and by its actions in particular with regard to uphold its commitment to denuclearization. it does make sense to give this process a little bit of time before we make judgments about the new leadership or the disposition of north korea going forward. >> isn't she a very close allies? >> president lee is a great ally and we work very closely with them. >> is a way that he has is that -- treated north korea did exasperating at all? >> because house republicans have been able to show unity, there will not have a version of this bill. and they have made sure that working families to not have

their taxes go up -- will they come back to get over the finish line before the end of the year? >> we are asking for the house to follow the lead of the senate, to pass a bill or an amendment to a bill that has received overwhelming bipartisan support on this issue, to make certain that american taxes do not go up in 12 days. it is time for us to step back and look at what has transpired here. we have been in this situation where the way the public is, and the vast majority of people in washington -- this is at variance with the subsection of one-party.

it is clear based on the reporting that you have done, what has transpired. this is -- this is unique compared to what we have seen transpire because the senate -- in the past, they have done with the house leadership asked them to do, passed a bill with the broad, bipartisan support. it is ready to be voted on and passed by the house of representatives. and it is simply perplexing for all of us, to understand why house republicans would not support a measure -- i did these calculations, 83% republican support in the senate, and some of them have come out today to say -- please, to their

colleagues. this is crazy, not to do this. this is the obvious thing to do, so that we make certain american taxes do not go up. we give the negotiators the time to work on an extension, which the president has said -- should not cause a great deal of problems in january or february. >> if a bill to extend the petrol tax is not cast, -- >> the president has made it clear that he is wanting congress to get this done, and that he is here now, and he will be here as congress tries to sort this out because this is essential to him and this is number one priority, that middle-class americans do not see their taxes go up on january

1. and enough house republicans may not vote in lockstep for the position supported by almost no one out there, and they will instead passed a payroll tax cuts and make it clear that they are committed, as we are, to 04 -- a full tax cut for the american people. this is something that the republicans have said -- we cannot possibly take this down the road -- they did not even support the full-year extension until a few weeks ago. we had numerous senior republicans on the hill, dismissing the economic value of the payroll tax cut, dismissing the need to do this at all, and so -- fortunately we have seen some movement in this direction and there is support for this, and it is expected that the

house will pass this. the alternative is americans waking up, on the first of january, trying to find out how they will budget -- how they will make ends meet with all -- a thousand dollars less this year, because the house republicans refused to bow for something that 83% of the republicans in the senate supported. i hope this does not happen. >> on north korea, how confident are you that the transition of power will go smoothly? >> we see no indications that the succession, -- prior to this event, that this had been contemplated would not take place. we see no indication that this will not. beyond that, i don't have a comment.

>> the leader is 27 years old and has been described as having a volatile personality, someone who has encouraged attacks against the south. is this to their company should be leading north korea? >> i appreciate this question but i think that we will make judgments on the new leadership -- the disposition based on how he and the government handle themselves going forward. we are open to engagement with north korea, and also make it clear that the north koreans have to make steps to denuclearization that would show willingness to negotiate. that was the position last

weekend it remains this position going forward. and that willingness would open the door. new -- to renew six-party talks with north korea and its neighbors. nothing has changed in our position, and we will act based on how they engaged on this issue going forward. >> to clarify, nothing has changed. does this mean you will go forward with an announcement -- about support for north korea? >> we have great concerns about humanitarian assistance in north korea. we require adequate monitoring provisions to make certain that the assistance that may be provided is not diverted from those in genuine need.

no action will be taken for assistance without these arrangements. this was true last week and it is true going forward. there is no decision going forward to provide support -- the precursor to that would be making certain that the arrangements are in place to allow for adequate monitoring. >> and this decision may be delayed? >> all the questions i have gotten -- we will monitor this situation, and we will evaluate behavior and act accordingly. that was always the case. it is too soon to know what the next period would look like.

we have a national mourning and the transition -- >> but the united states was about to make a deal that they were going to announce? >> we were not close to a deal. we're having these discussions as we have not had in the past but there was no imminent deal. >> there were reports of a deal within days. >> i have nothing to announce on that. a decision like that was not going to be taken by the united states government with respect to that kind of assistance without the arrangements i mentioned being in place. >> have they had any contact with -- >> you may want to check with the state department. i am not going to get into

assessments, right now. we are focused on actions. and we are certainly appreciative of the fact that they are in a time of national mourning. >> he talked about waiting for a time when kim il-sung, it was several years before kim jong-il made his presence known on the national stage. >> i don't think we are in the position to publicly assess this right now. >> can you talk about why it is so important to take a position on whether the death of kim jong-il could lead to more nuclear proliferation -- >> what is the rest of pure speculation?

>> there are opinions that we may have but we don't necessarily share them on matters of national security and foreign governments. this is a time of transition and national mourning, and we will judge -- governments by their actions. going forward. >> the south koreans have increased their readiness -- and is united states looking to do this with any of their military bases? >> as i understand this, no. you can ask for more detailed information from the defense department, but this is not the case for us. >> you see that you are hopeful that of house republicans will support this measure. what is this based upon?

