hearings starting with a look at u.s. military logistics and african operations. then a hearing on the don"don't ask, don't tell" policy. on "washington journal" a look at the latest on 2011 federal spending with bill pascrell and adam kinzinger. "washington journal" is next. >> i'm pleased to announce the washington monument and entire federal government will be open for business. >> we have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year and a short-term bridge to avoid a shutdown. >> i'm pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement that will cut spending and keep our government open.

host: the vote was made and it will keep the government open. 14 did not vote. the it cuts $78.5 billion from the budget and keeps the government operating through the end of september. house republicans will ned to file a formal bill by monday night to give the retired -- required 72 hours before it comes to a vote that. is likely to occur thursday. during this first hour of "washington journal" we will look at details of the deal and take your calls and tweets on the matter. here is the number that you can call. 202-737-0001 for republicans --

host: we have set aside a line this morning for those of you who are federal workers who have been watching probably closely more than anybody on the process as it midout. if you want to call in and register thoughts, 202-628-0184 is the line that we have set aside for federal workers. that is how you can weigh in this morning. taking look at the bridge continuing resolution, this is how it midout and the house website. in total there were 348 aye votes, 70 nay. as far as republicans there were 208 aye and 28 nay. democrats 140 aye and 28 nays. 14 in the putting in a vote from

last night's continuing resolution. that vote on the full package is scheduled to take place next thursday on this issue. here is the picture of speaker boehner from last night kurt cities of the "washington post" to give you some perspective. this is from last night. right above it talks about the plight of the government workers, shows a photo. this is also on the front page from the federal aviation administration. this is an employee carrying a plant to take care of if the government were to shut down. this is something this did not occur. we will talk about the details as we go forward. from the story last night tho h though, this is concerning speaker boehner and his role in this. the story is for him a test of leadership. it says that boehner knew as well as anyone the fit was a prelude to larger battles.

one will be over the house republicans' 2012 budget which would make far bigger cuts in spending and fundamentally change the nature of federal programs such as medicare and medicaid. as well as another will be needing legislation it raise the federal debt ceiling which many of his freshman members have vow ed to block. this gives a taste of the future on the debate as it is cast in light of what happened over the last week or so numbers will be on your screen and we will take first call from a federal worker from fairfax, virginia. ed. good morning. you have watched this process probably played out. what do you think that it is over? caller: well, i think it is important for the leadership -- and i'm -- i work for the u.s. congress, first of all -- so you have a leadership problem in terms of making sure the

american people can continue living the way they are used to living. and i'm against anything that interferes with that. to the point this congress and the president should show leadership i think waiting for the last minute was a bad massive. host: talk about did you work for congress both sides and how their leadership worked alongside each other. caller: i think they worked against each other most of the time and i was against this part of it because again they are only one-third of the congress. the senate and white house are two-thirds of the government and i think that they should have come to terms much sooner than they did. host: as far as leadership, since we're talking about that, what do you think about the president's role in this process? caller: the president's role was probably minor. it could have been much bigger than what he showed. he came on tv several times to

speak about his position. i don't think he was instrumental in terms of what went down. host: houston, texas. you are next, republican lane. george, go ahead. caller: yes, i think that all it proved is significant and necessary cuts cannot be made political politically as things stand. ship is sinking. the problem is that people such as the person who you just spoke with before believes that somehow the government's job is to employ everyone. if that is the case we should just change the nymph the -- change the name of the country to ussa and master -- move on. host: you talked about the cuts. not significant enough for you? caller: they were shooting for 100. if you do the math even if it is

78 or 100 it is not significant, statistically significant relative to the debt that we have piled up. we have lived too long spending beyond our means. we are engaged in -- host: from the numbers you have seen what are numbers that you would want to see as far as -- that you would deem significant? caller: something that would pull the debt back down to a balanced position within 10 to 15 years. but i don't think they can do it and i think what we are headed for is a collapse of the u.s. dollar. i'm not sure but what some of this is being planned by the likes of george soros. host: de soto, texas, democratic line. stkpwhro caller: good morning. i don't think the president should sign. i think we should just let it go. i know from the former texan,

although i'm a democrat, i'm 62 years old. i have seen hard times. i think what you have now is a lot of people out there who have never seen hard times. everything has come easy to us in america. i have a niece who is getting ready to embark to afghanistan to help build schools in afghanist afghanistan. off teachers. we are cutting and not building schools here in texas. a prime example, budget out of control but they brought in the lottery, they sued the cigarette -- the tobacco company -- to fund medicare and don't have that. people pay in, we need to pay those i.o.u.'s back to social security where during the last separation they were -- the last

administration they were putting an i.o.u. back and not being accountable. host: twitter has this thought. the job is not done and is in all capitals. he saeid apologize to the american people for the ineptness, tired of all the excuses. that is forms for justice. independent line. caller: thaefrpgs -- thanks for taking my call. i echo some of the earlier sentiments but i have to say i think the mainstream media reporters in most of the cases especially congress are neglecting the 10,000-pound gorilla in the room. we are fighting three wars. that is sacrosanct money as far

as these congressmen are concerned. it is a half billion dollar budget and another half billion if you add on all the extras that are included in the defense budget. we can't afford to -- and it is not like giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporationless who don't pay taxes. even those two things together you could probably end these wars which are causing us more harm in those regions than good. host: so, from the week you have seen what are the lessons learned or what do you think can be applied going forward as far as further budget debates? caller: they need to take down the big pieces. what they are talking about here is if you drew a graph of the amount of money you are talking about and they were dickering about would be a fine pencil thin line compared to the rest of the money. by the way, final comment, i'm an independent, i go either way, vote for the best candidate but

if you look at history i'm also a hit listen you will see this t was accumulated under republican administrations and having to be dealt with under democratic administrations. those are the facts. anybody wants to look become starting with the reagan era. thanks for taking my call. host: one of the folks watching the process play out has offered her time this morning molly hooper from the hill who joins us from our news room. when did you file your last story on this process? >> several hours ago, around 2:00 in the morning. host: when you were watching what was the tipping point as far as the process last night to get the deal done? >> that is a good question. i think that in talking to members yesterday they heard from so many different military families in their districts. and people who had gone online

and found out that they were only going it receive half of their paycheck for the week because if the government was out of business next week that money would stop. from what i understand, that affected everybody. that affected the republicans and democrats. last night in the last minute republican conference phaebgt apparently one member got up and just -- and this is a woman who is usually pretty stoic when it comes to being vulnerable. she is not one to cry. but she just lost it i guess and said she had been talking to military families that day who didn't know if they could pay bills next week and i think that really hit home for a lot of members. and this would have been the first government shutunder during wartime and the last thing that the president wanted to do and that congressional leaders wanted to do is shut down the government when the united states is at war.

host: so, one of the write-ups of one of your cheeks you talked about marcia blackburn saying they are not happy with the final number. >> some said it didn't go far enough. they wanted the $61 billion cut from current levels. they will probably vote against it when the long-term bill comes up next week. but here is the thing. there are a number of democrats who are not going to vote for it either. so, i think that for the most part speaker boehner, his cleanings would say, did a great job getting the largest cuts that they could and in fact of one of the talking points from the republicans that this is the largest spending cut in american history. so, it is not $61 billion, but another argument that boehner was making is we have to keep our eyes on the prize.

next week we will take up the pass the prosperity budget that could cut $6.2 trillion from the projected budget number of the president. then you have the ceiling, the debt ceiling. so, i think that when they lacked at this number, $61 billion compared it -- to $6.2 trillion they said let's get the most we can and keep the government open and move on. host: the performance of speaker boehner and other republicans, how does this play out as far as a holdi a holding chit for the 2012 negotiates? >> i think in talking to senior republicans close to bane are and new members they put a lot of trust in him and he came through. i think that the way the negotiations were handled in the last minute, you know, volleying

day friday, h all offer, counteroffer, offer, counteroffer, i think that when it came down to it, boehner proved that he could get a deal done. it is something that he did back in the year 2000 with no child left behind and he worked with then the late senator ted kennedy and another the education committee's ranking member. with george miller, he moved through the signature education policy. this is when boehner was chairman of the education committee. pirelli did prove himself and it is an interesting time. next week is the first 100 days of boehner's speakership. this is an opportune time for him in terms of his standing with his colleagues, as well as

with senate democratic leaders. they made a deal, and they were able to move it through. i think that that did show good faith on boehner's part. >> as far as majority leader reid is concerned, how did he care? >> he did a tough job, from what i understand. i primarily cover the house republicans. but in terms of negotiating with boehner, because the primary negotiators were senate majority leader reid, vice-president biden, president obama, and john boehner, and i think that harry reid definitely put up a fight. but people argued, so did speaker boehner. but they're not ecstatic about the compromise, but that is a compromise.

the fact that both sides did not get everything that they want but they were able to make sure that, for example, the planned parenthood provision, the controversial provision to defund planned parenthood, that will not be included in the long term funding bill, per se. but senate majority leader reid said, ok, we will have been up and down vote on it in the senate. when it comes up on the floor. that was good. because the house republicans were adamant that a block -- that that be included in the long term bill. host: was that a real issue to get them to this number? guest: it was a real issue, probably to get them to the number. my general understanding of the situation is on tuesday night,

after the initial white house meeting that morning, harry reid and john boehner met and boehner's office. i think that that day -- last night there were sprinklings of the conspiracy theory among staffers that they probably sat down and said this is the deal, you do if you have to do to get it, i will do what i have to do to get it. both sides used their major issues to galvanize their own conferences into voting for this. there was a bit of showmanship or show-like quality to it, to the debate. i think it was a sticking point , but not as big as it was portrayed by senate democrats. host: molly hooper will stay

with us throughout the our graciously. if you want to ask questions and continue on with your calls, the numbers will be on your screen. detroit, michigan, you're next. what do you do for the government? host: i am a driver. caller: i've been in close contact with the politics of the present situation, and i know that this president is strong and knowledgeable with the facts. it was just a few years ago that the previous administration, he came into office with a surplus. john boehner was there during that time, he was part of this mess that the republicans created. ok? and they are putting all this weight on the shoulders of the president. the president knows the right thing to do, and he is doing the

right things that are best for america. host: could the president have reacted center? caller: they are going to complain that the way. he is too slow, he is too fast, he is too late, he is too soon. depending on the president compromising and getting something resolve so that we can fight another day. host: 4 wayne, indiana, the republican line. caller: so glad to get on. i was listening to mrs. pelosi talking about the old people starting and everything else. but we never got our race. they did give 30% to the welfare, isn't that funny? who took that? who did that, i like to know. host: 1 twitter this morning --

costa mesa, california. early in the morning, veronica, democrats line. caller: i have to agree with the lady that called in from texas and the gentleman from alabama. i feel like republicans and the t backers, -- teabaggers, i think we are heading to the third world country that the republicans want this country today. the government shutdown, it should of been shutdown totally. i disagree that the republicans predict the way the republicans are running for the country. they do not let their children serve, but they want to argue about a woman's uterus. host: will the been the result of the government shutting down?

what would of been the good from that? caller: no one would have gotten anything. it would of been the best thing we could've done and started all over again. right now, what are you going to get out of it? host: nebraska, jerome on the republican line. caller: people act like this budget deal just come up in the last couple of months. it is something that should have been done at a year ago. this ain't a deal that just came up. democrats had control of the house, the senate, the presidency, large majorities, and the could have passed in the budget that they wanted. but they did not want to show their hand, how much more money they were going to spend. the could have that any budget passed that they wanted. the republicans should take no blame for this.

