this week. a very busy week and we have a lot to talk about. let me introduce the journalist who will be questioning him. we will start with you. >> you said something al labelle said that a lot of people have been talking about in regards for the super committee. that has open the possibility that the super committee cannot meet that deadline of thanksgiving. congress could extend the deadline and give them more time. time. only

by legislation that needs to be passed. passed. absent that, sequestration would occur. i would urge the committee to do its work within the timeframe available to it. the difficulty of doing that it is substantial. we do not know how much work has been done, how much product might be in place, how many alternatives have been put on the table. they have been doing most of the work out the public view. these are controversial items with which they are dealing. i am sure that nobody wants to be tagged as being for or

against some difficult policy options until the entire deal is reached. the answer of -- the answer to the question is that with legislation, we could extend its bank. to. >> let's read between the lines. november 3 is the deadline. i am told that the house republicans do not want to give them any more time. they want to do it in the time allotted. they might consider it if there is a work product that could be considered. reading between the lines, what is your sense. ?

are we talking about one week or so to give the committee time to wrap it up? it would have to be scored to meet the ultimate deadline, which is the end of december of this year. >> this was a question presented to me asking if i thought it was possible. this is not an ideal i am putting forward. this committee has done a lot of work. we have that two major commissions doing work for over one year on this issue. the simpson-bowles commission, the gang of six in the senate have done -- has done a lot of work on this. i do not accept the premise that they cannot get a substantive proposal made by the termination of their mandate of november 23.

i am hopeful that they can. if they cannot, i want to see this committee succeed. as i said in a letter signed by 100 members of the house, i want to see a conclusion reached. i want to see a big deal. i want to see us get to a point where the deficit -- the debt to gdp ratio is sustainable and confidence building. i am supportive of this committee reaching a conclusion successfully. in the events duality that they cannot do that and they ask for an extension, -- eventuality that they cannot do that and they ask for an extension, i am respectful of that decision. there are republicans and democrats that would want to see work come to a close if they cannot reach a conclusion.

in >> it sounds as though you are not aware of what is gone -- >> it sounds as though you are not aware of what is going on behind closed doors. behind closed doors. >> nobody wants to be tagged with the premise that they may be for some controversial alternative unless that alternative leads to another alternative and a successful conclusion can be reached. think i have verylit little more information than you have. i have talked to the three democrats from the house of representatives. they have consistently reported back to us that there are substantive discussions. they believe all 12 of the

members of the committee are trying to reach a successful conclusion. all of the members i have talked to -- i have talked to all 12. this was reached at the beginning of the committee's deliberations. all of them indicated they were wanting to get to a big deal. $4 trillion was focused upon to get us to be that to gdp ratio that is confidence-building over the long term. i may not have much more information about the substance of what they are doing than you do. the recommendation was made in public. there are public recommendations on the table. >> the other parts of this deficit reduction deal was a guarantee that both houses of congress would want a balanced budget amendment by the end of

the year. the last time the balanced budget amendment came up, you said you would actively campaigned against it as the democratic whip. is there any form of the balanced budget amendment that you would support or that would allow democrats in the house to support? >> i have supported the balanced budget amendment in the past in 1995. i believe we need to balance our budget. we balance our budget during the clinton administration. four years in a row. we did not our money from any other countries for that years. i believe a balanced budget at this point in time is not what we need to do. we need to enact substantive, tough policies that will lead us to balance. not in the short term. it would take more than one day to get back to balance.

we have got to grow the economy. that is what we need to do to get a handle on our deficit. we have to put everything on the table. discretionary spending, defense, non-defense, entitlements, revenues. >> if there are 48 democrats willing to get to the magic number, will you be against the balanced budget amendment? >> will not be supportive of a balanced budget amendment at this point in time. it requires supermajorities to accomplish the objective of suspending that in the case of emergencies, whether it be economic, a war, or some other emergency requiring government expenditures. i had much more confidence in

1995 that we would have a 60% or more majority to act in the case of an emergency. we brought america to the brink of default this summer. that was one of the most irresponsible acts i have seen congress pursue since i have been in the congress. no republican leader wanted to do that. no democratic leader wanted to do that, but it happened. i am not confident that we can get the 60% necessary to act responsibly. at this time, it is much better policy not to do a balanced budget amendment, but to pursue and see if we can create a majority, not 60%, to act with responsibility and courage to get a handle on the deficit to bring this debt down. >> why not have a democratic alternative? why not draft your own balanced budget amendment that does not have a super majority

requirement? >> we had a policy in place in the 1990's. it was called statutory paygo. it said you have got to pay for what you buy. it was bipartisan. it was adopted when george h. w. bush was president. it was re-adopted when newt gingrich came into power. in the early part of the decade, that provision was dropped. we no longer had to pay for what we bought. that is what led us to be deep deficits. the republicans want to exempt from pago the cutting of taxes -- paygo the cutting of taxes and other expenditures that have caused us to have a great debt. we do not need an amendment.