>> one month ago -- there was much public evidence, that the republican leaders were against a number of -- the payroll tax cut extensions. we are now in a place where they are so committed to this, that despite the substantial efforts to get the one-year deal, they say they cannot possibly allow a bipartisan compromise to extend this for two months to allow more negotiations fall for a full-year extension. -- for a full-year extension. we all know how unusual that decision as, that has transpired this weekend. it is not common practice for a

bill substance, that does not about naming a post office or commemorative coins, to pass through with 90% support an overwhelming support from both parties without the wheels be increased by the leaders. and it makes getting things done on behalf of the american people difficult when you have this kind of volatility, and you have this situation where the things with broad, bipartisan support have great american public support but cannot get done because of a faction of one party in one house, dictating the direction of the majority in the house. it makes it very difficult but we remain hopeful, that they do not represent -- even a majority of the republican party, and

we're talking about 30 members of the house, 12-50% of the house republican caucus. this is all that we need. 12-50% of the house republicans can vote yes on this, and make certain that american taxes do not go up on january 1. did you have anything? >> when was the last time the president spoke with boehner? >> i don't have anything to read out to you right now. >> what can we expect to see from the president later today in the coming days. >> he is actively engaged in this issue and you saw him here on saturday. and he worked closely with

senator reid and the democratic leadership on the efforts to get a one-year deal, and when that could not be achieved in the timeframe that was before us, reid and mcconnell worked out the two-month extension, that had the support of 89 senators, and the president was very-much involved in that process. that now awaits consideration by the house of representatives, and tonight there will be a vote. and this should be passed. this has overwhelming support and it will make certain that americans, working, middle-class americans do not see their taxes go up january 1. and negotiators will be able to see that we extend these through

the year. and the extension of unemployment insurance, which has a very positive impact on the economy. let's not forget the consequence -- of a failure to act. and what this would mean. not just a tax hike of a thousand dollars, but the negative impact on the economy. there are economists who say that if we did not expand the payroll tax cuts this increases the possibility of a recession, or increases the possibility of slow economic growth. passing this tax cut -- and the extension of unemployment insurance will have a positive impact on economic growth. and there are republicans out there, they are the ones who have been opposed -- or tepid in

their support that, based on no economic evidence, these things have had positive effects on the economy this year. there is no non-partisan economists who would argue that payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance have not had a positive impact on growth and job creation. that is where we have to have them for next year. >> one of his top advisers has been in contact with leadership? >> setting aside these individuals, certainly we are in contact with -- capitol hill on this matter and have been all weekend. and we will continue to be. we will hope, as i have said,

that republicans figure out the right thing to do here, support their colleagues in the senate, and what the american people want done and make certain that their taxes do not go up january 1. >> and his contact includes republicans because some officials say that they have heard silence. >> i think the president told you on saturday he had spoken to mitch mcconnell, and thank him for his help -- >> we will take you to capitol hill as john boehner is about to speak with reporters. >> we met this evening to talk about our way forward. our members believe that we've passed a responsible bill that will extend the payroll for one year, to take care of those doctors who treat medical -- medical patients and will help

their issues for the next few years. this is exactly what the president has asked for us to do. our members do not what -- just to do a two-month, short term fix. we are willing to work, and we hope the senate will support us because we are willing to get the work done now and do this the right way. it has become clear that was passed by the senate was going to cause all sorts of problems for job-treaters. there was a report today from those who run payroll systems that there was great confusion, and it is time for us to do the right thing for the american people and solve this problem now, and we will have time to deal with other issues next week. >> the message coming out of the conference is that our members

want to make certain that we are able to work until congress passes a year-long extension of the payroll tax policy. we outright reject the attempts by the senate to kick the can down. this is demonstrated by the report that is out today, to say this will cause an increase in confusion and it will hurt small businesses. we are going to ask the rules committee to go to a meeting tonight, and we expect them to report of a rule for tomorrow, and tomorrow we will come in and not only moved to pass this rule, we will also then take up the motion to reject the senate amendment, so that we can actually work out our differences and resolve this situation and the people of this country get some certainty as

far as tax policy and health care policy going forward. >> when republicans laid out the pledge to america -- look at what the senate has done, moving this for two months. this is not where america is that. so tomorrow, we will solve that problem. the other thing is that we said we would follow the order in which the country was created. the senate and house can pass a bill, and then go to congress and find common ground to move the american people forward. we said we did not like doing things in the dead of night. these votes will take place tomorrow in the light of day. this is a new house and a new direction, and a place where we want to move america forward. when the president noted that he

had pushed for a one-year extension on the payroll tax, and congress cannot leave until these issues are dealt with, we will not go home until we finish this. chuck schumer saying they will stay here into christmas and new year's to get this done, and nancy pelosi on the 17th of december -- house democrats will take up this legislation without delay, and we will try to extend these provisions for a full year. moving this for a full year to put america back to work. in the three years since the president was elected, unemployment has been either at, near, or above 9%, and millions remain unemployed, so every single member of congress has decided that we need to extend

the payroll tax relief for the hard-working american families. almost every member of congress says that we need to have this reformed so that this is physically solvent. -- fiscally solvent. do you want to do something for 60 days, the kicks the can down the road, that no job-creator can count on? or do you want to do with the president has asked for us to do, and people who don't agree with him that often, do you want us to do a full year's -- the second point of debate. are you willing to work over the holidays so the american people can have a better christmas?