it should have been done a year ago. thank you. host: let's go back to molly hooper for a second. assuming that this gets voted on next week, what things what americans see as far as the end result of the decisions made this week? guest: in terms of their general life? that is a great question. and i am not deflecting. it is interesting because, while all these details were being shared amongst the negotiators, the details stayed within that circle. it is hard to say precisely what will happen. but at least on a short-term temporary bill, that was passed last night to keep the government funded through thursday night, there would be cuts in high-speed rail corridors, cuts in capital

investment grants, public housing operation money -- some money that would go through projects that might not have even started yet. it is hard to say how we will affect every daylight. host: a couple of things on further provisions. something about schools and voucher program. there was also a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in d.c., and it included the financial over sort board. -- oversight board. and why are these issues important enough to be included? guest: they appeal to the more social conservatives in the republican party. the first provision that you mention was actually a pet project or a pet cause of speaker boehner's. that had to do with the d.c.

school vouchers. the house passed earlier this year -- it i'm getting my months confused. that was something that boehner wanted to be included in this bill because this is a must-pass bill. the senate will have to take it up. and so when it comes to the d.c. abortion money, the so- called d.c. hyde legislation, for henry hyde, a former congressman, they wrote into law no taxpayer funds to go to pay for abortions, that a peace the social conservatives -- that appeased the social conservatives. one adamant proponents of making sure that no money goes -- node

taxpayer dollars go toward abortion. the reason it ends up in a bill like this because it is must- pass legislation. that is going to be something that will garner several more votes, then they will include it in exchange for not having the planned parenthood in the bill that the senate actually takes up. host: a desperate measure, in order to intitle x, and also the 2010 health care law. guest: they will be subject to an up and down vote on the senate floor, as opposed to the package. host: how will they separated off? guest: that is a good question. i do not cover the senate very often.

they stick to the people's house. but by having an up or down vote, it puts senators on record. i believe that they would actually had have the 60 votes to included in the final bill, and it is unclear whether or not, probably unlikely that the plan parent -- the planned parenthood bill would be included in that. but those supporting that legislation, they could say that the senate voted against it. but at least they voted on it. we insisted that they have a vote on it. before that time, harry reid did not want a vote at all on it. that goes a long way for their constituents. host: nevada, and is -- nevada, missouri, on the independent line.

.aller: i have a comment i cannot imagine being a soldier in afghanistan in the heat, in the grip, in the violence, talking to my wife at home and hearing that my paycheck would be cut, and then being that wife and watching this coolest is on tv -- this foolishness on tv. something needs to be done where the soldiers would always get paid. i think the congress and the senate are the ones that should have had their paychecks delayed. i just think it is an embarrassment for the country. that is my comment. host: washington, d.c., a government worker mario. caller: if the government does not provide jobs, who will? the private sector is not hiring.

the tax breaks that allowed the private sector to hire, it is not happening. we've had years of tax breaks for the rich. where are the so-called jobs that they are supposed to provide? they do not exist. this whole idea of trickle-down economics is stupid. and those of you who buy into it are extremely foolish to believe that giving tax breaks to the rich is going to help our nation. if they feel so bad about the debt, they should of tax the rich to offset the cost. host: what do you do for the government? mario? florida, the republican line, keep, good morning. caller: hopefully we will have a better day coming. i have no children. hello? we are spending our great- grandchildren money to provide the life that we are living.

and this is been, much of the alien politics, and this is the perfect -- machivellian politics, and we have 300 million people in this country, the same people doing the same stuff for the last 20 or 30 years. you should not be in parties anymore. if you are a business, our government cannot even make a budget from last year. we're going week to week. our business supposed to be set up their businesses with regulations and taxes, and when we do not even know if the government will be up and running? i have of pocket constitution, a pamphlet that runs a country, and we cannot even get a bill that is more -- less than 1000 pages. we have bills now that are 3000 pages. we need to get back to the

essentials of government. until the taxes are collected locally and kept locally and sent up to washington instead of us begging them to come back from our congress people, which causes corruption, this country will fail. host: bowling green, kentucky, tammy. caller: i was going to stay that they are born to cut the pay of the men and women that are dying to fight for this country, then they ought to cut their own pay. that would save money. if they would cut their pay for one month, every congressman and every senator for one month, that would get us out of debt right there. i think it is ridiculous that some of these army people are on welfare. their pay is so low. as far as not giving social security a raise, that started

with the bush administration. they decided to not give us a raise. they have not had a raise and over quite sure years. i do not think that is right. a lot of businesses are not giving more raises but they are getting tax cuts. host: "the new york times" talking about the military. a senior defense department official says that all active- duty military officials would remain, and on tv but that would cut in half their regular pay next friday until the deal was struck. there are 800,000 --

host: florida, we hear from a government worker. what you do for the government? caller: i was a maintenance supervisor for the department of defense. this is an example that shows you how in net and inefficient government is. last november, the people sent a clear message to cut spending, cut taxes, balance the budget, make government smaller. obviously our congressman up there in washington have become confused again and started paying politics, especially with military pay. a couple of callers make good points, that they should withhold the pay of congress, then we might see people get more serious about this budget.

$31 billion is not a cut, a substantial cut at all. the new politicians voted in in november, they talked about $100 billion to start with, $500 billion, and now they're talking about $6 trillion. if you can i get $100 billion, they certainly will not be able to handle $6 trillion out of the budget. it is ridiculous. host: molly hooper, looking to the future, let's talk about two things separately. paul ryan, the message over the next few weeks? guest: it is a big budget -- message. this is a 10-year budget, so it would not be cutting $6.2 trillion for one year. but he has to sell this. what they wanted to come in the house republicans, is

dramatically change medicare and medicaid and the way that it doles out. a lot of the funding, at least 67% that the government pays for, is medical expenditures that they could not even touch in the bill last night. he has to try to sell the house republicans and more draconian view on spending. and changing again the way that the programs are administered and how they are doled out. which is a tough thing to do, because the one program he did not really get into in this budget is the largest mandatory spending program, social security. but as is, medicare and

medicaid are the bigger problems, and they are cut more drastically. host: and the next thing is the debt limit. guest: and the debt limit. that will be a tough one. as it is, many of the freshman, 87 new republicans, came in and started the year of saying we do not want to raise the debt limit. the current debt limit is approximately $14.3 trillion dollars. in order to keep our line of credit and keep borrowing money, congress has to annually ask for that -- raise that credit limit, essentially. the freshmen say, no, we do know what to do this. we should not be borrowing more money if we cannot even cut our own deficit.

that will be difficult because it involves the u.s. dollar and economic issues all tied into the whole matter. something that boehner is really going to have to finesse. but after these negotiations and the job that he performed on behalf of the house republicans, i think that they have faith that he can do that. the one thing that they realize, and this is the rhetoric that we heard, the change in the rhetoric as they closed in on the government funding expiration date last night, midnight, was that boehner says the house is one-half of one- third of the government. i think that was strikingly apparent, when he would go into

the negotiations and it was boehner and his chief of staff, barry jackson, and a democratic white house and in democratic senate. in order for the republicans to get what they want in terms of future cuts, they will have to work with the democrats in order to get -- to raise the debt limit. so it will be an interesting few weeks ahead here. and boehner always said that this cr, the long term funding bill, this is just the first fight. again, this funding bill should have been passed last year. this is old business. right now the appropriations committee, after they passed the long term bill next week, they have to go on to 2012 funding bills. we will see even more cuts going forward. but it is going to be a fight to

the finish. and it is interesting to cover -- host: some topics include what's lies ahead in the future. >> bipartisan legislation is in sight to enact a large a spending cut in american history. this is good news for job creators in america, but much more has to be done to put our nation on a true path to prosperity. host: that is paul ryan from last night. jobs will ultimately come back into this discussion after this week, molly hooper? guest: they are always in the discussion, it seems. the one thing the republicans were arguing is that they have to pass something. as one caller said earlier, you can i go week to week.

you cannot find your business week to week. that has affected a lot of small businesses. i was talking to one freshman republican, tim griffin from arkansas, saying that it was unclear whether not there would be a deal, i get this text from a small business owner in my district and he said, who do i call about this long-term cr thing? it turns out i have federal contracts and that the federal government's us down, i will not get paid and i will have to lay people off. but the long term cr does is create more certainty as paul ryan said some businesses know they will not have to interrupt government contracts, and again, that is the one thing that republicans have said. now we can focus on spurring economic growth.

but over the past few weeks, the job employment number has been going down. it seems like the economy is getting stronger, but again, the republicans are going to be pushing this path to prosperity budget. they want to greet more certainty for businesses, because it is one thing to say we're going to give you a tax break. is another thing to say, we will give you a tax break for several years. businesses have to plan long term and this is what republicans argued. if they do not know whether they will have to pay more money for health care or what ever is, it is hard to make hiring decisions. this is the republican argument. that is one thing they want to focus on. exactly. i don't think they have taken their eye off the ball. host: molly hooper, a

congressional correspondent for "the hill." -- let's read a tweet. oklahoma city, okla., catherine, good morning. caller: i am thoroughly disgusted how the democrats, it is unbelievable, they still do not get it, that we are tired of paying for people not to work and for making bad choices. we do not the people living. the taxpayers that go and work do not other people living. if they want to have kids, let them get a job and support them. they need to cut that junk food off of the food stamps, and that tea party, the lady said they do not pay taxes and made, who did they think these people are? they are taxpayers they want

more for their money that we worked hard for, and most of them are military moms and dads and gramm moms and military people. host: lisa on the democrats' line. caller: out of the $14 trillion, $9.5 trillion you can lay it that the reagan, bush, and reagan. i would like to mention that this is the cbo figures that were stated, 20% for defense, 28.5% for medicare, 20.35% for social security, and 6% interest. those figures add up to 67.2%. which leaves 32.8%, and who gets that money? could that be the tax cuts for the 400 people were sitting on $40 trillion of america's

wealth? and you do not have to take my word for it? you can take that from david rothman, who happen to be the former reagan white house budget director. he called the midterm elections the big lie. we have drifted for 30 yardears. republicans cut taxes every chance that they'd get. host: arlington, va., a government worker. what do you do for the government? caller: i find it to be embarrassing and blatantly irresponsible to say that we can help countries all around the world but we cannot take care of our own. i heard the previous caller talking about taking care of people for making bad choices. that is what families do. families take care of each other. america represents one of the greatest families in the free

world. how dare we not take care of our own in yet advocate democracy and it cannot work in our own country? i think take care of the citizens here, whether they make mistakes or not. we represent the greatest democracy in the free world. host: how to in a, pa., independent line, bob. caller: as long as we are divided, republicans and democrats, the politicians win. they get to do what they want to do. they keep wanting to cut social security and medicare, but they do not cut their own salaries. the average public employee makes about 30% more than his counterpart in the private sector to get better benefits, they pay less for those benefits, and when they retired, they retire almost at full salary. you see the politicians not

going to their fund to pay for the debt, they keep raiding social security. host: the book break down. 348 yeas, 7 the nays. democrats, 140 voted for it, and 14 did not bode. any insight on those who did not vote? guest: ron paul was one of those who did not make the vote. my understanding is that he was -- from what i recall, he was off to raise money for another potential presidential run. i believe that there were several californians on that list.

