether congress approves of it. we have some real problems here. we are increasing the deficit to give more tax cuts to millionaires. we are borrowing money from the chinese to give them those tax cuts. we have an estate tax reduction that is lower than even many republicans wanted. that would believe an enormous amount of money in debt to our

children. i think the handwriting is on the wall. i think the president has the votes here. host: we saw you at the rules committee. what were you championing? guest: there are some changes we could make to the bill to make it a lot better. let's not give tax relief to those to but that have done very well. in the 1970's, the top 1% in the country controlled about 9% of america's wealth. today, it is about 25%. they have done remarkably well, and i do not begrudge them of that. i want everyone to be more wealthy. the question now is figure out how to apportion the tax burden. should we focus on lowering taxes for people in the middle class or for those people who are well-to-do? whatever the limit is, let's think of a reasonable cutoff.

but other than having the payroll holiday which takes money out of the social security trust fund, let's pay for it through tax credits. by the way, the savings that we take in the proposed amendment that i have, by not giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, half of it goes to infrastructure spending, tried to put people to work. also, to take the estate tax, take it back to where it was in 2009. that is a pretty generous level. those changes would have saved the american people money but would also made taxes more equitable. the rules committee did not rule it in order. the way it works, they have to get through that before anything else.

i do think that we will consider reducing the tax break we will give on estates so that we can reduce the deficit. host: on the spending side, government runs out of money on saturday. what is going to happen? guest: republicans in the senate are not being very responsible about this. all year long, they have been jamming up the process. now here we are at the end of the year and a lot of things need to be passed. we are going to do the responsible thing and keep government running but there is an enormous amount of demagoguery going on. to see mitch mcconnell say that this is outrageous, so many marks in the bill, but you look closer and so many of them are his. i have no idea what is going to happen in the senate. that is a whole new beast over

there. host: what grade would you give the 111th congress? guest: from a legislative perspective, an a. we were dealing with the collapse of the financial markets. the tail end of the last congress and the beginning of this one had to deal with that. there is not a countries around who says that the stimulus bill did not help. the challenge we have had to health care, we're starting to finally building an infrastructure so that people across the country can get coverage at a lower cost than it would cost for them to go to an emergency room. legislatively, fine. selling it, persuading the american people, these are

important things to do. we have to remind the american people that we are here to set up foundations for our children. we did not do that well. host: you are a member of the judiciary committee. today is the wikileaks hearing. what are you expecting? guest: we are asking some general questions. there has been this hand- wringing of what they had revealed. but as we come up with a solution, to see that we do not want to limit speech, we do not want to become a country that is so concerned about not having countries leaked that we forget about the fundamental ethos of our country, which is to be open. it will be a philosophical discussion that we will have.

i, for one, found a lot of the things released, while i was concerned about the way that they happen, they should know. they should know that the saudis are complete phonies and are not intending on helping us. they were cracking down on terrorism but at the same time they were funding some of the worst terrorists in the world. that was finally revealed. i am not sure that that is a terrible thing. i do think the challenges we face with wikileaks is making sure the american people have access. we do not want to create a situation where they are in danger. host: tell us about the ninth district of new york. guest: i heard jim jordan, but i do not know. i think my district is caught

country. country. we have neighborhoods like forest hills, communities like glendale, brooklyn, beautiful communities. right along the waterfront of the atlantic ocean. then there are other areas like rockaway. some of the most beautiful of undiscovered beaches in the world. it is just a remarkable collection of communities that i have been honored to represent. the district has changed a little bit since i was elected. every 10 years, redistricting changes a little bit, but i am

honored to represent that community. host: anthony weiner from new york is with us. first phone call from shreveport, louisiana. caller: how about answering this and be truthful to the people. your party has taught all the purse strings, all the money, everything, for the last four years. we have given you four years. you have run this country into a ditch. you have been in charge of the money. i have watched c-span for the last 10 years every morning. nine out of ten calls, democrats and republicans want the

illegals out of our country. this is on c-span almost the last 10 years -- host: thank you. guest: our view of history -- first, this is where you start from. when george bush left office, we had 750,000 jobs in the last month of his service. here is an interesting fact. in the last two years since president obama took office there have been more private- sector jobs created and in eight years of president bush. the fact is, there was a terrible financial collapse. you can discern who was in charge at the time for yourself , but the point is, what do you do once you are facing the mess? as far as dollars, the deficit has three parts. one is the war that we paid for

without any funding. the second big part of it is the tax cuts we are extending today. the third part is -- we have done some things this year that were necessary to stimulate the economy. more importantly, additional drain on our country because people are not working. i am in the wing of the democratic party that says we have to fight back against the idea that democrats are responsible for all the problems. we fight for the middle class and those struggling to make it. every day people are writing in to my website, democratsfight.com, and they tell their story. we have to fight for democrats. host: any chance that the dream act is going to go anywhere in

this lame duck? guest: i would bet if dale and i sat down to come up with a solution to immigration, we could come to a common ground place. the first problem is people coming in without documentation. the second thing you have to do is say to the employers, you have to be responsible enough not to hire undocumented people. and for those who have been here, working hard, paying taxes, they have to get at the end of the line of the naturalization process, you have to pay a fine, but you can continue to be here. if an employee hires someone without that documentation, they will get in trouble. and anyone who is not playing by the rules, we will go after them like a ton of bricks. that framework has brought some consensus to the country but we need to get the ideologues on