or are you not willing to work over the holidays? we stand ready to do what is necessary to get the payroll tax relief and the unemployment insurance, and the extension necessary for the american people. >> if you can address this question, this is either three votes or four votes -- >> we will have the previous question motion, and the motion on the rules, and we will have a motion to reject the amendment, and we expect a minority to have a motion -- and then we will have a majority resolution that will lay out our position, and this will be consistent with the bill that we passed last week,

and we believe, as the president said in his statement, that a much better path forward is certainty, and that is the extension of the payroll tax so that families, working people will not have to guess from month-to-month their tax status. >> can you help us understand what happened between your conversation leading up to this, and now? did you miscommunicate, -- >> the house passed a bill to do with the president asked for. that we extend the payroll tax holiday for one year. the house was not going to enter into these negotiations until the senate had done their job. it is time for the senate to

produce something. we disagreed with what they produced and we're asking for a conference to resolve the differences between the houses. >> did they negotiate a bad deal? >> the senate did their job, producing a bill. >> you were talking about this, possibly going along with some common ground, but now you are like cheerleaders for the tax cut. >> we believe that this is the right thing to do for the country and that is why the house has passed this in a broad, bipartisan manner and we will stay here to get the job done, so that the american people -- and small businesses have certainty about what the tax code is going to look like for all of next year.

>> this will pass tomorrow? >> that was john boehner leading the hallway with the reporters, with the votes for the house moved until tomorrow. we will continue to watch developments and the house rules committee should be meeting tonight. now, a discussion on the transition of iraq, and the political change in the arab world. this is hosted by the carnegie endowment -- and if the house returns from their suspension, we will take you there, live. >> this is done jointly with the

american arab constituents, talking about the arabs spring. and this afternoon session will be divided into two sessions, two panels, one focusing on the rack, and the u.s. intervention -- yesterday marked the end of the united states military -- presence in iraq. and these of the group conducted an opinion poll, for the people in this region. and their view on the departure, and what this means for iraq. and in the first panel, we will have the founder and president of the american institute -- present the findings of the

poll, and then we will have two colleagues and difference talk about the findings, the kuwait professor of affairs -- and to buy no more closely as the american ambassador to jordan. we forged a very close relationship -- and the senior associate as the carnegie middle east broker. after that we will start the second panel -- looking at political change in the arab world in general. and the arab countries that were told by these of the group.

much of this -- unfortunately is in canada right now, -- and came from jordan yesterday in an airplane that was converted to washington because of a sick person on the airplane, and he unfortunately could not be with us today. and he may also comment on the findings. with that, i will turn the floor over. >> i want to thank all of you for coming. i want to acknowledge that these opinion polls were done in september of this year, and they were done for the forum that is held annually -- and that that forum we released was in all social media and the sets have not been released yet.

i am releasing them right now. we did this in iraq and six other countries, in an effort to measure the attitudes at this time, to the war itself and its impact, and the feeling that the people of iraq have about the future in the wake of an american withdrawal. and how the people of iraq see their country and the world. there are three essential observations i want to make up front, that follow through all of the findings. the first and foremost is the attitudes we have among the three major groups of iraq. we have some hard numbers to put through the differences, and had this between the kurds on one side and the arabs on the other side. there is the partisan divide

that exists here in the united states that is so deep, that sometimes you think democrats and republicans are looking at two different wars from two different countries. beatitudes in the arab countries and iran, that are in some proximity to iraq, those attitudes were more negative to the war and more positive about the future of the withdrawal prospects. i will start, as i began, with the people of iraq and their attitude to the war, and the general assessment. overall, the people of iraq feel that they are worse off than after the war itself. after eight years of war, are you better off or worse off than before?

42% are worse off, 32% say better off. you will notice the divide -- as i pointed this out -- sunni and shia say that they are worse off. and when you ask in the more broad region, you get a much more decisive response. in jordan and saudi arabia, those are in the booklet you have in front of you and the results are available if you want to log on to the website. in just jordan and saudi arabia, the two countries most in the neighborhood -- two- thirds of them say that they are worse off. more than half in iran, but

slightly less concerned about iraq being worse off than in saudi arabia or jordan. this is about 6-10 who say that they are worse off. and when you split this up, democrats -- only 24% say that iraq is better off than it was before the war, where 58% of republicans say that iraq was better off. this translates -- when you ask this question, 56% of americans say that this was not worth it. 75% of democrats say that it was not worth it, but a large number of republicans say that it was worth it. when we ask questions to the people of iraq about how the war has impacted them, various aspects of their lives -- did this improve their personal safety or security, did this

make them more free, and make them respect the rights of women, the results track the numbers that we have here, and what you see is that overall, kurds give a positive rating in terms of how we impact of their lives, sunni, negative, and shia, only slightly more positive. but still, a substantial majority,-. to-one, republicans always want to find the war having had a positive impact and democrats, much less so. or you can see the numbers don't go up to 100 is because there were people who were not certain. and in some instances you can see the no-impact numbers equal

almost 35%, which is somewhat surprising after eight years of a highly-debated war, that took a tremendous toll in lives and treasure, you have a third of americans with no opinion, or they are ambivalent about the outcome, and the consequence of this. is this withdrawal positive or negative? decisively, americans, republicans and democrats say that this was positive. this is something that they look forward to. the people of the rack -- 60% more highly supportive of the withdrawal, sunni and shia saying that this was positive. what emotions do you feel about this? the convergence of the attitudes that you have -- that this is

positive -- the breakdown when you talk about how you feel about this. americans' overall are happy, democrats are happy and almost 60% of republicans are happy. the people of iraq worry about what will happen now that the forces are leaving. sunni arabs, they are worried about the outcome. but why are they worried? almost 60% say that they are worried about a possible civil war, terrorism, and the questions that we ask about, what are you worried about, coming up in the future, almost 60% say that they are worried, and this goes across the board.