an alaskan republican, don young. they may have gone back to their district. i am not positive. i do not have a lot more insight on it. host: going down the list, ackerman, a sara, berkeley, cleaver -- do you know at least if these votes were because of the necessity of being other places? guest: i would think necessity of being other places. i do not think that they were protesting. host: somerville, south carolina, the republican line. caller: this is carol, and i think any patriotic american that the military was put in a non-essential status. it is the president to declare is the status of the military. they were always an essential

status until mr. obama decided they were not essential, to hold them hostage, and the republicans for most gracious and i think that was one of the big determining factors of them passing another temporary continuing resolution. and it needs to be known, it is the president that declares that, because i am a federal worker. i was willing to live out of my bank account if i had to, but the country is in dire trouble with all of this funding that mr. obama's administration has done, and obamacare will bankrupt this country if it is passed. host: texas, you are next on the independent line. caller: i have a hard time -- i was a republican from eisenhower until mr. george w. bush was anointed, and then i became an independent. i do not believe there is a word of truth in any republican

anymore. eyeleted florida. florida elected the governor that had stolen at least up billion $800,000 from medicare. what is one of the first thing that he does, he gives up a contract for drug testing for $400 million. how can you possibly trust this man to do anything responsibly for florida? our great governor of texas, he balanced the budget, he ran on here in texas. he has done a wonderful job for the 20 years he has been here. now we are $25 billion upside down. none of these republicans can tell the truth. all they do is have the machine that lies 24 hours a day, radio, tv. host: tampa, florida, on online for government workers. chris, good morning.

caller: i am a registered nurse at the v.a. hospital. i find this sickening and an ethical to be e -- to begin to think that our own military personnel should have any sort of -- to take anything away from them, they are sick and they have chronic diseases, they have long term diseases, and to even think that our own country when they have served their country, it is beyond me. there is a huge mural with a quote from abraham lincoln. to shelter him who has won the battle. how hypocritical of our country to go back against that.

it is sad. host: molly hooper, the politics of this, looking at the military, there aspect of this and the perception that they were pawns in all this could come back politically on both sides? guest: i cannot say that for certain. but it was very real, the peers were very real, and it was not until people started calling, the military families started calling the members of congress and inundated the switchboards with stories that they were going to face situations where they were not going to get paid. from what i've understand, the military would not have been paid into the government reopened, but they would have been given back pay. basically, they are essential, that what had been honored.

that would been paid during the time that they had worked. but when members of congress here that, republican and democratic alike, it was something very difficult, not to make the highest priority. and put politics aside. that being said, i can also say it most definitely spurred people into action at the 11th- hour, and that could be for political reasons as well, but again, this would have been very difficult for members of congress to explain. i think it is something that i can, during wartime, it is not a precedent you want to set for an all-volunteer army. host: all line in the "washington post" regarding the whole passage --

guest: that is true, and last night kevin mccarthy the whip, the house republican whip, he really wanted to get 218 republicans to vote for the short-term cr. he was only able to get 208, which was positive. they did have a overwhelming support for it, but that could bode not so great for long-term cr. there are some members -- and again, it is not just freshman. there are some members, the older guard, so securities such as mike pence and members of the budget committee, jim jordan, the smaller conference

within the entire gop rank-and- file, they really wanted those $61 billion. they actually wanted more in cuts. they were not happy with this deal. host: as far as the tea party influence, it was mentioned a lot. what is the reality? guest: the tea party reflects the frustrations of the older social conservatives that had been in the house, like mike pence and jim jordan. and they did have an influence on in. but to say -- most people have been talking about the freshman, the tea party pressman, the ones who opposed it -- i do not think that that is necessarily accurate. and the bigger issue of keeping -- this is what republicans say, we keep our eyes on the uprising

go to the next day's fight, the budget. that is something that people who would like to vote for more draconian cuts keep in mind when it comes to long-term funding. i was talking to greg walden. he is the house gop leadership chairman. the deputy national republican congressional committee chairman. he said that 40% of the freshman never held public office. this really battle-tested them. this is how legislation were. compromise means you're not getting everything that you want. but to stop everything in the middle of a war, you just cannot do it practically.

politically speaking, you do not want to do it. but that would not work. and again, that message really hit home, the reality really hit home. host: massachusetts on a republican line, troy, go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask a question. could you please, pedro, state what the present budget is for 2010, what the deficit will be for 2010, what the debt is, which i now believe is $14.3 trillion, and the total of our own paid obligations are? because that is the status of the federal government. and i never hear that stated when people call in. i think one of the criteria for them speaking is to be able to identify those numbers. host: i would defer on that

because i do not know them off the top of my head. i have some good ideas, but continue your thoughts. caller: the only way the republicans -- is impossible for them to balance the budget now. they cannot get anything significant done because we are only halfway there. when the next election comes up, we will have to install the other half of the equation, throw all of the democrats out of the senate, and then we will be able to get something significant past. until then, we are just wasting our time. there's no way the democrats are going to stop their spending. we have a deficit this year of $1.6 trillion, and a budget of $3.5 trillion, and in order for the democrats -- the democrats are not going to stop spending

host:. lawrence, kentucky, danielle on a line for government workers. what do you do? caller: this is the same ginnie from 12 hours ago. it's horrible that they can only come up with the one continuing resolution again. i had been on c-span for the last 72 hours nonstop, either by computer or tv. host: what you do for the government? caller: the continuing resolution does not help us. we need to make contingency plans that deter from our regular job and responsibilities because we have to think about this. it is done thoughtfully that they cannot sit down and make a budget for 6 -- it is ungodly that they cannot sit down and make a budget for six more

months. even though i do not agree with a lot of stuff in there, it causes huge cuts on the government and the federal employees, but i would do whatever the government says because we did elect these people and their supposedly looking out for our best interest. the fact that they cannot come up with anything for six more months, and i have to worry about the following week. we're wasting time looking for things to prepare us for the following week when we need to focus on the regular job. host: we will leave it there. molly hooper, walt us through next week. guest: the only reason they agreed with a short-term resolution is that they do have an agreement on that six month bill. in order to file that, they have to -- you have to introduce it in legislative language, and

when it comes to a bill like this, it takes a few days to put into legislative form. seoul on monday night, that document, that bill will bill the elbow. is going to the house appropriations chairman. hal rogers says that it will be up on monday. the house was to vote on that by wednesday. that money otherwise there would not be another short-term resolution. host: as far as next thursday is concerned, you will see tallies lake what we are seeing now or could there be changes? guest: there could be changes for the most part it will be the same. this is what was interesting last night. the only member of the house democratic leadership that voted against the bill was democratic caucus chairman john larsen. nancy pelosi voted for it, hoyer

vetted for it. and one more. the vice chairman. but for the most part the top democratic leaders voted for it because the president needs this to pass. to move on he will be calling democrats to get their support as well. so, i think we will see some changes but the vote will come out on top. host: is there an untold story for anything we talked about, one thing we have not talked about that you may want to add insight on? guest: one caller did mention -- several callers mentioned the fact that military families and the military should be funded, there should be some mechanism that continues funding for

military families and whatnot. actually, michelle bock mman intends to introduce a bill with those provisions in the near future. she put that out in her statement and voted against the short-term. host: molly hooper writes to cover the house. you see her work at thehill.com. thank you for your time in giving us your time. guest: thank you very much. host: we will continue our conversations about the package of the bridge and our guest later on representative adam kinzinger a member of the energy and commerce committee a deputy republican whip and from illinois. up next representative bill pascrell a member of the budget committee, democrat from new jersey. stay with us.

>> this weekend on american history tv a look at the coat president lincoln was wearing the evening he was assassinated. working in the nixon white house and behind the scenes efforts on school segregation. and hear from slaves from the underground railroad to freedom in michigan. press the c-span letter button to get our e-mail to you. >> on c-span two the co-thaufrts of why obama care is wrong for america present their criticism of health care legislation. then jeff greenfields presents they alter histories.

he is interviewed by former night lane anchor ted koppel and coverage from the annapolis book festiv festival. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org and get our schedules e-mailed directly to you. sign up for the book tv alert. >> as a host and trader you are not necessarily a republican or democrat. you are simply looking at the of what government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil markets, or trading, or wall street firms. >> tonight melissa lee on her career and influences and what she believes is her relevance in reporting business and financial numbers. watch the rest of the interview tonight on "q&a". you can download a pwod cast

also. -- podcast. watch all the events in the current spending debate and preparation for next year's budget from capitol hill and house and senate floor to the white house and around washington on line with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it is what you want when you want. host: our guess is bill pascrell representative from new jersey. when the c.r. comes up next week how will you vote? guest: i haven't decided yet because i didn't vote for the last c.r. but i voted last evening. i thought that this was a reasonable conclusion to some tedious backdoor, back room negotiations. so, i can't tell you right now. not that it is a secret but i

haven't come to any specific conclusion. this will bring us close to $79 billion in cutting out of the 2011 budget. we all agree that we have a deficit problem. this is a lot different than anyon anyone-1990. i believe they go deeply into programs that are needed with economy because the economy was different in 1995. host: such as. guest: housing programs. transit programs. transportation programs. i think it goes deep into those programs. we have been criticized, democrats have been criticized for not having a budget in the first place. you have to remember what the circumstances were. we couldn't get anything into and passed the senate. they needed 60 votes even when they breathed.

sometimes they didn't get it. it was a difficult situation. i think the criticism needs to be tempered with the idea that the 60 votes were needed and still are needed in the senate to get anything done and that is why we could not pass the budget. that was not our desire in the house of representatives. host: moving forward this week, there was a hearing on the 2012 budget. how do you think the efforts of the past week shade what you will face when it comes to 2012? guest: it is interesting they came at the same time and one affected the other. also, we are talking about deficits and how are we going to land. the promised it is easy to talk about it. when you are a freshman and raise your hand you think you are going to change the world. i did when i became a tprfreshm. i had experience with boots on the ground being a mayor and state legislator. that is a big step up because

you know the give and take of the situation. absolutist when you understand that you are not going to get everything you want nor will the other person. eric hoffer wrote great book in the 1950's and 1960's "the true believer" and we have problems with true believers because they believe they are following principle and that the other person is not. you have difficult problems coming to a compromise when that happens. is compromise. you compromise win the minute initial -- men nausea of the legislation. i thought they did a pretty good job myself. but you know what, nothing came up during the discussions about the democrats in the house of representatives. i thought that was pretty

interesting. or the republican senators in the debate. so, is it irrelevant or we were liked iffer getting to the promised left-hand. >> whether do you think of mr. ryan's approach with the 10-year scope of medicare, medicaid, social security being factors? guest: once you get past the nice "thing and we get long and bust each other a lot about democratic principles and republican principles but he is a great american. i think his budget is off the wall. first of all, it doesn't bring us into budget equality or getting the ledger straightened out. what he does is privatize medicare and this is a disaster. the old bait and trade, they say

under 55, those folks over 55 to worry about this. because otal non sepsense medicare as we know it, we know we need to change some things in order to bring this further on so that it is a permanent entitlement. on the other hand, we did something in the health care act which prolonged the growth of and existence of medicare for 10 to 12 years. we did something very practical. i think it is humorous when people say well, neither the democrats or republicans are dealing with the entitlements. social security doesn't affect that, first of all. second of all, we did so in the health care act when we prolonged it and we saved $500 billion, which the republicans have used in paul ryan's budget.