the left and right to solve this as adults. the dream act is an example -- i do not think anyone who was born here, many of them do not realize that they are undocumented. they are trying to contribute to our economy. we want them here, not only for their benefit, but for america's benefit. i hope that we can pass it. host: how is president obama doing, in your view? guest: he has had his ups and downs. i give him enormous credit for taking on the tough issues. it is easy to adopt some of these things. i have had some considerable differences on some of the tax decisions he made. i think he has an enormous amount of the delegates to the

idea of bipartisanship. i think history will show he was an excellent president but we have had our ups and downs. host: billtweety tweets in -- guest: i think these things are important. it should not change the idea that we have a republican party in the senate that has made it very clear that they are not going to proceed on things that are offensive to individual members. they are going to stop the entire body from stopping the process. some of the things that we would have liked to see follow-through have not happen. we need to get out of this notion that is this minority rule, where people can stop legislation from going through

because it is personally offensive. host: next phone call. ray, you are on the air. caller: a couple of questions. the first question is, why do we not make nafta -- free trade -- favorable for it everybody. we import stuff from china and we get 5%. when we export, they get 30%. where is the fairness? that is when jobs are leaving. and why do we keep on going after companies that are sending jobs overseas? you cannot get any taxes if the people are not working. guest: the democratic party agrees with you. free-trade, as an abstract

notion, is one that everyone likes, but we seem to engage in these relationships with other countries where it is one way. this is a big difference between the democratic and republican party right now. many of us believe you have to enforce trade agreements or do not do them with country that will not play by the rules. we also have to stop the tax benefits from countries that take jobs and move them overseas but still want to be treated as u.s. companies. if you are a tool company and you take made in the usa off of your product, you should start to be treated differently. we have had vote after vote in the past year. one of the ways that we find in 9/11 first responders bill is by closing one of those loopholes. that is one of the reason why this bill has been held up.

republicans were so opposed to it. when we do surveys, we see a lot of people say, we are prepared to compete with any country around the world, so long as they are fair. that is not the case. host: 80, texas. katy, texas. -- katy, texas. caller: you are stealing money from the rich. i wish the last person that was on would say what i am going to say. listen, it is their money. what gives you the right to take it? when you took over in 2007, on employment was less than 5%. you can blame it on the gop but you know the truth.

you could not push it socialism through because the american people would not stand for it. guest: it is great to see the brooklyn diaspora has reached katy, texas. the economic collapse did not happen under the obama administration. that happened under president bush. we have been mopping it up ever since. it is not their money, our money. some money is theirs but some money we put collectively together for the needs of our country. that is what taxes are for. do you stand for millionaires and billionaires and say that their tax burden should be lower? here is an example. if this tax bill passes, someone making $1 million will get $160,000 in tax cuts.

do you know moat where we get that money from? we are going to borrow it from our children and china, and the debt will be owed by our children. is that fair? this idea that the top 1% are struggling -- they are doing better than they have ever done since the great depression. that is the question. where is the fairness? i what middle-class taxes to be reduced. that is what we need to protect. host: staten island, go ahead. caller: good morning. all this spending, everything that you are doing, anybody that has money on this earth, they are not going to spend it.

you take everybody's money and you spend it any place you want. for the millionaires, i think, they earned their money. nobody in this country can be stopped. you have no right to come and take it. i am not a millionaire but i think it is wrong. you need to give people the freedom to do whatever they can to survive. guest: first of all, i love s.i.. your taxes have gone down in the past two years. we have reduced taxes on everybody. the question is not whether or not we want millionaire's taxes to go up or down, but the question is, where does the money come from to give those tax cuts? we are borrowing the money.

if the objective is to stimulate the economy -- we know somebody who has a billion dollars is not getting a new set of tires, getting a new dress for their daughter. that is the question. it is a matter of fairness. right now we are borrowing the money to give tax cuts. that does not make sense. it is a drag on our economy tomorrow and it empowers the chinese and saudis who are buying our bonds. as far as this idea that we are hitting the millionaires and billionaires to hard -- the top 1% makes as much as the next 25%. is that the american dream that we want? do we want to help the middle class? i want everyone to be a millionaire. host: the afghanistan war review has started to leak out this morning.

several headlines in the papers. what is our policy, going forward, in your view? guest: first of all, any conversation about this has to begin with the remembered of richard holbrooke. he devoted his entire life to these problems. he went from one to another thread democratic administrations for our entire lives. he is someone, as we think about this, we have a big gap in our intellect and our ability to deal with these things. i want to say how much you will be missed. americans understand, if we give our military a job to do, they will be able to do it with remarkable ability, but it also points to two fundamental problems in afghanistan. if you are going to take areas

from the taliban, somebody has to hold them, and it cannot be our men and women. it has to be the afghanis. we are getting help from the u.s. and nato, but when these troops leave in 2014, the military and government needs to be in place to hold it and there are not. -- they are not. and nearby in pakistan, you have this safe haven for troublemakers continue to exist. as long as they see it in their interest to help the taliban rather than the u.s., it is just like mowing your lawn. you make it beautiful and clear, but you need to maintain it so that the problem did not come back. today's report shows just that, that we are making progress, but where we have made progress,

many of those institutions to hold it. -- we need those institutions to hold it. host: are you supportive of the fact that the same democratic leadership will be in the house in the 100th of congress? guest: there is -- host: host: guest:th -- 112th congress? guest: there are few people in the democratic party that fight harder than hurt. she is just the kind of democrat we want to support. all of that said, there is a lot of responsibility that we have to deal with. we have a huge problem in the economy. i do not think presidential support has been what we wanted.