optimism and pessimism -- iraqis are worried. arabs are not. almost an insensitivity or a disconnect between arab attitudes and how the people of iraq feel about this. two-thirds of jordan -- 75% in saudi arabia are optimistic about the next four years. 60 percent in iran. how do they feel about other countries. 24% have a favorable attitude to america, 25% -- and 63% among the kurdish people. only 2% of sunni and 5% of kurds

are favoriabe to iran, and 21% of shia do. turkey, 53% for shia, and only 4% of kurds. u.a.e. was rated positively across the board. saudi arabia had favorable numbers among several of the groups, but not across the board, bringing the overall number down. democracy, can it work? this was almost a definition of being conflicted. i would like my country to be a democracy and it will work here -- and it will not, 41%. i don't want my country to be a democracy, 21%.

62% of the people of iraq would like their country to be a democracy but 61% don't think this will work in their country. the attitude to the leaders of iraq. al-malaki has a favorable rating only among shia. alawi has a favorible rating in sunnis and kurds. he is more popular overall, rating all the people in the country. muqtada al-sadr is more favored among shia than anyone we surveyed. very lowe among sunni and kurds. the issue of the people of iraq being conflicted comes through. the fact that americans have a

weird but the partisan split also comes through. one cannot blame the people of iraq from beet -- for being conflicted and divided after years of ruthless rule and occupation and accompanying this, terrorism and ethnic cleansing, the country -- they are somewhat dysfunctional, and the people of iraq are worried about the future. they do not quite see their way through to the future. i will leave it there and we will see what the people here have to say. >> thank you very much. a couple of surprises here, the things we expected and things many of us did not expect. skip was the ambassador to kuwait, and he has a unique

perspective on these issues. >> thank you. it is nice to be here today and thank you for your presentation. i was intrigued by these polls and i felt that my first reaction was that this confirms many of the things that we have a sense would be the case, and i particularly think of the three demographic groups in iraq, and they were going to have different attitudes about certain questions that you ask, particularly about the different u.s. presidents, kurds are always very supportive and among the question of -- if we are better or worse off and concerns about the future. if i look at whether we're better off or worse off, the first thought that came to mind is that this is understandable, given what the people of iraq have been through since 2003. i did like the phrase that you

talked about -- it really does capture -- in the correct way that at that time in life, where there is still a lot that can happen and a lot of formation that has to take place, it is easy to forget, or to rationalize, today, the better past. and to think back on the days of som hussein, to be straightforward when they could say that violence existed -- the violence on the street -- there were other kinds of violence, that there were genuinely safe conditions and there was job security -- most people worked for the government. these things have been turned upside down and today there is the situation with a great deal of uncertainty. it is easy to see how those percentages you found -- making

this prediction from the future, this is halved -- this is human nature. if things get better, you will see that comparison change and you will see more people in iraq saying that they're better off than they were before. i was impressed with the similarity of views between shia and sunni about what had had not improved. when you look at those communities, economic development is not improved and education has not improved, health care has not improved and personal safety and security, relations with the neighbors are also very negative, women's rights have not improved. it is only religious freedom where the shia see that they have a better situation.

but that commonality between these communities -- this is worth taking note. on the question of withdrawal, it is clear to most observers to know the history of iraq, that this is not surprising that virtually all communities in iraq support the end of the u.s. military presence. if you don't say anything at all about the history, even half -- after the monarchies in world war ii, the government signed an agreement with the british that did have unity involved in the streets were in turmoil and there was rioting and the call for the execution of whoever signed the agreement. the prime minister left the country in the middle of the night. there is a history of nationalism that is very powerful. to have thought that we would get a continuation of the

status agreement is very simplistic. i say that with one piece of criticism, i don't think the administration approach to this issue of an ongoing military presence appropriately, or in a way that may have led to a different conclusion. given the political fragmentation, we were not going to find any political figure that we could say, we want united states forces here and they will have the same immunity. worried about the future, absolutely. and they have every reason to be. i did notice the concern about domination by neighboring states, and iran managed to be up there in front with us, in terms of concern by all three communities.

kuwait, along with iran, -- this is not a country that is likely to be helpful to iraq, and i was intrigued that jordan received such high ratings, in a positive way. i wanted to talk about jordan, which was mentioned in certain places -- and there is to wait, which is not there. 61% -- they see iraq as were soft, and see the united states as the chief beneficiary, and also israel and al qaeda, they say that 92% of the people of jordan believe that the united states may negative contribution in iraq.

they mentioned the civil war and terrorism, the influence -- i think all of this is very unsurprising. when you realize that the public of jordan were very heavily against any sort of military intervention by the united states and made it quite clear, prior to 2003, that the ties that they have had over time, with trade and oil that they received at concessionary rates, there are these connections and the feeling of a presence, just off to the east. and the concern you see that they speak about -- this is legitimate. they worry about iraq being dominated by iran. this is an issue, certainly.