host: we will take calls in a minute. the numbers will be on the screen and if you want to talk you can send an e-mail and twitt twitter. what are your thoughts pending the vote on raising the debt lim limit? guest: that will be another tough vote. you will be a true believer or compromise. we have come through an almost depression situation. this is unusual when republicans criticize -- not all of them -- when the republicans criticize the president for spending the two years he has been the president. look at what he inherited. there have been republican presidents and democratic president thaz have inherited a bad hand and you have to deal with it. there were over 700,000 jobs lost the month he raised his hand. ever since that time we have seen less and less people

unemployed. taken a long time to get to where we want. i think the president perhaps in the january speech which he presented it the united states. but now we are on the plus side of creating private jobs. we have increased by 450,000 jobs the last few months and we are on track. host: when you say the president jeff reached as far as the -- overreached as far as the number? guest: unemployment below 8% and it is not but it is going down. the trajectory is in the right direction. the last thing we want to do is put a halt on that recovery. it has been slow enough and people don't have jobs and are losing homes. that continues. we need to do something practical about it. we know the government can't do on every problem but it has a responsibility to help

our citizens when they cannot help themselves. i'm very concerned about the cuts that we are making in this budget, whether or not -- and warner warned by mr. bowles and mr. simpson that if you cut too dramatically you are going to take this tenuous recovery and put it perhaps in real jeopardy. then the grass -- gross domestic product drops. host: so, going back to the death limit when you say true believers that is the group of republics that will not vote to raise the debt limit? guest: yes, we had a few republicans that voted no early this morning when we voted on the c.r., the continuing resolution. we are talking about folks who are stuck in their position and will not compromise until they

get what they want. you don't -- government is not made to do this. government is a very pliable institution and we have to make it for the common good of all americans. host: our guest is from the eighth congressional district of new jersey a member of the budget committee. st. louis, missouri, up first, carolyn, republican lane. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion. why don't we cut our congressmen and senators' pay, which would give more money to the money we have outstanding with the deficit? since so much of it right way they are wanting to cut the areas of the senior citizens, medica medicare. our soldiers who are fighting for our country. if we cut the areas which should

be your congressman and senator, bring their salaries down because if the government would have closed, the first places they wanted to hit were the soldiers, who are fighting for them. they wanted to cut the seniors with medicare and mediciaimedic. and all the other areas where the people are being helped. guest: carolyn, when you put a budget together it is priorities. you are on target. i certainly will not vote to cut medicare or social security. we need to reframe it and adjust it. there are no two ways and we have done it before. second, the members of congress have had their pay frozen basically the last three years. i'm not playing on your sympathies. i'm just bringing you up to date. i was willing to provide no pay

to myself. i'm willing to vote for that. and if we had a shutdown of the government. so, we are doing the best that we can. and i believe that the work that every congressman does, republican or democrat, is simply a waste of time. i know people on both sides of the aisle love their country and they need to be paid for it. but we need to sacrifice ourselves. the third point i make is we need equal sacrifice for everybo everybody. rich and poor. we need equal sacrifice. that is what the democratic principles are all about. host: we have a line for federal workers. bethesda, maryland, kathy. what do you do for the government? caller: i supervise staff that works in the grant closeouts area. go ahead with your question.

caller: unfortunately, i totally agree with the lady that just called. i would like to know why doesn't congress and the senate, why don't they take a pay cut? because i know the staff i work with are more than willing to have their pay frozen. but it is ludicrous to go back minister days. i would like you to be in the office where we're working with people crying, worrying and they have let 27 people go. i would like to know why can't you take a pay cut? guest: first of all, the cut wouldn't result in much money. i believe in equal sacrifice. i know the anxiety you are talking about, whether my office or another congressman's office. you try to reduce the amount of

anxiety. that we went to the 11th hour is something not any specific congressman produced. we did our best to to come to a resolution. and i'm not defending the congress but i'm saying there was sincere effort to bring this to resolution and i was willing to give up my pay in the days we shut down the government. i can't speak for anybody else. host: in case you are a federal worker that is 202-628-0184. somebody asked if every bureaucracy there is redundancy. by what percentage can we cut employment without significantly affecting output? guest: if you go that you attrition when people leave by retirement or for some other reason they move to another job. that has to be judged agency by agency. that is why the practicality of serving in public office, because the federal government runs very different than a

corporation and in many ways it good and in some ways not so good. so, you make the situation case by case. that is what is being done. caller: what does the c.b.o. say about the budget proposal? guest: it is not very flattering to paul ryan's proposal. the numbers don't add up. now, do we have a framework on which we can begin to debate? yes. i think that is very important because otherwise you are out in funniland in an esoteric debate that won't result in any conclusion. so i think it is too extreme and radical but he got the debate going. he got our justs going. if you watched the debate wednesday would you say the juices were moving? host: one of the back and forth was the cost program. for those that don't know what is it and what happened to the amendment you offered? guest: i'm very attached to

police departments and fire departments across america. they have a bad rap because they are public employees. they can defend themselves if they wish, but the cop has a tough job, the fighter. these are our first responders. they are there before the federal government responds to any emergency. i wanted to protect those programs in the federal government that helped fire departments and police departments fulfill their responsibilities to their population. i think that is critical. i think that is important. i was able to do that in h.r. 1. my amendment was passed with democratic and republican support to get those moneys back into those particular programs. because if you look across the there are a lot of cops and firefighters being laid off. shownable.kocon -- un koconscionable. i used to serve on homeland security and i know how critical

they are. a bottoms up approach to homeland security is the best approach. so, please help your police and firemen stay on the job. i tphknow those town buckets throughout the united states -- budgets are understood pressure like the federal budget. host: another question about the budget and i assume it is the 2012 proposal. jack asks does it incorporate further tax breaks for the wealthiest? guest: paul ryan's does because he would continue the tax cuts for the top 2% of the population. the two major reasons for the collapse of september 2 years ago, when president bush was still the president -- and there is blame to go around on both parties, i believe. there are a lot of democrats that protected wall street. but the two major causes are the tax cuts to those who don't need tax cuts who are making billions

of dollars. that is number one. that put us like $1.5 trillion into the deep because it was not paid for. everything that we have proposed on the democratic side we are finding a way to pay for without adding taxes to the burden. this president has not raised taxes. he cut small business taxes. he's done a tremendous job in the two years that he has been the president. now, we have extended those tax cuts if you will remember in the december compromise this past i year. i think the president needed to at that particular time to get this economy moving and he did it and i think the sooner we end those tax breaks -- and aware attacking royalties to the oil companies. there are a lot of corporations that pay no taxes.

host: kings port, tennessee, joanne, democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to say that i'm very government in our for the simple reason that the day he gave the republicans the tax break and everything, everything that i do has went up three-fold. my homeowners insurance. i'm going to lose my home in another six months. we have no social security raise. i live on less than $15,000 a year. i'm at my wit's end. everything i take goes for my home payments, my insurance, my medicine, medicare and all of that and i absolutely am to the point where i have passed my 80's and i voted and paid in social security all my life and he i think it is a shame that john boehner gets what he wants

and the president knuckled down and gave them what he wanted. he better watch because in 2012 i don't think he needs to even run and i voted for him. guest: thank you, joanne. you hang in there. we have to figure out some way to keep you in your home and other americans in your home. social security did not get the cost of living increase because of the formula, which is antiquated. democrats have voted to change it. we also provided in the recovery act the year before last the fact that we didn't get the increase. no president makes that decision. that is in the formula. we need to change the formula. i think it is almost unconscionable that we didn't have increases in social security. second, we lacked like we were not -- we looked like we were not going to get it.

democrats tried without the help of the senate in the house to provide a $250 check to cover that. i know what you are talking about. you are living on a fixed income. you are trying to pay your mortgage and put food on the table and this is the situation which many americans are in and that is kwhy the budget doesn't make sense because there are many people like that, not only seniors living on fixed income but folks below 65. host: the caller brought up the president's leadership in this and we had the head of the r.n.c. on the program and a lot of questions he asked was the president's role in the last week. here is what he had to seu. >> speaking of the president are you worried that he is going to emerge as the political winner as someone who has a strong leadership and grown up in the room going forward to 2012? >> i'm not worried he is going to come across as the political winner. i really think that if spending

issues are not put under tight reins and if we don't get some real sanity on that issue, i that we are all going to be losers. i think everyone will be a loser to the american people. that is the number one priority. i'm not really worried about whether the president will be seen as a winner or loser. in my mind i think he comes across as a loser in this debate in that he recently engaged after being, you know, doing his ncaa brackets on espn, jonas golfing. he is not engaged. i think that we all know the president has not been engaged in the budget debate until recently. guest: my personal opinion is america is the winner because of the agreement we came to last night. i think this is important to pick up. politics and the government is about the future and we want to protect our kids and grandchildren. we have to reduce the debt of the country and reduce the deficit and make tough

decisions. that is what we are paid for. that is the story of the future. so watch next week on the heavy issues particularly the 2012 budget. host: so the president's leadership? guest: i think the president held back in the beginning, this is not typical c.r. debate. i think that the president of the united states tried to bring the parties together. at one time he stood above t. i would like to tell him that we also have a congress, a democratic congress willis -- which is of his party and we should be working on the same page. but i think he didn't try to overwhelm the discussion. i think he tried to bring people together. that is what he should do. that is his job and the job of all of us to bring america together. the common good. i learned that at fordham university. i listened carefully. host: you said the same page. can you expand?

guest: we need to know what is going on. we don't broadcast it when the president sits behind closed with mr. reid and mr. boehner. the other folks become at the ranch or on this side have to be involved on what is happening and they can make a reasonable vote and not at the last hour find out what is happening. it was $2 billion of cuts last kn night and we didn't learn until we got to the floor what this $2 billion encompassed. now we are up to $70 billion in cuts. so they say you are closer to what some republicans wanted than you democrats started with. the only answer i have to that is compromise. this is the significance if you want to get a deal going. if you want america to be safe

and to have the cherry blossom festival today in washington you have to make sacrifices. i'm speaking of it lightly but it is a serious situation. host: we have about 15 more minutes with our guest. we have a government worker, barry. caller: i'm with the department of veterans affairs. i know you don't want to have a dialogue but can i ask one question so i know where to go? first of all, the defense figure in the budget? guest: yes. for the 2011 budget we did not cut defenses. caller: ok. guest: i'm not going to say that is going to happen in the 2012 budget but the immediate situation the answer is no, we did tphnot. caller: that is a pretty big

chunk of the budget. guest: yes, sir. caller: i think people don't realize how much that chunk is. guest: i think pull ryan said last week in the budget discussions about the 2012 budget the next budget that everything should be on the table and i couldn't agree with him more. caller: on social security, everybody concepts bringing up social security and worried about that. but it is going to be tight because of baby boomers but won't there be another spike after the baby bottomers d-- bottomers because families were having seven or eight children. people think that the spikes will last forever but that is going back the other way. i think people miss that point. host: let the guest respond. guest: let me respond to this. you are on target with social

security. it is a matter of spikes. the baby boomers are here moving more into entitlementleentitlem. more people are paying in the social security system and the fact is that social security is solvent to 2037. do not listen to anybody who is trying to frighten you that it will end two years from now. we need to make some changes. we want to extend the years of retirement or do this or that. we have done that once before. i believe there are other things and we should put it on the table as the deficit commission pointed out. everything should be on the table and we need to look at it. we can do this without making people's lives miss randall. we can do it without taking cuts because if you do it all too soon we will be back in the recession. host: another call from florida

on. john is a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a republican that grew up in an entirely democrat family so say a prayer for me. i understand the importance of the fiscal debate and i thought it was good, a little drawn out. but i had to add something in there. dragging abortion into the debate, i just don't think that was right. i think abortion is something between a woman and her god. and it embarrasses me to be a republican and have something like that dragged in there. i hope that somebody in congress will step up and introduce some legislation to where they can't tag abortion to a budget debate.