i was in favor of fighting out this tax bite because it does not reflect to we are. i think the democratic leadership team is a good one, but they know we have to have a better performance. i cannot think of any one of our colleagues that is more widely respected than she and the people of south florida are lucky to have hurt. host: what is going to happen in the 112th for you? guest: i am going to be on the energy and commerce committee. republicans say every day they will be repealed in health care. the republicans say they want a health -- to repeal health care. i'm going to stofight to stop t.

they say they want to repeal health care so the people with pre-existing conditions again are exposed. i'm going to stop that. i need not look like much, but in going to try as best i can. and i've got good relationships with my house colleagues to find a way to get an agreement to move the ball downfield. i hope the new congress is not just guys walking in there with machetes and torch's saying, let's move -- let's burn the place down. host: when would you get your committee assignments? guest: we will find out the province of the new majority. obviously, it should reflect the congress as a whole. i have served 12 years on the judiciary committee as well. how would like to continue to do that. it is a little bit of a legacy

for me. manny's cellar -- manny seller is one of my predecessors. the predecessor of structure were became famous for being on the border gate committee. -- watergate committee. when i came to congress, they assumed i was a lawyer. i am not. i'm the one jewish kid from brooklyn who is not a lawyer. now there is an unbroken line for close to 100 years now. hopefully, i will get a chance to stay. i understand the seats are few and far as between. host: congressman we near is a gimmick -- congressman weiner is a democrat from the

six district. the next call is from ohio. caller: i would like to address the 99 years, who are not in this bill, i don't think. -- the 99ers, who are not in this bill, i don't think. guest: bill we will consider today does not consider those who have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks. the unemployment extension does not extend the time of benefits and that people can get, but it opens the window in which they can get them. i believe a new tir should be created for google who have hit at 99 limit. -- i believe a new tier should be created for people who have hit the 99 limit. those who say that unemployment

insurance enables people not to work, it is quite the opposite. it is a cost-effective way to provide support for families because otherwise, many of them would wind up going on to other forms of public assistance. and it also recognizes that there are big structural things going on in the economy that are outside of the citizens in your town's control. if we need to have a stake in it. unemployment insurance has always been a bipartisan thing. now republicans are saying they are against that, as if the unemployed have done something wrong. we need to have another tir for those who have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks. host: tanya in a new mexico. good morning, tanya. caller: i'm calling in as an outsider because i am, dreamer, one who cannot vote, one you cannot be represented as a full

person in the united states. i might as well be calling from mexico city to represent those like me, because our life was barred in the united states. host: are you an illegal immigrant? caller: i have lived in that undocumented status for many years in the united states. my call today is to representative winneweiner. i would like to get a reflection of what congress will do, what fairness and responsibility will be defined as. specifically what is referred to as unilateral by partisanship in congress where republicans are holding progress hostage on the

taxes. there really dominating the agenda and yet, decrying exclusion what kind of attacks deal is that where there is a compromise being waged against the low-income earners? the lessee may, the more you pay. mr. d a -- the less you make, the more you pay. this should be a deal breaker. -- a no deal breaker. i see them working every day for this dream after past that they will no longer be eligible for. can you give me your thoughts on, what is fair, what is a compromise, and what is for school responsibility? kfar -- what is fiscal responsibility? host: before we get the congressman to respond, what age did you come to this country?

caller: when i was 3 years old. host: you have lived here illegally illegally all your life. caller: have to -- legally illegally all your life. caller: i have to be honest. my family went through a process of legalization ththat took almt 12 years. i do have an adjusted status, but i lived undocumented for most of my life. guest: me just say as a minor issue of language -- let me just say as a minor issue of language but i think is important. i do not believe people are illegal. i do not think -- i think people are undocumented, but when you are a child when you come here, or you are born here, i do not believe you are in a legal person. you should -- you are and illegal%. you should judge people by the contribution they are making to the country.

i have seen people even here on c-span saying that you should throw them out of the country. a lot of these children are now in college and are getting educated here, working here, paying taxes here. a lot of them do not have another home. this is their home. the dream act says, let's take this small group of the undocumented who came here as children, who do not have a place to go back to, but are doing every thing an american would do, which is contributing to society, going to school, making themselves better. you know, we asked the congressional budget office to give us an estimated cost of what it would be to permit these people to live here. they said, it would not cost anything. it would bring back to the taxpayers about $2.5 billion. it makes a lot of sense. they are paying taxes at a much higher rate because they are college educated. they're contributing. they are not taking away.

point,tanya's overall let's at least have a vote. what are my friends -- my republican friends afraid of in the senate? they're committed to an up or down vote. what kind of country are we where one or two members of the united states senate can say that they do not even want it to be considered? you can be for the dream act, but i do not even understand this show. host: we have time for one long -- one more comment for our guest. next call from texas. caller: i have two questions. the first one is about the government, they get to -- they do not balance the budget and

they spend too much. also, on the money that they spend in iraq and afghanistan, for what it takes to build a police station, you give me the money and i will build into a police station cheaper than that -- build you a police station cheaper than that. they cannot control or manage the money on the contractors that are out there. host: we will stick to the two spending questions there. guest: there are all kinds of opportunities in our government to reduce spending, but let's remember something else. there is an enormous and and out of annette need in our country. infrastructure is crumbling, literally crumbling. -- of unmet needs in our country. infrastructure is crumbling, literally crumbling. we have resources that are not being met.