they worry about the turmoil in iraq, with the flow of refugees, that they saw in 2003 and 2004 and 2006 with the disruption of the economic trade relationship, which has been pretty much reestablished. and that view is understandable. kuwait is unique. we say that openly and forthrightly. the people of kuwait -- i know the government, and we are quite clear about the population. that would like for us to stay in iraq as long as they could keep us there. they are certain in their minds that iraq is a threat, and they don't see the historic relationship being so difficult -- different, but having an american military presence is a security blanket, compensated

for by a decision by the u.s. government to continue to have a military presence in kuwait. but they have little confidence in the way -- particularly with the fragmented political situation in baghdad and the willingness of legislators -- to use the situation in kuwait, for their own political support. there are plenty of politicians doing the same thing from their perspective. i have a few quick thoughts. the opinion polls are based on the individual attitude. i learned a long time ago that people -- by the nature of us being human beings can have a very contradictory feelings -- and we rarely pull ourselves apart, look at ourselves and see

this. this has been in jordan and other countries where i have had passionate attacks, not on me personally but on the united states, and who they are and what they do. and having to turn around and say, you have to do something. then we will end up having a longer conversation and they will talk about their children in school and their medical problems that they have had and -- is not unheard of that people have very contradictory feelings inside themselves. this is something to always keep in mind. this does not cover the attitude of governments. this is simply to say that -- do not forget that when you look at public opinion, and i do believe that public opinion means more today than it did a couple of years ago.

government is still the main driver of foreign policy. they will consider the public view -- but they will still make decisions in their own national interest and this will impact their relationships. we see the people of saudi arabia and their reaction -- will the u.s. withdrawal provoke a debate in this region? this does. the debate on whether the united states is a reliable security partner, and are we a diminishing power, fading out that cannot be counted on, and you need to find alternative security arrangements. i would say that this widespread discussion in the region that the united states is declining, this is not true. i have spoken about kuwait recently.

the commitment -- this is going to keep us there. and therefore we are not likely to be leaving. but the united states government has an enormous task in front of it, to convince people that this is true -- and the idea of the government's reaching for alternatives, and turkey is always a good example, of being an alternative partner in the security arrangements, or the expansion of the military capacity in the gulf, or a more assertive arab league, these are described as actions of governments are having to take because of concerns about u.s. commitment. this is also wrong because the united states has been pushing these governments to do some of these very things. we're happy to have turkey more engaged in this region. we have wanted to see the gulf

cooperation council have a better security arrangement, and the capability -- and the same would be true of the arab league, and i don't see this as a zero-sum game at all. i see this as a way out -- of frankly, enhancing the american partnership in the region. >> this is a great regional perspective as well as the united states perspective on this issue. let her give her comments before we open this up to the floor. >> i will start with something i did not mean to talk about, but this was part of your last comment about the united states, and the perception that the united states is losing power. i came back from a trip to the gulf, and people are talking about this.

my impression is not that they want the united states not to have a presence, but they are afraid that the united states is capable of keeping things under control. the discussion is not so much that they should go away, but that they will keep order in this part of the world. i want to make a few comments about what i found most interesting and most surprising, in light of what has been happening. in the last weeks or months, whether these polls still reflect the present concerns -- and we would find a different situation. let me start with what i found

most interesting. the fact that one-third of americans have no clear opinion about what has been the outcome of this war. first of all, this is obviously a contradiction, and we have an answer to the earlier question that seems to be, what is your opinion about whether the war was worth it. the most important thing is that this is a good reminder of how much of the war in iraq -- has dropped off -- this was a war that was forgotten very quickly. and essentially, everyone in iraq supported this and people are not really certain about what they think about this

situation now. if you think about it, there has been very little discussion in this in the media. the major newspapers -- i think if you go to small towns, and go away from washington -- and give me the local newspaper, they do not talk about foreign news, and that is what most people read. this does not mean a word about the united states for a long time. for a country that was in a very important conflict, this is very interesting. i found it very interesting, the relative optimism -- of people in neighboring countries about the future of the rack. this may be a very important

reminder about how we should not confuse the opinions expressed by leaders with the majority of the population. if you go to this area and you talk to the opinion leaders, and the people of palestine -- the attitudes -- the pessimism about the future of iraq is very strong, particularly within the gulf. you hear doomsday scenarios about how they are dominated by iraq, and this country is going to become an appendix to the republic -- of iran. this is a cliche but you still hear this.

the united states served to them on a silver platter, and the country was better off. this is clearly not reflective. the united states is not the only country where the public is not in the loop about what the attitudes are. if it is very interesting, also, the attitude to the leaders of the rat, and i cannot read the figures are very well, but the fact that al-sadr, that there is not that much difference between him and al- malaki. this is not a huge -- this is not a huge difference among the population that is shia. and this is a good reminder of,

essentially, the things we see developing now, and muqtada is as popular here -- and it will be difficult for him to maintain support among this support, it explains the points about why they cannot say yes. muqtada extending community to american troops. he had made it clear that they should pull out of the coalition if maliki was to extend amenity. -- immunity. i think it is a good reminder of the leadership of iraq.

it is maliki plus -- that is the core of the control of the country. the opinions are not surprising. he was the center for the sunnis and the kurds. the possibility of forming an alliance with him rather than a maliki. that is not surprising. it is a very similar attitude towards both of them. the last point i want to bring up in terms of the results, what a unsurprising is that such a small percentage of kurds had

positive attitudes about turkey. that seems to contradict what we have seen lately. i would not have been surprised if those opinions had been expressed in 2003 or 2004. i would have been surprised that it was as high. at this point, when you talk to the kurds, they talked abut the positive affect turkey has, in terms of investment, in terms of building infrastructure. turkey seems to have accepted the situation. they never liked the idea of an autonomous country for obvious reasons. all the indications have been that there has been -- that

turkey has found some positive. this seems to belie that. it shows that public opinion is suspicious. that is something i did not expect to see. let me move to what is happening right now. >> we are going to break away from this and take the lead at the capitol hill. -- take you live to capitol hill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] we are waiting for nancy pelosi to take away to the microphone. >> good evening. we can back to washington on saturday when we heard the senate had passed the bipartisan bill overwhelmingly.