guest: john, thank you for your question. i think you have hit on a very sensitive issue. we are not only talking in the discussions about the budget, whether we're talking about 2011 or 2012, about abortion, which is a very personal kind of thing. i have always tried to reach common ground but i believe a woman has a right to control her own body in consultation with her family, the minister or rabbi or imam, whomever. there are many true believers in the republican party who believe that that should be on the agenda, whether we are talking about defense issues, talking about transportation issues, whether we are talking about educational issues. and they made this part and parcel. we call it a rider, you attach it to the budget discussion.

i don't think it had anyplace in it but i respect the right of people to feel the way they want and i have no right to try to impose what i think on that in such a personal issue. i hope that it doesn't stop us from reaching an agreement next wednesday or thursday when we take up and have the final resolution for the 2011 budget. i'm in total agreement with you. that is not a democrat or republican issue. we can rise above that and work out common ground solutions in the area of birth control and abortion. i'm more concerned about women's health. if you see where some of the cuts have come and what is being proposed, we are going directly to the major issue of a woman's health and we should not put that at jeopardy in order to get a balanced budget, which by the way mr. ryan's budget will not produce in 10 years.

host: a call on the independent li line. caller: i'm calming because i'm really getting tired of hearing about courage attached to paul ryan and other people who are taking on entitlements. it doesn't take currently to entitlements. it takes courage to address the issue of revenue that we are not getting from billionaires and millionaires. takes courage to take on corporations and stop giving incentives to ship jobs overseas. it takes courage to take on the corporatio corporations. this has to stop. we need more talk about the revenue and as much at least as we talk about the spending. spending cuts. i don't understand this. why democrats -- i used to be a democrat. i left when they extended the bush tax cut for two more years. i thought that is it, no line

was drawn in the sand for public options. i'm out. so i moved to the independent field. but i'm so tired of courage being attached it people like paul ryan. that is sad. guest: we have to be careful here. i understand where you are going and agree with a lot of what you said. but paul ryan is presenting an agenda to me that is very important for us to discuss. he may not have the ideas that you and i like. that is immaterial. that is what america is all about. when you say we had this compromise in december of last year and in that the president and democrats let you down, i can understand. i could appreciate that. i had to think twice before that vote also. but i had to think beyond the parameters of my party and i had to think -- the only parameters i should be work being is the common good and i think is the

right decision to have the president bring the country together when we had a terrible election in november, just last year. many people may criticize and say the reason why you had a terrible election is democrats didn't stand on principles they believe in. i think that is a debatable issue. that is not your issue. but i do believe that the president is trying to the best of his ability to work with a republican house of representatives, a democratic senate and without triangulation and without snuffing out one of them, trying to get to a situation that is reasonable. we need a reasonable debate on the budget of the united states and that means priorities. i think your priorities are probably closer to my priorities. but that doesn't mean we can demean or minimize ideas that come from the other side. i think there are great ideas that come out of your party.

i don't think it is necessarily courageous but i would say paul ryan is a great patriot. host: we have this comment about the 2012 budget. it with pass the senate or be acceptable to the president but it puts the burden on the democrats to present their own plan for dealing with the long-term deficit. the budget plan? it would be nice to review it? guest: we are going to place and we startedrd that process. the president introduced a budget at the start. someone would say that is a starting point. i think with the republican budget now voted out of committee by 22-15 we will take it up on the floor next week at the same time that we are dealing with the 2011 situation. so it will be an interesting double-header. one ticket will get you in to see both. and what happens in the it tkaebts will tell us about the

-- in these two debates. host: call from georgia. casey, government worker. do you do for the government? caller: i'm actually in the military. host: go ahead. caller: here is the situation that we have. we are out in the feld training. next thing we find out our wives call us telling us our paycheck has been cut in half. i can understand that the government will reimburse us. that is what we are hearing down the road, which is good and fine. the only problem is one of two problems. number one we have a lot of young new soldiers just getting married, just having their first children and they are on the restricted budget. is not like they can get extra jobs or income. the second issue is this. a lot of those young soldiers are going out and buying things they need for their family and

this and that. in the military you pretty much have to have reliable transportation. you have to meet times and places that you have be at. what is going to happen when they can't make payments on vehicles and we have to turn around and say you are going to get reimbursed. that is fine. is the government going to reimburse us? guest: democrats and republicans are one on this issue. we want to reduce the anxiety in families of military. i just got back from averages and i know -- from afghanistan and i know what you are talking about. so be assured that we are one in this and won't let you down and help in every possible which. the work we are doing with v.a. when soldiers come back to make sure they are not just falling through the cracks, i have done work on traumatic brain injury which is a very important situation.

we don't want any research held up or treatment held up because the democrats and republicans can't get together on a budget. that won't happen. host: augusta, maine, is next. republican lane. dave. caller: good morning. my question this morning is what happened to the old promise of transparency in the obama administration. he was going to put the debates on c-span. every big budget debate that has happened is behind closed doors. we have not heard or seen anything. as far as abortion being pulled into this budget debate, i think that abortion, whether you believe it should be the right a woman or doctor or her god or whoever, why is it any other american's responsibility to fund that which they don't believe in? i don't believe --

host: we will have to leave it there. guest: believe me, john. since i have been in the congress -- and i told you, the audience, that i believe in a woman's right to control her own body. i never voted for one dime for federal money to go to abortions. i think that we settled that in the health reform act. i think that we did so. and there are people who are very strong pro-life democrats who believe as i believed that we came to a very good solution. and that is to reaffirm the hyde phaefplt and that there is -- amendment that there is no money going directly for any abortion from the taxpayers. and second of all with planned parenthood where no federal money goes to planned parenth d parenthood. to have somebody criticize

phrpbd parenthood because they get x amount of dollars, $400 million, and many of the good even if you don't like abortion or don't want abortion -- nobody likes abortion -- to condemn that organization and not allow because they do so much good work on women's health issues, i didn't think that was fair. what are we trying to do? we are trying to throw away the after-birth. we can come to common agreement on these. if we're true believers and nobody else has the answer but yourself we are never going to have an answer and it will always be in trying to find solutions to different matters that affect the government and which affect our people. i want to go for the common ground. is there a common ground on this? for me there is. host: with the time we have left tell us what we should expect

next would not with the c.r. we will see some type of legislation monday? guest: i would believe we will have that when we go become tuesday we will have the legislation probably in our hands by wednesday. whether we vote on it wednesday or thursday is another issue. we will have a vote, we are expected to have a vote up and down and debate first of all on the 2012 budget. regardless of what happened to 2011, we will have a vote up or down on the 2012 budget next week. then, of course, when we come back from spring when we are off for a little while we will come back and deal with the debt ceiling. so this is a triple header. we have to watch the issues. they are very important. we want to see the give and take and compromise. that is what government is all about, compromise. unless you have been in that experience, kpre mice is different -- compromise is different when you work in

preuft sector job. and let's hope that we continue to grow the economy, increase private sector jobs and now of course what we have to do is watch the number of public sector jobs that we are losing. because that is effect being that 8 -- affecting that 8.8% employment. governments are facing terrible decisions out there and priorities are important. host: you expect passage of the 2012 by the house republicans next week? guest: i think they will have enough votes to do that. certainly very few democrats will join with them. it will not be the budget that the senate is going to vote on. you need 60 votes to sneeze over there. and the president is not going to accept that budget at all. will it be the beginning of discussions or will it be the beginning of the end to collapse the government for the second time? host: we will try to squeeze in one minister caller.

linda, democrat from michigan. caller: i just have a comment. we are talking about having enough money to run everything. part of the problem is we are throwing welfare at the well off in corporate america. we are giving them money that is not tagged to other jobs or anything else. we are expediting our own demise. use that and send it overseas and we lose more jobs. why are we giving money to people who are not doing anything for us? guest: i couldn't agree with you more. many of the corporations are offshore. you saw the story about g.e. that pays very little federal taxes yet it is one of the big corporations of america. there are reasons why they have done, that some valid, some not valid. i don't believe in offshoring. i believe we should bring that money back in america. if somebody doesn't pay taxes on your street you wind up and the rest of the folks in your town

make up for their differences. this is not only an expenditure budget we are talking about. this is a revenue section. i don't wish to imply that we're going to raise taxes because we haven't raised taxes sense obama has been the president. but you need to look at extending tax cuts to those people who don't simply need it. those making offense $500,000 or $1 million. that is unconscionable when you are trying to make ends meet. so, i would agree with you. and i think that oil royalties fit in that category as well. i think that is something that we need to look at. farm subsidies are on the table. many republicans want to deal with that. the question is will the leadership let us deal with that. you will see what unfolds. host: representative bill pascrell a member of the budget committee. thank you for your time. we will continue our

conversation with representative adam kinzinger a member of the energy and commerce committee. we will be right become. >> let's meet one of our top winners in the student cam competition. they had to address an issue, event or topic that helped them better understand the role of the federal government. we go to knoxville, tennessee with suzanna is an eighth grader. >> hi. >> your video addressed grenade energy. why did you pick that topic? >> we have narrowed it down to several topics within the guidelines and it is one we felt strongest about because the laboratory is close to us. >> do you use turn energy in the home? >> we have no real sources.

i do have some uncles that have. we are on the lookout for ways to be more prudent. >> where in your community do you see alternative energy being used? >> you see hybrid cars and now in scores energy star appliances and my aunt and uncle that live in nashville they have a house similar to houses on their own and it has all sorts of energy things. i found about that while doing the project and that shows environmental responsibility. >> you spoke with several environmental research organizations. what are they doing? >> i learned how i could be more energy efficient and they are working to find out ways that the everyday person can like the zebra alliance houses

they find out things for everyday houses for things that you can use every day. also biofuels. we are finding out more about biofuels and how to use them. i think that is really important. >> what suggestions do you have for others to help conserve energy? >> i think there are several things you can do. you can go to grocery stores that are not energy ever and they have the everyday lit bulbs and it makes more sense to get the others and biofuels and fouls. and also turning off lights when you leave a room and turn down the heat in your house because there is money but it is energy

being saved. those are ways we can save energy. >> what should people come away with after having watched green money? >> i hope you come away with three things. see how important green energy really is. two, i want them to know how much time, money and research is being put into finding grenade insurance. and, three, i want them to know how they can be more energy efficient. >> congratulations and thank you. >> thank you. >> let's look at a portion of her documentary, grown money. >> the scientists don't just research vehicles. they research appliances and homes like yours. they do it at the oak ridge national laboratory and the zebra alliance. >> zebra alliance was founded to merge the marketplace with the

scientific realm. the national laboratory in oak ridge in your back yard at your middle s school performs all sorts of science and there is a building technology division there that studies better ways it build more energy ever ways to build. the lab itself doesn't build. it only studies sections of buildings. lab wanted to bring various technologies that it was study being in the laboratory and bring them together and build whole houses. so, it needed a private partner with the money to build and workforce to build because the lab was founded only to resea h research. see the entire video at studentcam.org. you can continue the organization at facebook and

twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue our conversation with representative adam kinzinger a deputy republican whip and member of the energy and commerce committee. he is a republican serving illinois. welcome. guest: good to be here. host: there is a lien in the "washington post" that -- line in the "washington post" that says it is unclear how widespread such unhappiness will be inside the g.o.p. and this is to the number that was eventually reached yesterday. guest: yes. there may be people that are not happy with the number. i think if you really look at are we were two months ago to where we were last night, actually three months i was 30 feet from the president who said we are going to have a spending freeze in washington like that was some kind of refuse lugs any big deal. in just a few months we have cut $39 billion. you put that over 10 years that is a half trillion.