as our education is the been confined to the world -- is slipping behind a world on the world stage. do you try to have a better nutrition program for children? or do you say we do not need the money and instead, we avoid to pay interest to the chinese or the saudis? -- we are going to pay interest to the chinese or the saudis? that is the debate. will we take the money and make improvements to our country or will we borrow money that we do not have? i believe that we should be fighting for the values that our country believes in, which is standing up for the middle class and the things that we believe in. there are things that we need to respond to in the next congress. how host: many constituents did you lose in 9/11? guest: about 85 funerals took

place in my district, but there were several hundred people that were probably lost in the district. as a city, the rings of a pond are very small. we are a big city, 8 million, 9 million people, but it is hard to meet someone who does not know someone, particularly when you are giving with firefighters and police officers because they are a small fraternity. there were an enormous amount of humans lost and spiritual loss in our community. host: the new york daily news reported on this this morning, that the workers at ground zero are going to take over senator schumer and gillibrand's offices today, or visit their offices today over a funding bill that the congress has not passed. what is that bill? guest: this is the 9/11 first responders bill. we had over 2000 people die

september 11. since that day, we have had nine punts -- we have had 900 people died related to working at ground zero to recover the injured and also to repair the city. some people as live in the area. it turned out this-that was in the air was extraordinarily toxic -- this ash that was in the air was extraordinarily toxic. our government said it was safe to go down there and many of the workers were given paper masks and now they are dying. we are trying to pass legislation to provide health care for these workers. it is a bill that is fully paid for. the republicans in the senate are refusing to even give it an up or down vote. one by one people are coming down, first responders, families of first responders, families of those who have been lost and we are or to try one more time this

week to get this on the agenda. all we are saying isn't give us -- all we are saying is give us an up or down vote. it is the right and moral thing. new yorkers and furs responders from all over the country, 434 of the 435 districts have someone who would be impacted by this law. host: phoenix, carmen, a democrat, you are on with congressman weiner on the washington -- the "washington journal." caller: hello, it is actually hermine. -- herman. i have watched congressman weiner to fight over time for things that i think would be good for our country. second, no one seems to want to compromise. i look back and indeed -- in

history and rome burned while nero fiddled. the same is happening with our refusal to compromise. there are multiple solutions that could be had if people would sit down and listen and do what is right for the nation rather than doing what is right for money interest or political interests. in that regard, i believe that if he would just simply not tax the capital gains on the funds that people have over time or the sales that they inherited rather than having -- trying to take it from them, everybody having some compromise that they can go forward on, it all makes

sense. but we go to our quarters and with bloody ourselves as the citizens are suffering. we cannot wait another day for you folks to get busy and do something that actually works. guest: he makes some very good points. let me say this, you know, when people talk about compromising, why don't we all work together -- i believe there is enormous virtue in that. i think that is what congress is supposed to do. but there are some things in which we believe so deeply and so philosophically that i do not know there is a lot of room to compromise. my republican friends are proposing to privatize social security and invest in the stock market. i believe that is a program that has worked and it is a foundation for american since 1935. i do not believe there is much room for compromise. i believe there are some things about which we should have a competition of ideas, that we should say what kind of country are we?

hermine makes some suggestions on the state tax that makes some sense. the unrealized gains that and the state makes, no one ever taxes those. i think there are ways. maybe we should take estates and attacks, like regular income. i am -- and tax them like regular income. but i want to remind the viewers of one thing, a lot of these issues really do come down to philosophical directions that i think our country should go. half the issues we can come up with compromises on and have the issues we are going to say, you know what, i think we disagree philosophically. the philosophical difference is not a vice. is what made our country. host: you have mentioned a website a couple of times.

what is that? guest: democratswhofight.com. it grew out of this fight over the taxes. the clear idea was that hard taxes should be progressive. one of the reasons we have this giant debt and deficit right now is because of those tax cuts. but when president obama ran the opposite of what i ran for office hamas one of the things we decided we would start doing is to put our finger on the middle class and those struggling to make it. and we're not going to fight -- borrow from the chinese and make our debt bigger. democrats who fight is, if there are 1000 people who will stand up and fight, we will stand along with you.

i encourage to stand up with me. a lot of these fights we want to engage because i think we will pervade the -- prevail not only on the substance, but the politics. fundamentally, we stand up for the middle class and that is where most americans are. host: who are starving or friends on the republican side of the aisle? -- who are some of your friends on the republican side of the aisle? guest: i grew up participating in sports in congress. although we have fierce competitions with republicans on the baseball diamond, but we have some good friendships out of that. we also play charity football game. we are actually a bipartisan. it is the guards verses the inmates because we played the capitol hill police. we do it for charity for some of the officers who have been lost in the line of duty. a lot of it has been developed on shows like this where we sit

down and debate the issues. none of them are as good as c- span. i wore my best suit and tie for this show because of a very big fan. i always wonder whether peter wears pants this early in the morning. i want to confirm for america that, indeed, he does. one of the things that i've preached in my working congress and i try to practice this, i honor the people on the other side of the aisle. i think they represent americans who believe very strongly. i think they are wrong, but they believe very strongly in what they do. i want to engage in that debate. i do think if we are able to, we will prevail. host: congressman anthony wiener, a democrat from new york. it is always a pleasure. in a moment we will turn our remarks to -- our attention to

the earmarks in the senate bill. but for someone to turn your attention to the hearing on wikileaks. kurram hersman weiner will be attending that -- congressman weiner will be attending that hearing. coming up next, paul singer of roll call to talk about earmarks. first, in use of day. >> it is way past the hour. more on the tax cut bill. chris van hollen in remarks to nbc said that the amendments to alter the state tax provision has a decent shot in the house and that would send a compromise back to the senate for reconsideration. but he went on to say, "i think is fair to say that if the fix is not made and we do not send it back to the senate, a, i think my best guess is that the deal passes."

fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week. it is the third drop in the past four weeks. the congress, department -- the commerce department showed that sales of homes rose in november. and there is new construction in brussels. nato's secretary general spoke at the groundbreaking today for the alliance's new headquarters. the building will be a new home for a new nato, capable of tackling global challenges like terrorism, piracy, and cyber warfare. critics say the long-awaited move comes at a bad time amid sharp cuts in defense spending. and while the alliance is involved in the one afghanistan. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on hot "book tv

"-- and on afterwards, hugh shelton on his mukoko -- his new book. he is interviewed by secretary cohen. sign up to get our own words directly to your in box through our book tv color. -- alert. >> this begin, nixon was the solicitor general on how he got the job, there camp david conversations, and his reaction to the so-called smoking gun day. then historian richard francis on why one of the judges at the salem witch trials over 200 people were accused of

witchcraft, and 19 recanted. see the complete schedules online account c-span.org /history. you can also press the alert button and have our schedules e- mail to you. host: paul singer is the associate editor of roll call newspaper and he is here to talk about your marks and federal spending. mr. singer, if we can just start -- where are the spending bills in congress? where did this on the bus come from? what is the status of the statuscr? who will be doing what -- what is the status of the cr? who will be doing what this saturday? guest: the house passed a resolution for the end of the year. federal spending expires, i believe, saturday night. what the house does at this point -- they have been unable

to pass all the spending bills. at the end of the year they run into this problem. they pass a continuing resolution. basically, it will extend funding for the government through next october. that is the theory. and it is supposed to cap spending at current levels, although they did pick and choose some winners. some things went up and some things went down. we expect the senate to take up the bill and pass it and then we would be done with the conversation until next year. but the chairman of the appropriations committee and some other democrats decided, no, that is not right. we should not just to abdicate our authority to provide money by saying, let's just use last year's numbers. we need to adjust the budget for the needs we currently have. they offered to take all of the spending bills that have never passed, rep them into one big package, and drop them as one bill. they're proposing is essentially 12 different spending bills wrapped into a 12,000 page piece

of -- i'm sorry, a 2000 page piece of legislation that would fund everything until the end of next year. it also includes all of these earmarks that we have been told were going to be off the table. that is like 6000 individual spending items requested by individual members of congress. which the senate republicans say they do not want. the house republicans say they do not want. a lot of the house democrats have already said they were willing to give them up. at this point, no one is sure which bill passes. if the senate passes this on the bus, as we call it, it has to go back to the house to vote on that. that might take a couple more days. if the government runs out on saturday, the house has a temporary measure to keep us through tuesday? who knows? welcome to washington at christmas. host: when is the debate on this on the bus going to happen in the senate, first? guest: i do not think is going

to happen until next week. host: so, the senate has to pass something to keep the government legally founded saturday -- legally funded saturday night. guest: my understanding is that they have to pass something by saturday night. if they pass the omnibus and it does not pass the house, it does not go into effect. host: the senate is working on the omnibus. the guest: it is right. if the senate passes anything other than the house passed cr, then it has to go back to chambers. any option that they take other than a house bill requires yet another vote in the house. we are all kind of scratching our heads. when is it going to get done? they do plan to leave. the holidays are approaching. host: this explanation of, hopefully, what is going on up there on the hill. now, to get to the omnibus, the

senate on the bus, 6600 your marks from $8 billion in a $1.1 trillion bill, who has the most earmarks? guest: i think it was cochrane. host: then cochrane, republican of mississippi. -- ben cochrane, republican in mississippi. guest: he was the top republican on the appropriations committee. and inouye was the top democrat on the appropriations committee. it is not surprising that they are doing this. this is what they do. host: we are talking about the remarks. we want to get your opinion on this. the numbers are on the screen. you can send an e-mail to paul singer of roll-call at journal

or you can send us a tweet. jim hill has put a list together of the top ones. and like you said, cochran of mississippi, $230 million in your marks. roger wicker, another republican from mississippi, $199 million. patty murray, democrat of washington, $172 million. senator mccain made this big speech from the floor. it's what are the chances that these earmarks will stay in if this is debated and passed by the senate? guest: i honestly do not know. because of the time faiz -- timetable that we are facing, because of the race to get out and we do not know how many votes are going to be allowed, it is not clear who has the votes to take out which earmarks or whether we just throw the whole thing out and start again

with this continuing resolution. taxpayer common sense is building a database that will run through all of them. you will see. part of what happened here is this conversation began nine months ago. when they started to try to pass an appropriations bill and a regular cycle. everybody did what everybody does, which is, the members of congress requested their earmarks nine months ago. this whole thing basically lay fallow throughout the summer and fall. all of a sudden this week as they and and pick it up into a bill. all of these remarks are sitting there. they just let them up and put them back into the bill. now the republicans are saying they did not want the remarks. nine months ago they might have. it is unclear what the votes are going to be going forward, when