an agreement negotiated by reid and mcconnell. we were hopeful that the president could have signed this bill. we acknowledge it as a victory. they had insisted negotiations take place. that is then, this is now. what is it is important -- is important is the facts as they relate to the lives of the american people. what we see is a stall in action. mr. boyer will speak to that. president obama went around the country with the american jobs at which the payroll tax cut was appealing -- part of this was appealing to the american people, they support it.

they want the tax cut. they want the jobs it will engender. they want us to work together. they have been very clear. we did. democrats and republicans came together. we support -- not that it is everything we would have written into the bill, it is a but cooperation. it is about coming to agreement. here we are, a few days before christmas. the republicans are coming up with another excuse as to why we cannot do it now. it is not an excuse, it is not a reason why it is not necessary, it is an excuse for why they do not want to do it. here is what is interesting, 160 million americans continue to have the payroll tax cut. over 2 million people will lose their unemployment benefits if

we do not act upon this resolution. 48 million americans will lose the opportunity for choosing their own doctors under medicare. this is very important. 150 million americans who are working will get a tax cut. two million who have lost their jobs will now lose the benefits paid 48 million -- lose their benefits. 48 million seniors have something to lose. passing this will have an impact of 600,000 jobs on america. the ui brings more money back into the economy than anything. a dollar and 50 cents for every dollar spent.

we have been trying to get the compromise of the senate. it was a step forward. what we must have is a bill that takes us to the end of next year. we want to remove all doubt that when you gather around a kitchen table, when you sit down to holiday dinner, you know that come january you will still be able to pay the bills. these people, after january 1, unemployment beneficiaries, they will have no way to live. this is critically important to their personal lives. it is important to the growth of our economy. not to do it will halt the momentum we have for growing the economy. for republicans to say we are here to work, welcome back to the capital. we should never be in this

position. we are in this position because the senate republicans, the senate democrats, the house democrats, not a loving the proposal, but agreeing to the agreement. it is the radical, tea party republicans who are holding up this tax cut for the american people and jeopardize in our economic stability. mr. hoyer. >> thank you very much. the president and we in the american people have indicated that it is important we continue the middle class tax cut. it is good for them and it is good for the economy. it is good for expanding our economy. we have made it clear, the president has made it clear, that the continuation of

unemployment insurance is critical. it is critical for those who are going to lose their insurance. it is also critical to our economy. critical to jobs, the growth of jobs in our economy. it is critical to extend the payment for docs who serve medicare patients, 48 million senior citizens who will be adversely affected if doctors cannot get reimbursed. this is critical that we act. we passed a bill. senator reid tried to put that bill on the floor to see whether or not it had majority support. we believe it would not have had majority support.

the republicans refuse to put that bill on the floor. senator reid and john boehner met. they talked about how we would make sure we had an extension. i am not sure everybody was for a middle-class tax cut. i'm going to read a quote. but just 80 days ago, just before the agreement in the senate was made, senator mcconnell was seen exiting speaker boehner's office. leader mcconnell said he was in constant communication with speaker boehner before this deal was made. in my opinion, what we are seeing is a leadership of the

house and senate who believes that this compromise, while not perfect, was something that ought to be done. i am not sure that speaker boehner is for extending the tax-cut. let me give you a quote of his. on june 23, 2011, house speaker john boehner called the proposals to extend or expand take cuts "another a little short-term gimmick." does that sound familiar? he thought a year's extension was a gimmick. he now thinks 60 days is a short-term gimmick. he is not for this. and so we see, not withstanding

the fact that the president of the united states could accept a bill that would give us certainty talked about. the certainty that there would be a continuation of that tax cut on january 1. a certainty that doctors would reimburse at a level that they could continue to serve patients. a certainty that those on unemployment insurance who cannot find a job would have sustenance for themselves and their families. let me read one additional quote i read earlier today. this is not a partisan issue. 39 republican senators voted for the speed 83% of the republican members of the united -- for this. 82% of the republican members of the senate voted for this. if 83% of the republicans and

almost 100% of the democrats are for something, why can you not come to an agreement? that is the question i posed to speaker boehner. why cannot take yes for an answer? -- why can you not take yes for an answer? why can we not give the american people assurance? i am hopeful the house of representatives will pass the bill. speaker dinner is under enormous pressure. -- speaker boehner is under enormous pressure. he has guts and feedback from republicans who say, we'd just do not like it -- he has gotten feedback from republicans who say, we just do not like it. not that it is short term, we just do not like it. they do not like tax cut for the middle class. as a matter of fact, many

republicans would say, we do not want the extension of unemployment compensation anyway. he went on to conclude that he is hopeful the majority will proceed, it seems to me this is best for the country and all individuals who are affected. senator scott brown said the same thing, that did the senator from nevada -- as did the senator from nevada. ladies and gentlemen, the american public understands that what is happening is a partisan convulsion driven by the tea party in the republican house. they are insuring that america is faced with the uncertainty that we will face -- that we have faced in appropriation