this is a very serious, the largest cut since world war ii. but this is the very beginning of what the american people sent us here to do. they want us to reduce the size of federal government and this is the first step. we have many more steps to go. host: the next step would be? guest: we will have the 2012 budget well wrestle with. paul ryan introduced his budget which i think is a very aggressive and bold and right machine for where we need to go from here. it cuts trillions. we will go from talking about a $39 billion cut to talking trillions. i think that the place we need to be is there because in the further today we spend something like $200 billion a year just in interest payments on the debt. that means $200 billion of taxes collecting from the american people goes to pay interest. wasted. if you max out your credit card you understand that. in 10 years this could be close

to $1 trillion. in is deadly serious and something we should have been doing 10 years ago. both sides are to the blame but is time to turn a new leaf. i think we did the first part of that. as long as i'm going to be in politics, who knows, this will be the issue. host: the previous guest had concerns about the numbers as far as the budget. he said the c.b.o. had concerns about how the numbers added up you are confident? guest: from the pwhrup perspective is it exactly going to be $5 trillion or $6 trillion i don't know. but when you compare it to the president's budget and what he has shown, more and more debt, doubt and despair and you look paul ryan's very bold plan of saying the american families have had to tighten their belt and it is time washington does the same thing. they even talk about what we need to do with medicaid, how to

strengthen and preserve medicare. he has a plan to preserve it. that is very bold and risky but it is the right thing to do. host: for medicare and social security and medicaid, if mr. ryan's plan is agreed on what do they look like? and for those that receiver -- receive the check what does it mean? guest: if you are 55 and older you are fine. everything you have planned on is as it is. if you are younger it is a premium support machine. basically what we have in congress. you will be able to choose from a variety of plans and have government support to help you pay for it. if you have a greater deal of problems or if you have less means, don't have a great retirement you get more help. in six years medicare is broke. out of money. we have to do something. if we continue to say we will press with the status quo it will come up and bite us.

host: is the plan only tied to cuts in spending or the assumption of improved economy? guest: as far as what? host: sustainability of how to fund the cuts if you offer assistance. guest: no, when you talk about how we will offer assistance that is tied it a person's personal means so their health or personal savings and things. host: the debt limit, should it be raised? guest: i'm not there yet. the reality is we are on a trajectory to blow through the debt ceiling. but i understand it is one we were put on the last if you years and the republican president, democratic president, democrat controlled congress that spent more money than we had. if we get to where we're bumping up against the debt ceiling which we will soon -- host: july. guest: yes. need something big in return. it is hard to tell what will be that point. i think it is important to say

we have basically taken over a bankrupt business. america is not bankrupt but this is an analogy. we are taking other a bankrupt business and we are responsible for the debt. but as the new people we have to do everything we can to change the way we are doing business, to cut up the credit cards. host: when you say something in return what do you mean? . when you talk about the budget, if we continue doing business as usual, we are going to raise the debt ceiling again and tkpwaeagd one day we will have a debt crisis. this is the most predictable economic disaster in the future that we are looking a. if somebody were to be able to predict 2008, some did, some were able to but nobody listened. we are predicting that if we continue on this path to debt, doubt and despair we would have a real debt crisis and we have to be serious about righting that, changing that trajectory. this is one opportunity. host: unanimity with house

republicans and freshmen and those elected by the tea party to not raise the debt ceiling? guest: i don't want to speak for everybody else. one thing that is obvious while we are united in purpose we come -- the freshman party is from various backgrounds but we are united in what we have to do in cutting spending. tactics vary some. some want to do it this way or that way. but it is a united class. we know where we need to go and as this discussion develops you will see it develop and everybody is kind of breathing a sigh of relief but we're getting ready for more budget discussions. unfortunately for the last few years we have been spending and spending and the economy collapsed. that is coupled with it. that puts us in a serious situation. host: but you will bring them on board as a whip? guest: we will be part of the process. being a whip doesn't prevent you from having your own thoughts able to come up with

your own. host: our guest is with us until 9:30 to talk about economics. if you want to ask questions 202-737-0001 for republicans -- if you are a government worker because we are getting your thoughts this morning 202-626-0184. and send e-mails and tweets. caller: are you there? host: go ahead. caller:, to get a better perspective. i do not understand -- hello?

i am sorry. i like to put this into a better perspective and a tow the rep and the rest of the country -- and tell the representative that what he represents is 56% of 0.5% of 0.3%. boehner said he needed the majority of the majority. he could have passed clean the senior with a majority of democrats and a minority of the republicans. his caucus would not let him do that. this man here did not get elected with 100% of the people in his district. i bet he got 50%-55% of those in his district.

that may have been 150,000 people. when we are talking about here are 40-50 representatives representing 2% of the population of the united states holding this country hostage. that is what he did. guest: i appreciate your input. no one is holding the country hostage. the american people spoke very, very loud and clear. i got 57.5% in my district because people stood up and said they were not happy with the status quo. it is a bipartisan dissatisfaction. there were not happy with how republicans or democrats were running the place. to come here and go from three months ago saying we were going to have a spending freeze come well we understand there checkbook and our balance is a

mess. to turn this into a $39 billion reduction, the largest since world war ii is very, very significant. look. we have a 0.5% of 0.3% of government. we are the minority party. it is in some people's minds that the republicans of taken over washington. it was a very big statement taking over the house like we did, but we still have to deal with the senate and the president. host: watertown, wisconsin, on the republican line. caller: the morning. i would like to thank you, c- span, for the people that you have on the air. my thought is simply that the

government is bigger than the businesses that supply the money. with that being said, there is not a business that i am aware of that has all of the high- paying and health insurance at the government pays this. our country, the people in this, we need to have a fair share. if we do not have businesses out there, we do not have a country. guest: i appreciate the statement and the question. i know watertown, wisconsin, very well. i was a pilot in the wisconsin air guard. i think your statement about the share of the economy of the federal government versus the private sector is accurate.

we have seen over the last couple of years the government grow at a record pace. the good discretionary spending, just about 12% or 15% of the budget. it has grown 80% if we include stimulus dollars. if we look at the federal government as a whole, it is increased spending 20%. the average american family has had to tighten their belts. we know we are in hard economic times. the average american family has had to have tough conversations around the dinner table figuring out where they can cut expenses, how they can balance their sheets, and what they need to do to make it for these times. that is what we are trying to do in washington, d.c. the american people have had to reduce expenses and we need to do the same thing. a 20% increase in federal expenditures in the last two years when americans have to tighten their belts is irresponsible. it is time that washington begins tell you the truth.

we have not been telling you the truth. we need fact-based discussions, are real discussions. that is what i am here today to have. host: a high on the independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. of the $14 trillion deficit that we have, a lot of that is what is owed it to social security. people talk about we are going to do this and that with social security, but the bottom line is social security covers a lot more people in retirement than the federal government retirement plan which has $9 trillion. why not combine the two and we will write off that $10 trillion? the reason i say that is because during the clinton years, they said we had the deficit paid off and we were in the surplus, but the bottom line is that they never paid down the $10 trillion that they owe to social security.

ands just write it off combine the two. then congress will have the moral right to try to create this. if they do not do this, they should leave social security alone. thank you. guest: i appreciate your input. when it comes to social security, we need to figure out the long run. we of the big three entitlements, areas of mandatory spending where we are spending a lot of money which eclipses defense spending in discretionary spending. eclipses them combined. medicaid, medicare, social security, and interest on the debt. these are mandatory expenditures and make up trillions of dollars. medicaid and medicare are the biggest problems when you look into the future of our unfunded liabilities and run this country is going, those of the two biggest problems. you know that health care is increasing about 6% per year. that includes the price of

medicare. in how many cases they reduce the payments to doctors to control those costs, but that gets doctors out of the business of providing health care. it hurts quality. this is the battle we are up against. premier social security perspective, both sides need to come together on this issue. promises made needed to be promises kept. we have an obligation to those in are nearing retirement to make sure that they stay on the plan as is. in the long term, people my generation and younger, we need to learn how to preserve this to not break the bank. that is a fact-based conversation, again, that both sides have to have. here in washington, d.c., we are so eager to go against the other side, but at some point these entitlement spending is one issue where we can have a real discussion.

host: philadelphia, pa., on our line for government workers. caller: good morning. i am a federal employee. i am very, very tired of the pitting against your average citizen against the federal employee especially when it comes to our salary. i am finding it very hard to figure out -- it sounds like it is coming from the republican majority party. i am trying to figure out how do you just five doing this when the majority of hard-working federal employees make between $15,000 and $90,000 and the majority of congress to do not need to justify their position make between $200,000? you're not putting yourself on the line when it comes to your

salary. what i am saying is that i am very, very sick and tired of the getting -- pitting federal employees against private citizens. you do not ask us how it is that we can help with the over spending or raise that we can cut certain things. we see things, too, and we want to help. do not start with our benefits and putting that out there as a pinata for the american public to make the decision off of. we still pay taxes, too. guest: i appreciate your input. i do not know whether we as federal benefits as a pinata or where we have attacked federal benefits and maybe you are mixing up a debate in different states. i agree. federal employees, in most cases, are extremely hard working and they serve their country. they're dedicated to their country.

it is unfortunate there are people going around attacking federal employees. i have not seen that. i think though is this. we have to make sure the federal and state work force -- and i come from the state of illinois which is very notorious for some of their difficulties in springfield, ill., and their refusal to deal with them. we have to make sure that the government is in line with its ability to spend money. i am not saying that there will be huge layoffs of the federal employees. maybe reducing the size of federal government, if needed, through attrition so that if people retire, we do not necessarily replace them or replace two retirees with one person. we have a responsibility with tax dollars to look at where those are being spent and make sure they are being spent most effectively. we are not demonizing people. if anyone is, that is unfortunate. host: an e-mail that says the

republicans have lost a great chance to improve things by insisting planned parenthood not be funded. the need to work on reducing military spending. why are we in 130 countries around the world? guest: great question. we will talk about this when it comes to the 2012 budget. when it comes to defense spending, and the military pilot. i still do that part time. military protection is the no. 1 job of the federal government. right now, defense spending is a smaller as a percentage of gdp than it has been in many, many years. that kind of concerns me a little bit. we have taken the sacred cows off the table and we are holding the defense department

accountable. secretary gates has talked about areas where there is redundancy and ways where we can get into the national defense budget. it exists. at the same time, we have a very serious situation. i was driving to work when i heard a plane hit the world trade center. i heard when it hit the pentagon and when it fell into pennsylvania then i knew we were at war. it was deadly serious. we went up against allocated and took out the taliban. we have not had a major terrorist attack in a long time. we need a very strong national defense and now we are fighting two kinds of wars, symmetric and asymmetric. a semester -- asymmetric in afghanistan and symmetric against china or russia that has equivalent equipment. two different types of wars.