they will occur. one of the things that senator demand from south carolina has threatened is that he will read the -- senator demint has threatened to is that he will read the entire bill and it could take three days. will he do that? we do not know. host: here is a story from roll- call. what is the same? guest: senator sessions has said he is opposed to your marks. however, there is a company in his district that is struggling mightily -- they make sleeping bags. they are struggling mightily because they are being undercut by sleeping bags from bangladesh. there is a regular bill that passes every year that waves tariffs for all of these foreign countries that are producing things that are not produced in

the u.s.. senator sessions has the point that we are producing this in the u.s. and we need to fix that problem. he is basically demanding a provision that protects one company in the united states. is a company in his state that makes the vdacs. basically, -- it is a company in his state that makes sleeping bags. basically, they're saying it is not an earmark. it projects good jobs. but it actually meets the definition -- it protects the good jobs. but it actually meets the definition of an earmark. this is a new markets and intercessions is demanding or he is going to kill the tax bill, and at the same time he is opposing earmarks. there is no straight line. almost nobody is going to say, i'm opposed to every attempt by congress to create a policy position or to establish law that benefits a u.s. company, but they are opposed to your marks. it is a bit of a conflict.

host: richardson, texas, sheri on the republican line. please go ahead. caller: good morning to both of you. my comment this morning is that this group of politicians in washington d.c. currently do not get the fact that the american people just voted out a whole bunch of democrats in november. they are gone. their careers are over. guess what, we are going to do the same thing in two years to the senate. and this time, we will take our democrats and republicans -- take out democrats and republicans. my answer to the republicans and democrats in washington right now is, if you want a political career, you better stop talking to each other and yelling to each other. you better shut up and start listening and paying very good

attention to the american people. guest: part of what people are saying in response, particularly to this omnibus bill, is that it looks like a pre-election bill. that is, it is as if congress did not get the message that people were unhappy with your marks and unhappy with spending. earmarks and i'm happy with spending. this bill does not seem to reflect what ever went out in the capital was talking about. this clearly looks like it's going against that grain. and i think the danger that they face is inspiring this kind of ironic that folks will say, hey, this is not what we voted for. host: when you look at $8 billion out of the total $1.1 trillion budget, -- ?

guest: earmarks are a tiny fraction of the federal budget. and there are people who will tell you that they do not actually add anything to the budget either. " what is actually happening is -- it is kind of complicated, but the way any earmark works is that the company will say, we will give the pentagon $5 billion total, and of that, this portion has to go to mississippi or berber else. you pull -- or wherever else. you pull the earmarks out, and the money just goes back into the budget. you do not say anything. the issue is less the total amount of money and more the process. and folks like senator coburn and jeff lake in the house will argue that it is not about the money, but the process that allows money to be directed

basically to the palace of the members of congress. it is unclear how that -- to the pals of the members of congress. it is unclear how that happens and why this winds and another one loses the process tends to fuel corruption. that is the concern. it is not a real dollar concern. host: here is a tweet -- guest: back in march when they started to ban earmarks prodigiously come -- religiously, republicans ban on earmarks was earmarks only to non-profit organizations, not to companies. in theory, there are -- there is no money to private businesses. the democrats and went one step further and said, no earmarks at

all. you will find a lot of private organizations getting earmarks pedersen to cooperatives of business interests. we found one that was solargreenness.org and that just happens to be the company that makes solar panels and it is redistributed to private companies. there's always a well-rounded. that is the problem. the host: inside story on roll- call, resolve to ban earmarks can get squishy is the argument. next call, you are on. caller: good morning. i saw the other day were some attempts -- senator mitchell was asked a question and he -- about

pork bellies and he went around a question. what people are to your concern about are the salaries. and today is my birthday and i'm surprised i got through. host: happy birthday down there to you in winston-salem. guest: and your market is in pork-barrel projects. -- an earmarks is a pork barrel projects. you are referring to discretionary spending. that is, individual members of congress can direct a chunk of federal spending to a specific

project. in general, the project ends up being in their congressional district. it is to build a band -- build a dam, repay a bridge or a road, something that the federal government might get around to doing anyway. sometimes it is for a company to build a certain widget that the government wants to buy. there are thousands of these things littered throughout congressional spending bills. yes, they are called pork barrel projects. the issue is that they can do some good in your community. i mean, if congress is going to repave the road through your downtown, and thereby increase the flow of traffic and customers for downtown businesses, you might think that is a good thing. however, someone who lives in abilene, texas might think that is a waste of money. it is really hard to sort out, again tomorrow -- what did we

say? there are 6000 of these things? it came out tuesday night and then of us have been able to sort through all of them. the one of them is $10 million for congressman john murtha's foundation. he was a congressman for many years and passed away in february and someone wanted $10 million for his foundation. is that a good or bad thing? i cannot judge that. but you would have to look into this bill to find it. host: i to -- i was just about to ask you about that your market -- that earmark. it is sponsored by folks in the house. how did it end up in a senate omnibus bill? guest: this conversation started nine months ago. both the house and senate were processing bills through the records of legislation throughout the summer. they just never got around to passing any of them.