bills. republicans cannot come to yes on behalf of the american people. decides peaker boehner beside that, while this is not perfect, it will give 60 two people that on january 1 they will have what they need -- it will give assurance to people that on january 1 they will have what they need. that is the least we can do in this holiday time, putting our country on a path of continued economic recovery. i am pleased to yield to my good friend, representative from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i think all of us have heard a

question asked time and time again, why can you not all work other on behalf of the american people? we just saw a bovote in the senate. i think it demonstrates that the senate can work together. 99% of the democrats in the house have indicated that they are for this bill. if it does not happen, it is not the senate, it is not the house democrats, it is the leadership of the house republicans once again capitulating to a small group within that refuses to do

what for the middle income people of america, what they want to do for the high income. we have seen the recent studies. i have seen three of them. very significant studies, the cbo study that looked on the last 30 years and said that the policy we have pursued in this country has held 20% of the income earners have experienced only 18% growth in household income, while the of a 20% have experienced a 65% growth in income.

what we are doing here today, if the republican leadership continues to pursue this policy , it means that those people who have suffered so much in the last 30 years can look forward to a post-holiday season without their unemployment insurance, without this tax cut continuing for 160 million, and for 46 million seniors, they will see themselves cut off from their doctors because doctors will walk off the field and will not treat medicare patients if they experience this 30% to 35%

reduction in their costs. i want to say to the american people that the democrats in the house are willing to join that bipartisan delegation on the other side of this building and say to the american people, merry christmas, have the kwanzaa -- happy kwanaa, happy hanukkah, and hopefully, a happy new year. >> the reason the republicans are not taking yes it is because no is their answer. that is driven by the tea party

republicans who will be responsible for this tax increase if it happens, which i hope it will not. earlier this evening, i saw a republican leaders say that tomorrow we would have the opportunity to vote on the senate bill. i just heard from our ranking member that that is not the case. they haven't got it them -- have instructed them that we will not vote on the senate bill. i do not know what has happened in between. whatever it was, it was harmful to the american people. my guess is they are afraid that their members are not going to stick with them. i do not believe that all republicans are against the payroll tax cut. the american people are for it, whether they are democrats, republicans, or independent. the senate is for it.

in the house, we support that agreement. it does the job to get this tax cut in place so we can get on with the business of doing a one-year proposal we all want to do. why is it that a couple hundred people in the republican caucus can hold up a tax cut for middle income people, access to medicare, and unemployment insurance? it is because they do not support the tax cut. they were against it. president obama went around the country, it was one of the most popular features, he made the issue too hot for the republicans to handle. they cannot put it on the floor, afraid their own members will

abandon them. this is a pivotal moment. decisions that are made will affect americans directly. this in an immediate way. it is a moment that we must make clear that the facts are -- not continue to be misled by procedural arguments, the do nothing congress. in any event, we are going to make sure republicans understand that when we take the debate to the floor tomorrow, very disappointed that members will not have the opportunity to vote on a bipartisan agreement in the senate insisted upon by speaker boehner and once again walked away from, as he walked away from the agreement with president obama about default,

the $4 trillion bargain. mr. hoyer can read a list as long as my arm about the times they have walked away. they are walking away from the middle income tax cut for 160 million americans. we will take questions. >> you said earlier today that you saw -- thought speaker boehner thought this was the right thing to do. earlier today you said you were not so sure he was for the catgut. -- tax cut. >> mr. boehner was for this before he was against it. he was against it before this morning. what explains that? the american people. mr. mcconnell was not and is the

ethic and the next week he said we are going to put it on the floor. -- not a enthusiastic about this and the next week he said we are going to put it on the floor. the american people have been pulling for this to give stability to middle-class families so they can help grow this economy, which every economist says this will do. i think, basically, all he knows the right thing to do, and that is why he came up and said -- out and said this agreement would give certainty for the next 60 days and was a victory. his caucus came back, the tea party faction, and said we do not like this deal. he reversed himself. i think he knows the american

people believe that what the senate did was what they wanted to see. they are hopeful that the senate proposal is approved. >> the gop says they are going to vote to appoint reid. >> i do not think we should go to conference. we do not have an opportunity to vote on the bill. the american people ask for three things, jobs, a tax cut, and for us to work together. this proposal meets that. it is worthy of a vote on the floor of the house. >> the payroll tax cut does not expire tomorrow. you are for a one-year extension. everyone is for it. what is wrong besides with the inconvenience? >> let me ask you this, one of

the tactics republicans have used is to push it up to the limit. heavy covered the senate? do you know how long it takes to -- have you covered the senate? do you know how long it takes to get something done? it is an agreement that does the job. we can come back and start tomorrow negotiating on the one- year. there is nothing that forecloses that option. this paves the way for that. we have an ideal situation where we can remove all doubt and uncertainty, for us to work together to give them a tax cut. to continue our economic growth. that is what this does. at the same time, it enables us to go to the table to start working on what we need to do in order to make it a 10-month

arrangement. i know how sophisticated you are. you are probably asking because you are curious of my view. you must know that the success the senate had, i was told that mr. mcconnell was high five in one of his members -- high- fiving one of his members, so proud of this accomplishment. let's take yes for an answer. the republicans do not want a table tax cut for the middle class. -- a payroll tax cut for the middle class. they do not believe in extending tax cut. s. we know where they are. we know where we cannot go. >> i want to say something on your question.