host: said the afghanistan mission should continue forward or do you support pulling back by 2014? guest: i do not support a time line and i definitely do not support doing so publicly. 80% of what we are doing is the message that we send. when president bush moved troops into iraq, he said the message that not only are we not leaving that we are staying and putting more troops in. that turned the war on a dime. when you give an end game strategy, it is encouraging an enemy that has waited to wait longer. i do support what obama is doing otherwise. host: silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: if the government or a mortgage, we have only paid nine days of interest. on planned parenthood, most of their services are duplicated also in government spending and

abortion counseling. on social security, they are saying it is going to be two people paying for one. for every two parents, they need four kids. we do not have that goal. i will have to listen to your answers. guest: those are all very good points. if you look at where we are in the spending perspective, 40 cents of every $1 that we spend is borrowed money. if you are home and have a salary of a $40,000 per year, basically spending $60,000 per year. that is what we are doing and we are adding debt upon debt every year. every $1 -- of the for the sense that we borrow come a huge percent is from countries like china. if this was a mortgage, we would be way underwater right now.

we have a very hard time, so think of it this year of -- this way. we have the hardest time in the world even getting $39 billion in cuts. a small part of this deficit. we have a long ways to go with the fundamental restructuring or we will find ourselves in a debt crisis. we have to be very serious about this. i am very serious about this. host: "the washington post" talks about spending in the near future. the talk about the gang of six to reduce the budget and the deficit. one thing they've bring up is that they are working off of a blueprint that the fiscal commission that was convened by president obama with erskine bowles. should that be followed? guest: it is being followed by paul ryan. it is not 100%, but it goes into the fundamental reform even in

the entitlement areas that the ryan budget does. that shows the difference in how serious we are now dead how the democrats, and frankly, republicans in the past have been. they share part of the blame, too. host: and that should be described as less centrist. guest: the president had an opportunity to lead. he could have stood up, come out with the fiscal commission's recommendations, asked the leaders in congress to adopt them. he could have pushed and he has not. his own budget does not even address entitlements of all. he needs to lead on this issue, as well. host: new hampshire for our guest adam kinzinger. caller: i would do think you're just for your service and what you have done serving in the military. i appreciate that very much. i have got to say that the fact

is truth is what we need far more of in this country. we do not have the military budgeting expenses which are not part of the federal budget. they are not there. again, decisions with regards to military spending are being made in secret, as usual. as a concerned u.s. citizen, i really need people to do this in a public forum. guest: let me say that i think you're slightly mistaken. the military budget is very much public. you may be talking about when there is an emergency supplemental that comes up to cover war costs. that is one thing. for the military budget, that is very much public, on the books, in the record.

in view click example. is in the neighborhood of $3.50 trillion. discretionary spending is about $666 billion which is what we are talking about when we talk about the $39 billion which is really $78 billion cutting, the president wanted. the republicans have saved the american taxpayers $78 billion because it is not $78 billion less than what the president put forward in his budget request. keep in mind that we are here because no budget was passed when democrats had the majority. the rest of the money come over $2.20 trillion, is on mandatory spending, medicare, medicaid, social security, and interest payments among them. the big problem is the mandatory spending peace and will only grow. host: off of twitter, what about doing something to increase the tax base? is that too hard for you to do?

guest: when we talk about fundamental tax reform, that is one thing we look at. there are a lot of things on the table with tax reform and we need to take people's ideas. again, this is another idea where read to have a fact based discussion and start telling people the truth. host: illinois on the republican line. caller: mike, it has to do with planned parenthood. i notice the democratic lead the leadership came out and talked about how the republicans wanted to defraud women's health. i was wondering if he could propose a deal where the democrats can put like 10% of their salary and they can donate 10% of their tax refund to planned parenthood there really concerned about finding it. that is my comments. guest: i will be driving pretty

close to bolingbrook little later today. i hope the weather is good. on the planned parenthood thing in general, one thing we have to do is take a fundamental look at where the government is spending money, where did not need the spending money. that is why the planned parenthood thing was here. aware of their expenditures that there does not need to be? it is a controversial issue and one that will be coming up again. it is part of the $39 billion package and there will be an up or down vote in the senate as far as planned parenthood does host:. host: st. louis, missouri, on our line for federal employees. caller: i am a retired federal employee. federal civil servants did not get a raise for three years. not only that, but we have to pay income tax on our social security and our retirement

income. people think the retirees do not pay taxes, but we do. as a federal employee, i supported the military all of my career. whenever you go to war, we were deployed. i do not think it is fair for people to continue to bash federal employees and you have to work 30 years in order to get a retirement. you did not get it if you work two days. guest: it is a very good point. again, we are back at people bashing federal employees. i have not seen that happening. if it has come that is unfortunate to bash the employees. what you may see is an attempt to say let's restructure and realign federal government and make it size appropriate for what the economy is looking like.

another point you make is i have been deployed overseas and a lot of civilian federal employees played a strong role in federal defense. i thank you for that and the role that you played. host: we is a restructure, give an example. guest: it is not like what we are seeing in the right and the 2012 budget. it is the ability to think outside the box. how can we put the government in line with what the taxes look like? the government has way overstaffed. we deal with the epa every day on the energy and commerce committee. i talked to many factors in the 11th district and they said they have put so many burdensome regulations on them and it delays a product to market by one year. european competitors have already superseded that and we have lost it. it pushes them overseas. one of the other things is that we passed the energy tax prevention act out of the house

which prevented the epa from going outside and implementing a cap and trade policy. that is with the president said in 2008 that a cap and trade policy would cause energy prices to necessarily skyrocket. the last thing in the world our economy and families need is skyrocketing energy. host: wasn't the epa a discussion of this week? guest: it was dropped from the final bill, but we will see. it was part of negotiations. when you go to the table, both sides have your position. host: what did deal with the? guest: defunded parts of the epa. caller: wasilla, alaska. caller: i was going to comments about the size of government. i am a retired teacher and going

on social security at the end of the month. for several years now, the retirement funds in alaska have been underfunded. that includes the state retirement fund and the state legislature here is putting in over $1 billion per year into the state retirement fund. they are pretty quiet about it. i have been watching them on c- span. there are too many state workers and to many federal workers. that is my comment for today. it is costing us a lot of money for people to retire. guest: thank you for your statement. it is pretty early in alaska, said thank you for watching. the whole process is not to say that anyone is bad and employees

of the government are not bad. that is not the case. they're very good people. we have to come as responsible legislators -- it would have been easy to come to washington, d.c., to say i will vote against spending cuts because i go back and tell people i increased their spending. that is an easy thing to do, but that is not leadership. that is not why my district sent me here. they sent me here to make tough decisions because right now there is a threat. if you have an iphone or a picture of your kids anywhere from the take a look at that picture right now. ask yourself what is this country going to look like when they are adults? will we be in better shape or worse shape? if you are at all concerned that we are going to leave our kids a country that is in worse shape than today, we would be the first generation in american history to leave the country worse off. this needs to be the call of our

time to make sure that does not happen. host: representative bachmann and others voted against the one week measure. how does that bode for next week's about? how does that bode for future debate in the senate? guest: i think it bodes well. we had one where 54 republicans broke ranks. the key to keep in mind they are not breaking ranks because there are disagreements. there was widespread agreement among the republican party and among many democrats that we have to reduce the size of government and cut spending. we may disagree a little bit on tactics about how to get there. this is a multiples approach to get to that point. frankly, we did not lose that many people. we picked up a lot of democrats. we will get to a point where i think this $78 billion cut from what the president requested is a win for the american people.

host: modesto, calif., on the democratic line. you are on with adam kinzinger. caller: in 2004, and i paid two under $40,000 in taxes, $180,000 federal, 60,000 in state -- $240,000 in federal. my neighbor down the street made about the same money but he only paid about $30,000. in the last 10 years, he has received over $1 million in tax breaks, so can you tell me what kind of job he produced? he was a retired gentleman, does not drive a fancy car or anything, but you tell me what kind of jobs he produced with that $1 million you gave him a. in 2002, my insurance premiums $160000 and now it's over for my family of 4.

if you are going to tackle anything, you have to tackle health care. what is your plan to reduce the health care costs? what is your plan? guest: the good thing is i am on the committee that deals with health care. your first question about what kind of jobs if your neighbor produced, i would need more detail. i do not know what he does for a living. when it comes to insurance and health-care costs, look. i tell you what did not happen. when obamacare passed or the affordable health care reform passed, there were many that expected this should be miraculously hill. we all agree on the end goal, i think. republicans want people with pre-existing conditions to be covered. democrats want people to pre- existing conditions to be covered. a young person staying on the parent's plan until 26 was a

republican idea. the question is how to get there. obamacare, i believe, in essence wrote that down and it did not matter how we got there and says if there is an explosion in costs that the federal government will just write a check. ladies and gentlemen, the government cannot write any more tracks. we have kicked the can down the road on expenses and there is no more road left. we are at a serious point to reduce costs. what we need to do -- ok. health insurance. there are a lot of terrible things going on from the lack of responsiveness, claims being denied. what is the best way to fix that? open the doors and allow other health insurance companies to compete against each other. right now, if you want to buy a car insurance, you will see any number of car insurance companies advertising for your business on television. why can we not do that with health insurance? if you have a bad experience,

you shop around and get a different one. that will cause the first company to look at what they need to do to get their act in gear and quit treating people wrong. the other thing is a very serious problem. we needed to have lawsuit abuse reform. that will allow doctors to practice medicine between themselves and their patients in a personal way. host: 5 more minutes with our guest. on the republican line from michigan. caller: ryan says we have to cut all these programs and entitlements. social security is not an entitlement. the government has not put one at net go into that. my employer put money in there and i put money in there. medicaid and medicare, if you cut those, why do not cut farm

subsidies which are not keeping food prices lower, gas and oil subsidies which are not keeping gas prices lower? you know? also on coal subsidies. are they keeping gold prices lower? -- coal prices lower? no. you have trillions of dollars in social security, so why can we not take whatever money you save and put it in there. guest: if you're 55 and older and you are worried about your plan changing, rest assured it will not. if you're 55 and older right now, you can be really happy because you do not have to change your plan. the problem is for younger people. on the trajectory we are on a, they will go broke and there will be no more money.

we would to strengthen and preserve social security and medicare for the long run. if you are over 55, you do not have to worry. social security -- here is one thing. when social security was created, the average life expectancy was 63. that was a pretty decent deal for the government because they ended up collecting more than they paid out. now with a population that lives a lot longer, which is a great thing, and we have baby boomers retiring in a far record pace and we have skyrocketing health- care costs, there is a point at which it becomes unsustainable. we are ensuring that we make changes for younger generations to make that sustainable in the long run. host: raising the age? guest: social security is an area where both sides need to work together. that is probably the easiest one to solve for younger generations, because it is a formula or whatever.

we have to figure out what the least politically toxic way to do that is between republicans and democrats. we will have to see. there is any number of things, but to step out on this issue and say i support this or do not support this before the bipartisan discussions are really happened is not the right thing to do. host: last call from atlanta, ga., on our line for federal workers. caller: thank you for your service to the air force and the national guard. that is a great thing to do. i am a veteran myself. my question has to do with the younger group and working across the aisle. what is your long-term go as far as defense spending. in national priority. i want to know how you feel about that being an international priority and how you plan to deal with the two types of fighting with the symmetric and asymmetrical and

how they are both a concern for national defense and whether or not our missions in the future will be more broad or localized? guest: that is a great set of questions and we could talk about those four hours. first of all, thank you for your service. you understand when i say that it is an honor to do the job. when i still put on the uniform, i am tickled with pride to do that. as we look forward with the defense spending, we need to encourage our partners in nato and allies to spend more on defense as well. they have got to share the burden of responsibility for securing the world also. we cannot be the world's police. we cannot be the world military. i agree with that. at the same time, having a very strong, powerful military gives us the ability in many cases to defend ourselves, to defend national interests and do so without going to war. in many cases, the nearest red

has changed people's minds. but -- the nearest threat has changed people's minds. i am not willing to see the united states lose its position as a world leader. the u.s. being the leader of the world is a good thing for americans and for the world in general. host: rep. adam kinzinger, thank you for your time today. we continue on the last 20 minutes or so to get your thoughts on the congress and the white house avoiding a government shutdown. if you want to start calling in and making your comments, the numbers are on your screen. we will take a look at the week's news in political cartoons.