when you look at the bill in this kind of remarkable. none of this stuff is actually in the bill. there is a piece of legislation that lays out funding, just large numbers, and it says, by the way, you will spend all of the money that is detailed in the attachments. the attachments are basically excel spreadsheets full of your remarks that came from everywhere. they came from earlier this year the republican's request that they claim they no longer want. they basically just staple them together and said this is going to be the bill. at the moment -- as of last night. i have not checked this morning. there were different attachments for different portions on the web. and they are in different formats. zu amar to the congressional record pages. some are excel spreadsheet -- some of them are congressional

record pages. some are excel spreadsheets. host: if people want to go on line and see this, where would you -- where would they go? where would you recommend them starting? guest: i would recommend two places. the senate appropriations committee has a web site and they have the bill on the web site. if you go to their latest news section you will see listed in their ear mark reports for the various sections. i believe the easiest place to go would be senator coburn's website. he has tried to take all of these attachments and put them into one spreadsheet. again, this was last night probably are around 7:00 p.m. i do not know what the status is now, but my understanding is that they have the spreadsheet on the center coburn's web site and it will let you run through the whole 6000 of them. but again, god love the appropriators.

they do these things. i know they have them in a spreadsheet that they could make public, but they do not do it that way. they produce a bunch of .pdf gardens that smart technical people have to go and removed and put them in a spreadsheet. it is a technical nightmare. host: when this bill was introduced on tuesday, paul singer, were you taken by surprise? guest: yes. host: and you added money for will call. guest: yes. -- and you get it money for a roll-call -- you edit money for roll-call. guest: yes. host: next call from washington d.c.. caller: we know that as senators and house members are sent to congress to get money for their districts. i think that is something that we do not need to demonize because it helps people in their districts. the tax bill with it being so

big, and it being the issue that everybody is talking about, come on, people, we have been sold this bill of goods before, that the sky is falling and we need to pass some giant bill before it ends and everything is going wrong. this bill needs to be halted. it needs to be sent into committees. we need to see what is in this bill but is not in our interest. and for the 99ers and for those on unemployment, we can always go back and pay them back pay for unemployment. host: thank you, antoine. paul singer? guest: the caller has a good point in that one of the things that has changed in the 20 some odd years that i have been covering money and politics in washington is that the bills to begin to rise later and later in the session with less and less public review, with less and

less public process. you see fewer public process hearings. it is not going to the regular order of congress were the house marks on up, the senate marks one of, they put it in committee and get a compromise that gets updated through both houses. major pieces of legislation are writing to, essentially, out of whole cloth. it is not clear where they came from or who is writing them and it is the week before christmas when everybody is planning to get out of town. it is a frustrating process for all of us. understand, i live here and work here. i have access to this stuff. if i could walk a start -- across the street to the capital -- i can walk across the street to the capital and get a look at them. the caller cannot. it is something that has fundamentally changed in the last couple of decades.

i do not know quite how to explain it. i do not know if it is a prison ship issue. i do not know if it is a fear of -- a partisanship issue. i did not know if it is a fear of what is going on. but the caller is right, we get a lot of things strong on us. host: taxpayers for common sense has been done some of the remarks. here are a couple. $500,000 for the state of mississippi. old taylor road roundabouts is what that money is for. and senator durbin of illinois, ill. pedestrian and bicycle and improvements and an hassett -- enhancements in illinois. guest: there are a couple that i'm very curious about. senator brownback of kansas has a new market in this bill of $40

million called a bio-agro defense of the facility. it is going to make antidotes to and trucks. -- to anthrax. it is already scheduled to be built. it is just a matter of where to put it. people in kansas do not want it. the problem is that the house passed the continuing resolution that we were just talking about with language in it that says it prohibits any spending of money to build the facility because there is a dispute about whether iraq is really in the safest place -- whether it is really in the safest place.

you are on a direct collision course with the two piece of legislation one says -- pieces of legislation. one says to build it and the other says not to fund it. senator brown probably say he wants the remark because he is opposed to earmarks, but this is what he wanted nine months ago. this is where you get into law land and you do not know where congress is -- into la la land and do not know where congress is. host: next call from oklahoma. caller: it seems that every time there are earmarks, the bills are 2000 pages long or longer, like the health care bill. nobody has a chance to read them before you vote on them.

my problem with that is i'm kind of a victim of one of the omnibus bills. i'm a disabled person. i was injured on the job. bill, myn omnibus tol company has pushed my health insurance from being primary to being secondary and forced me on to medicare. that was in an omnibus bill that was passed and that nobody bothered to read the bill because the bill was too long. guest: and we believe that there are things in these bills we will not know about for years. again, this is part of the problem. and by the way, this is true in almost every piece of legislation. there's a provision someplace that is specifically stuck in to solve some problems or perceived

problem or to address some small group of constituents that the rest of us are not paying attention to and nobody notices. again, the caller is right. 2000 pages, who will get through it? i started to try to read it the of the day and my eyes start to glaze over. -- the other day and my eyes start to glaze over. what is the outcome? it is not clear how they are intended. it does not specifically say, hey, this is money for joe's company. it says, this is money to do a project. and you have to connect the dots to figure out what the project is and that it benefits joe's company. there are unintended consequences, unknown consequences, and things in the bill that simply will not be public for years. host: speaker boehner is on record with what kind of budgetary reform proposals? guest: a couple of things. he wants to ban earmarks.