we need immediate action now. this super committee poses that opportunity. i am hopeful that the majority in the house and senate will support the product that the committee comes up with. that is what we should be focused on. the balanced budget amendment is a distraction and a political device, not a policy device. >> let's talk about a more imminent spending issue. the government authority to spend money runs up on november 13. you said you would not vote any extension -- vote on any extension of that authority. are we heading for another shutdown? what are the issues going to be that would prevent you from voting to continue to operate the government passed november 13? >> i hope we are not heading for that.

we are voting to go to conference on the minibus appropriation bill that was passed by the senate 69-30, in a bipartisan fashion. my expectation is that a continuing resolution will be added to that minibus. i am hopeful it will have no riders that will be controversial and undermined the ability for us to keep the government operating until such time that the cr sets forth. >> doesn't history be line -- belie your optimism? >> american people what issues considered separately.

-- the republicans want issues considered separately. that was their pledge to america. we do not have much confidence based upon what they did in shutting down the faa with a rider they knew going to be controversial. i am hopeful that the leadership of the republican party on the senate and the house side -- all we need to do is add on a continuing resolution that extends the date from november 18 to a date in december while we consider an appropriations bill. >> erskine bowles said to the committee, i am afraid you are going to fail. do you share his there? -- his fear? the subcommittee has been and tested in more -- with more

powers than any committee has been invested with. if it fails, does that mean the end of the fiscal committee until after the election? >> america cannot wait. it must not sound bad message. the president said people who do not have a job cannot wait 14 months. we cannot do a great referendum -- greek referendum, which sent the economy into a tailspin in europe. the greek government reversed itself on that issue. we need to continue to do whatever we can to address this problem, address it responsibly, effectively, and with courage so that we can get our country on the right track fiscally. the american public knows we are not on the right track fiscally. the answer to your question is, no.

if the super committee does not get its work done by november 23. we need to continue to work together to address this issue. we need to reinstate confidence in our own people, in our own country, in our businesses and around the world that america can address is challenges with curry, responsibility, and effectiveness -- with our rates, responsibility, and effectiveness. >> extraordinary access to the floor, no amendment, a filibuster. if they cannot do it, is regular order going to do it? the regular order process cannot handle this. >> that is not rational. we have not seen the regular order be able to handle its

bank. this committee has extraordinary powers. before you get to the exercise of those extraordinary powers, putting the bill on both floors without the ability to amend its, it must be considered within a certain time frame -- without the ability to amend it, it must be considered within a certain time frame. before you get to the utilization of any of those authorities, you have to reach agreement on a product. that is what they have trouble doing. i was disappointed that 33 united states senators sent a letter to the committee following the letter of 100 members to the house, bipartisan, significant numbers of republicans and democrats, which said to the committee that you need to arrive at 8 $4 trillion solution, everything

needs to be on the table -- at a $4 trillion solution, everything needs to be on the table. was muche's letter less helpful. it was not useful to encourage the committee to reach a result by considering all matters that are subject to expenditures by the federal government. the recommendations of the bowles-simpson commission, recommendations from the gang of six, some of whom signed the letter. i was disappointed in that letter. my answer is, the first thing that has to happen is that the committee have to come to agreement. all of the powers given to it will be for naught if they cannot come to agreement. >> you participated in an hour- long special session on voting

rights. the black caucus said the attorney general should intervene in states where there are strict voter id laws being passed and sue to block those laws? . do you agree with that? >> the justice department has a responsibility. we have a responsibility to insure that every american has the right to vote. new rules, regulations, laws put into place that will suppress the ability of people to vote -- all of us want to make sure there is no thought in our elections, whichever party by perpetrate it and which every issue is disadvantaged by that. we believe there are efforts going on in this country that will adversely affect people's ability to vote in this country

by the use of various different devices. we believe the justice department needs to focus on those an act which is these suppression in the actions being taken. >> will democrats to retake the house next year? >> i think we will. the polls show that we are doing much better than our opponents. the american public is rightfully concerned that the congress of the united states has been unable to deal with the pressing issues confronting this country. number 1 is jobs. the president submitted a jobs bill to the senate. senator reid put that bill on the floor. got 51 votes. it failed because of the 60 vote requirement in the senate.