klaxon this weekend on american history tv come and look at at the coke president lincoln was wearing the evening he was assassinated. from oral history, working on the nixon white house and behind-the-scenes efforts on school desegregation. from detroit, hear from the descendants of slaves who traveled the underground railroad. it simply weekend schedule on c- span.org/history and you can get our schedules e-mail to you. >> this weekend on a booktv, the co-authors on "why obamacare is wrong for america" presenting

their criticisms. presenting 3 alternate histories, the jfk administration that never was, robert kennedy's presidency, and the reelection of gerald ford and at the feet of ronald reagan. he is interviewed by ted koppel. also this weekend, live coverage from the annapolis boat festival with panels on bork and the citizen scientists, race, and more. look for the complete schedule on booktv.org. >> policies ban on twitter. the fastest way to get programming updates as well as links to events. you can get links to our washington journal" guest. from book tv, american history, and more. get started at twitter.com/c span.

host: in our last 20 minutes, we will get your thoughts on the congress in the white house avoiding a government shutdown. the numbers will be on your screen if you want to weigh in. you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. on the republican line, james you are a first. good morning. caller: i wanted to try to get in when he was on. he brought the point of taking out a picture of your family and thinking about what their future will be. within the next 10 years, they will be wearing silk and talking chinese. host: augusta, ga., a government worker. what do you do for the government? pauline, are you there? one more chance. next to columbus, ohio, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, with all of these

billion dollar tax cuts and they are talking about $1 trillion, that means jobs lost. that means less revenue. if you on a beauty shop, barber shop, or whatever small business, mom-and-pop shop, you will not get your money and your business will suffer. these people pay taxes. we need to keep the money rolling in. the mean spiritedness of the republicans, i just cannot believe it. they would rather have an old lady miss her meals on wheels than to raise the rich man's taxes 1% or 2% more. these capitalists, industrialists come i have not heard them speak one word on their behalf. they ship their jobs overseas. i just do not understand their mean hardness and all of these democrats switching over to the republicans -- their mean

heartedness. host: ryland, your next. -- rhode island. caller: thank you for taking my call. i voted republican for the first time in my life this year. i want to say something. they talk about mean heartedness. let's address some facts. the troops not getting paid. the president refusing to include our troops in the executive order and he decided to protect his paycheck and the pay of congress. he refused to protect the troops and threatened to veto. as to jobs, this administration is refusing to provide help to americans who want to create businesses including veterans. everything they do and have it

people's ability to create jobs. i see it first hand on a daily basis. i used to be a bleeding heart liberal democrat. i was a naive a fool. who appointed a man that demands corporate welfare? they want more cheaper foreign labor. and was not a republican. it was barack obama who i voted for and i regret now. host: orlando, florida. republican line. caller: how're you today? i have a few questions that basically yes/no. as it to government to employees, do they pay for their health care benefits? host: i am not one, so i do not want to answer. i do not know if i can do justice answering your questions. what is your point? caller: if they pay for health

care work benefits and do not care to -- contribute to pension funds, those are a large drain on the money. i would like to know the reasoning behind that and why it is being done if it is, in fact, being done. host: hopefully you will listen to us and someone can call in on the line that we have set aside for government workers -- 202- 628-0184. you can maybe learn a lot better from them than you would for me. host: san antonio, texas. your next. good morning. go ahead. caller: your rep that was their previously said it to look at our children. i have a 9 month old and i do look at my child. you know what happens? the republicans holding up on these budgets, they will sit and

give more cuts to the wealthy and it will be the poor than continue to suffer. i am middle class america. i am getting killed in taxes. marc rich counterparts and are making over $100,000 per year are doing pretty well because they do not have to pay that much in taxes. what bothers me how they want to say that we want no government, little government, but then when you tell me that you're going to hold up the budget because the planned parenthood is a big issue? it boggles me. they want -- they do not want big government but only when it favors the oil companies and it does not favor americans. americans need to start reading. they need to start watching other things than fox news. but information in books and americans will not use it. host: off of twitter, the problem with us is we said the

problems to the d.c. and they grow in size and effective solutions and we do not solve them. we talked about the debt ceiling during certain aspects of our program this morning. this is from "the washington journal." as of thursday, $14 trillion in debt. annapolis, maryland. jack on our republic . caller: i am a republican, but i am very disappointed. i thought they would come in and make some very valid cuts. they are attacking only the middle class people. that is all they are doing. host: what would ballot cuts be to you? caller: stopped sending money

to israel and stopped spending money on affirmative action. i look at some of these contacts that the politically collected -- politically motivated fat cats have. as far as i can say, the republicans right now would have everyone working for minimum wage with no benefits. this will destroy the united states of america. by the way, someone asked if the federal employees' pay for their health care. yes, they certainly do. i am a retired employee and they do pay for it. they pay for their pension. these people think we are getting entitlements, but we give back the money we got from the government. host: the annapolis boat festival is this weekend and will be covered on our sister network -- the annapolis boat festival -- book festival. springfield, vt., go ahead. scott on the independent line. caller: i have a social security

question. my problem is you have hard- working people working for their social security and have paid in late since they were 18 years old. and we have social security disability. some of these people are getting these disabilities social security and they have not paid anything in. i know of two people that hardly worked a day in their lives. the have collected welfare and now they are on social security disability. why can they not take something like that and look at the people who have paid in to the social security programs? why can they not do that? that is my question. i just quite do not understand it. i know them both and they are both capable of working, but they are getting social security disability for mental problems. what is wrong with the system? host: fredericksburg, va., on

our line for government workers. caller: good morning. i am a retired federal worker and a democrat. yes, we pay for our health care. for the last 10 years, they have been going up every year. so have our co-pays. at that my time in -- i put my time in, but my check is decreasing. the republicans have excellent talking points. we want to get the budget in order. in 2006 and 2008 when the democrats were put in, or the republicans there to just say no? they did not even try to help. they did not even try to help with health care. they know what was needed in america the day in had nothing but talking points and slogans. most of the republicans are either stupid or blind.

host: from the misery on the republican line. -- missouri. caller: i am a republican, but this is just a joke. what they are doing is not redistributing to each according to a lack of his needs like a bunch of dyslexic marxists. paul ryan's budget is based on lies and fallacies. add clams the housing market in 2015 is projected to be what it was in 2006. no one knows what it will be, but the first housing crash was not enough. that is one way to inflate the revenues. in 2020 to come at projects below 3% unemployment which has not happened in the last 50 years. that is just insane to claim that. host: on "newsmakers," tomorrow

at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., reince pribus talking to our reporters including donald trump and whether he is credible as a presidential candidate. >> is donald trump a credible republican presidential candidate? >> i do not know if he is in the field or not. >> should he decide to run? >> all of these guys are credible. they all have a different angle and different viewpoints that they will articulate. i think it will be up to the voters. i have to make sure that we do when we can do to get them across the finish line. >> is a good for debate have eight potential candidates talking so much about this president being an american citizen? is the further debate good for the party? >> that is up to the primary voters. we will have differing opinions

and a lot of different groups choosing the different candidates and they will talk about different things at different times. it is up to the primary voters. host: rince priebus, the head of the rnc, tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. florida on the democratic line. are you there? caller: good morning. how are you doing? one, i have been paying into social security all of my life from what i was 12 years old until now. the reason i want to make a couple of statements is because as of now, i am still paying taxes as a social security employees. i worked for the state all my life. working as a state employee, i had co-workers who had been killed on the job. no one ever mentions this. when we hear about this, it

sounds like nobody in the state is working and that we did not deserve a track. someone needs to -- deserve a check. we have a government that is all crossed up. this man needs to go somewhere and find out what the state is all about. he is a rich man and does not understand we need to work for a living. we also need to look at the fact that in the social security, we have people who are coming in from foreign countries who are receiving social security. i doubt seriously they have been working more than one year or so. those things should also be evaluated. host: auburn, calif., on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. yesterday, we took the first positive step in many, many years to getting our country back.

our government has been going beyond its means, like many americans, for many, many years. the government has been spending like many of the homeowners who lost their homes. they lived beyond their means and then they could not pay their bills. yesterday was one step to the road to recovery. i also heard earlier about how mean-spirited the republicans are. we all need to get our house in order. the democrats yesterday just blasted the republicans. there are going to kill people left and right for this, that, and any other reason. who are the mean-spirited people in this country? democrats. host: ohio up next on the democratic line. tim, go ahead.

caller: i wanted to get a hold of the congressman earlier sense he was on the energy -- since he was on the energy-commerce committee. they have revenues that used to pay subsidies to go out on federal land and they do not have too many more. as far as subsidies, they were first put in place when the industry first began. i do not think they need our help anymore. it took almost $20 billion and paid no taxes and actually got a refund check from the taxpayers? then they want to cut programs that help the poorest? that is ridiculous. we need to cut things, but you need to make the pain felt all the way through. people need to pay their taxes at the top just as well as i do and i only made $20,000 and i paid more taxes than exxonmobil. is a disgrace. host: florida on our republican

line. caller: i am disappointed in this legislation. first of all, president obama said that he would not go any further than $40 billion so we only went to $39 billion. he said he would go up to $40 billion. if we did not need those employees before hand, why do we need them now? i am totally disgusted in the leadership of congress and boehner. only 28 of the new republicans voted against this. we need more of them. it is disgusting that only $73 billion really got reduced on this thing and not the trillions of dollars. i think we need to have a new coffer, and you gabble-holder.

host: kansas city, missouri, on our government workers line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have worked for the government for 35 years and i have given a great service to the united states. the way to balance this budget and get out of these messes is it to bring our troops,. let's start taking care of our own instead of the whole world. who made us the world's keeper? this is what i do not understand. they want to fight over women's health issues. they want to fight over trivial things? let's take care of our elderly, sick, and those who need help. host: how were you preparing? caller: it was a scary week. this was the first time in my entire career that i ever faced this. thank goodness that i have a backup plan. i have a savings to take care of this if it happens. i am 17 months from retirement.

if this went through, it would affect my retirement which have paid for 35 years. my health insurance for my husband and i is up over $4 per month that we have to pay in addition -- up over $400 per month and in addition to our which go-- co-pays up and up and up. they do not save. host: what you do for the government? caller: i am in information technology specialist for the army corps of engineers. host: thank you for the input. republican line from new york. anthony, go ahead. caller: we need to get to the root of the problem. one of the questions i posed in my statement is that if you have assets in your name and you want

to give them to someone in need, we cannot have a right to withhold some of those assets from those who are acting irresponsibly or immorally in your view? you would not want to be subsidized behavior that goes counter to productive moral behavior which can lead to being financially ruined or broker. who would help the both of the which is what we're looking at in our government? why is it the responsible persons obligation to help someone who will run both of you? if the responsible person is expected to give, they should have a right to attach expectations from the receiver to fix their own lifestyle or behavior for the communities benefit. host: we appreciate all the a but this morning during the conversation. tomorrow, we will follow along a similar theme. we start off with your calls until 7:45. then we will have a round