he has proposed, essentially, capping federal spending for a couple of years out and then trying to bring all of the federal agencies into, essentially, a restrained spending time frame. he has also talked about making cuts in congress itself. i believe he did 5% across-the- board in congress's own operation. they have also talked about making these bills public and requiring, i think, at least 72 hours before the bill can pass. i do not doubt their sincerity in the least, but i have been in washington long enough to know that when you're in the majority, particularly in the house of representatives, you can essentially have your way by just saying so. in the very end of sessions and you need to get stuff done and it has been a long argument and you are tired of the argument,

you start running through things in a hurry and the regular orders fly out the window. i'm not saying that is going to happen to mr. boehner. i'm saying that i will believe it when i see it because we have heard it before and, in fact, the democrats said the same thing and it did not work out that way either. there are incentives -- there are all kinds of incentives to cut corners. the process is designed to allow everybody to get involved and to offer their amendments and develop compromise and to come to the table and bring forth good ideas. sometimes the process just takes too long and no one else wants to provide for the golan. they will just shut the door -- for the bill. they will just shut the door. there will have to decide if they want to cut a program a week, removed useless items, caps spending. by the way, a lot of this has

agreement by the obama administration. everybody is looking at the budget, realizing we are in dire straits. we have to figure out ways to save money and stop spending. that part is not the issue. how you do it is the partisan issue. host: a liberal mom a tweet in -- guest: right, well, again, this gets back to why you send your member of congress to congress. it is to bring home projects to your state. your state is -- is paying taxes. your state is providing gas tax money to the federal highway trust fund. you want to see some of that money spent in your state, not just moved out to montana where there are fewer people and they are not paying as much tax. it is a continual battle. we all believe that wasting money on pork projects is observed, but we also seemed to

build -- is absurd. but we also seem to believe that if we are paying taxes, benefits should come back to our district. host: next call from austin, texas, mike on the democrats line caller: i'm just trying to figure why we are finally everything in one package. if that earmarks are due in june to be decided on by the end of the year, and they are broken up into different categories, why are we doing this all together? guest: because the congressional process is broken. the congressional budget process is supposed to operate like that. you start with a bill -- there are 12 or 13 appropriations subcommittees. each committee has a bill that covers various agencies. they're supposed to mark of the bill, had changes, adding your

marks, put the thing into congressional record, have it go to the floor of the house, the house votes on the bill. each bill separately. and the senate does the same thing on a parallel track. come on foot -- august or september, they have a conference and compromise on differences. they have a unified bill this sort -- for senate and house approval and the bill goes to the president resigned. the process has been obliterated for at least three or four years. they just do not do this anymore. the process is broken you get to the end of the fiscal year and let's just stay put altogether and it becomes a bill. host: year is another tweet. -- here is another tweet.

guest: the reform's going into effect in the last half-dozen years have been transparency reforms. now there is a requirement that members of congress opposed on the website the request that they plan to ask for. -- post on their web sites and the request that it planned to ask for. the letters will designate what company will actually be receiving the earmarks. what company or nonprofit, or what the ideas that will be receiving the remarks. all of that is now theoretically public. but i say theoretically because you have to be good at it to find it. they do not make that easily available information. we could make an argument about how much better they could be about making a transparent. host: paul singer is our guest. he is the editor at roll-call.

we have a few more minutes in this session. next call from idaho. caller: is not just the corruption that is called by it -- caused by the remarks. -- earmarks. it is the fact that these folks put their earmarks in there and they do not care what the bill really says. they care about the remarks -- earmarks. not only that, but the big spenders get reelected. they tell their districts, see what i did for you? and therefore, you have a skewed election process because they use that money to get elected. guest: and it is referred to as the gateway drug. your remarks are a gateway drug. you might -- earmarks are the

gateway drugs. say, is got -- you might do not like this whole thing, but it's got things in here that are good for me, so i will vote for it. it discourages people from making reasonable adjustment on the bill because they have been distracted by all of this nice money that is coming for them. and by the way, many people will say that the government is being irresponsible with money, but will also go to the rich and cutting -- the ribbon cutting for the shopping mall or the bridge in their district that is being funded by this same irresponsible bill. that is just real politics. that is just the way it works. we can be opposed to a lot of things, will -- but we will issue a press release and congratulate our district when the district gets at something it wanted, whether or not it is in a bill that we were opposed to in some way. host: and another tweet --

grand prairie, texas, frances, we have about 30 seconds before the house comes into session. caller: i understand that a lot of the funding for health care is in this bill. so they do not have to deal with it in the next session. also, i have heard that there are some republicans going to be voting for this. do we know which republicans are leading that direction? guest: i have not heard yet a republican say they were leaning to vote for it. and the health care money is in there because, again, they are trying to fund federal agencies for the rest of the year because the health care has passed. islam now. their funding federal agencies to begin implementing that laugh -- it is a lot now. they are funding federal agencies to begin implementing? law. -- to begin implementing that

law. host: paul singer, one of the first votes to come up in january is the debt limit -- the debt ceiling limit. guest: that will be an interesting issue. we are looking at a test case, particularly for members of congress that came in with the tea party label. if you are opposed to federal spending and federal debt, the problem is that when the federal government runs up its debt ceiling, it is in danger of shutting down. it will be a philosophical question from folks who are very anti-spending. can they really vote against the debt spending that the government says they have to have? host: paul singer of roll-call. thank you for helping us to understand some of these money issues. guest: it is a pleasure, as always. host: the house is about to go into session. and today is the day thaty