keeping teachers and firefighters on the job failed. yesterday, he put on the floor and infrastructure bebill to address the infrastructure challenges in america and put americans back to work building infrastructure, preparing -- repairing roads and building bridges. the republicans voted against that bill. i asked mr. eric cantor to put the president's jobs bill on the floor. almost everyone says it will grow jobs. there is a dispute about the number. it will grow the economy and bddp of our country, both of which need to be done now -- and grow the gdp of our country, both of which need to be done now. the american public will have an opportunity to see where their member stands on a jobs bill that will grow jobs in the short

term, put money in the pockets of small businesses, put money in the pockets of consumers to purchase those items they need, which will help grow the economy, help get that trends -- veterans jobs as they come back and invest in our infrastructure and keep teachers and police officers on the job. cantor and the republican leadership has refused to put the president's bill on the floor. floor. >> it be democrats take the house next year, do you want his do -- if the democrats take the house next year, do you want eric cantor's job? >> i think we will take the

house. the president's numbers have come up over the last 30 days. that is a good sign. they are not where we would like them to be. the president has taken the message that we are on the side of working americans, trying to get a jobs bill passed, trying to stimulate the economy, to grow and create jobs. the american public sees that as a positive effort. that is why his numbers are going up. the president has led a successful effort to eliminate osama bin laden, he limit his number 2, and see muammar gaddafi, one of the senate interests -- significant terrorists of our time taken out without a single loss of life. this president has shown the effectiveness to the international community. the fact that he has focused on

jobs at home means his numbers are going up. let me tell you why we will take back the house. the independents in america are looking for solutions. the independents looking for common sense. they are seeing that that is not what has been brought to the congress by the republican leadership. they have brought us to the brink of default and happen not addressed growth and jobs. the people will see that that is not the kind of policy they want to pursue. they will all take for democratic candidates. we have wonderful democratic candidates all over the country. the republicans sit in six districts that were either won by president obama or john kerry in the past. >> do you have the optimism that the president will be elected and democrats will hold the

senate? leading democrats will be back in charge of everything. >> the president will be reelected and the other side is doing everything they can to help us. the republicans have not indicated they like any of the candidates in any substantial numbers. i think president obama is coming up in the polls and that is a reflection that the american people believe he is what he is. that is a thoughtful and courageous leader that has looked at health problems and has tried to come up with solutions. >> you were at a political gathering in your district where you were reported to have said that no president since abraham lincoln has had a tougher job than barack obama. do you believe that? >> roosevelt had an extraordinary economic challenge. he had three and half years of public awareness as to how big that problem was.

this present had four months of that awareness. unlike roosevelt, he has substantial international crises, a two wars he had to deal with. that did not occur until roosevelt's second term. the disruption in europe did not occur until the second term. roosevelt could focus solely on the economy, which he did successfully over the years. that was my point. that is why i think barack obama has been dealt some of the toughest cards. 786,000 jobs lost the month he took office, the last month of the bush administration. >> we are over. thank you for spending time with us today. >> thank you. >> we have two managed to put some context on what we heard.

i find it interesting that the person responsible for whipping up boats for the democrats doesn't know any what can we do about any-- whipping up votes -- whipping up votes for the democrats doesn't know any more than we do about the super committee. >> he may not know in every precise, excruciating detail, but i have to believe that nancy pelosi, harry reid, mitch mcconnell have a greater sense of where the super committee is heading that he conveyed on live television. >> our readers are see headlines suggesting the super committee is at a stalemate. is this part of the legislation -- the legislature's expectations? >> i have laughed at headlines coming out of the super

committee on different days say they are still made it or they are in agreement -- that are at a stalemate or they are in agreement. no one knows the state of play of those negotiations. >> the super committee can be making progress and still be stalemated. anyone who has covered a budget deal in washington knows is not a deal until everything is agreed to. and underlying deal that gets you to 80% is not set in stone until you get the other 20%. we are in an ambiguous world right now. from the outside, it means nothing to us. >> the letter sent to the super committee included 40 republicans. what does that letter indicates for the progress or finding a

deal that will pass? >> the letter said everything should be on the table. significant cuts to entitlements, which is difficult for a democrat to swallow. that letter was intended to signal that there is fertile ground in the house for a big plan. mr. hoyer an important role in all this. in the senate, the minority has more power. in the house, not so much. you need the centrists to come together on the super committee deals. you may get some defections if there are tax increases. especially the moderate democrats and the minority whip, they have significant roles to play.

>> that letter is much less than meets the eye. when you see 40 republicans say, i am ready to raise this rate or this tax. then you have something. there is no time for the super committee to do that. it was a move to set, i am or something. >> are you optimistic that this will come through? >> i do not have a crystal ball. >> thanks for both of you for coming -- to both of you for coming. >> if you miss any of this week's "newsmakers," we will re-air it did today at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> it is good to see what can be done wrong so that you can avoid it.