it perpetuates the uncertainty that mr. boehner says he does not want. none of us have watched this legislative process and think things are certain. we do know that the senate has passed a bipartisan extension of these three important items. we do know that if we pass that morrow, and send it to the president, the president will sign it. we do not know for certain that people will not lose the middle class tax cut. they will not lose reimbursement, and unemployment insurance will continue. we know that for certain. when you ask what is wrong, it perpetuates the uncertainty of which the republican congress complains.

we can get sick and the tomorrow bypassing the middle class tax cut -- it certainty to our of bypassing the middle class tax cut -- get certainty tomorrow bypassing the middle class tax cut. >>-- by passing the middle class tax cut. >> why did democrats vote against the payroll tax cut package? >> i know how closely you attended the particular is of the legislation. there were poisoned pills built into that bill so it would not be exempted by the senate was signed by the president. -- not be accepted by the senate were signed by the president. -- or signed by the president. it had its own destruction built

into it. it is like a fiancee, a man putting a woman and she says, i would love to marry you, i will marry you on february 30. that day is never coming. the day is never coming whether the republicans will be honest about what they want. i think it is important for the american people to know, we want to work together. we have. you wanted us to get a payroll tax cut. we have the opportunity. you want us to keep the momentum going on economic growth and job creation. it does it. let it down to it, put the bill on the floor, take your chances, see if your caucus is willing to vote for it. that is probably why the story changed.

you were there when he said we are going to take of the senate bill? in a matter of minutes, that was gone. there were many who would like to vote for this clean bill. it is relatively clean. we have all had to cooperate on it. if you are for it, put it out there in a way that brings people together but does not have seeds of its own destruction in it. >> can i make a short addition? >> you may. [laughter] >> senator mcconnell said this is designed to pass. secondly, let me finish this thought, you asked why we

opposed it. it was designed to fail. they built into that things that they knew the senate had not agreed to. how do i know that? the republicans would not allow it to come to a vote on the senate floor. they objected to its consideration. that is what. >> i wanted to mention, i am sure i heard this. the speaker said yesterday that there were 300 votes in the house of the uyes on the senate bill. if that is true, why not bring it to the floor? he said there were 300 votes against it. he should bring it to the floor. thank you.

>> we are going to stay on capitol hill and taking to the house rules committee -- and it take you to the house rules committee. -- and take you to the house rules committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> does that allow the tax cuts to continue? >> it does not send it to the president at that point. that is not the issue. are you going to agree or disagree to the senate amendment to the house bill? >> a no-vote does not send the bill to the president. >> you are supportive of the extension? >> i am supportive of the whole

year's extension. >> if i could reclaim my time. i have reclaimed my time. it is obvious that you have come to a conclusion that the senate is not going to appoint, the president as a request that we complete our work -- the president's request that we complete a work before we end this year has not taken place. that is your position, it cannot support our effort -- that is your position, to not support our efforts. >> may i give my conclusion? my conclusion is that you are afraid to have a vote because you are afraid you would lose.

it is a simple request we have. i think i speak for my colleagues -- what that is your opinion. -- >> that is your opinion. >> do not put words in my mouth. >> i think i have said it the rally. -- it thoroughly. let me yield to my colleague. >> i think you are doing a masterful job of explaining the situation. people can make suppositions about things all night long. i do not think that it's as very far in terms of making suppositions. well i am prepared to stay here all night long, i would prefer

that we vote on the motion we have on the floor. i believe that continuing this kind of discussion on suppositions and hypothetical situations is a waste of time. what we need to do is take a vote and move things along and see where they turn out. that is the proper thing to do. >> let me reclaim my time. i concur with my friend about the goal of getting their. i am not going to deny anyone an opportunity of being heard. i am not prepared to stay here all that. i hope to get some rest this evening. i have heard the argument.

i may need to hear them again. i suspect i will. i will yield to mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. i am sorry you think this debate is a waste of time. for those of us who feel a great injustice is being done here, it is important to have the record clear. the chairman has done a masterful job trying to convince people. all my colleagues have been trying to point out that no matter how you slice this, this issue will not be resolved tomorrow. middle-class families will not be given a tax cut tomorrow, the 160 million families, they will not have that assurance tomorrow. 8 million seniors

wondering about health care coverage, that will not be resolved tomorrow. what we are doing today, we have a rule that says, it does not allow us to convert tomorrow - solving tomorrow, this once and for all. i hope that we would work with of leaders to try to work out -- i hope that we would work with our leaders to try to work out something that was acceptable. so that and we come back here on january 17 we extend that bill for a year. you had your opportunity to present your pay-fors. it was filled with so many issues it was going nowhere.

this compromise from the senate has things i do not like. this keystone pipeline is an upgrade to me. i am willing to swallow that pill if it means middle-class families will get a tax cut. i will say, we have a habit of always pointing fingers and pulling the senate -- and blaming the senate. this is one time the senate came to an agreement. it was a two-month agreement. 89 senators voted for it. i think that is a big deal. when the american people want us to come together, when people come together, it may not be everything, it is something we should be glad about. what is that is what is

happening here. tomorrow, middle-class families will not get an extension of the tax cut. unemployed people will not be given the insurance. senior citizens will be wondering whether they get the health care they need. >> let me say i think it is important to note that the bill that passed the senate has already been reported by bloomberg news as being unworkable. the idea that we are going to have this two-month extension to continue is impossible. >> i appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. nobody other than you believe it is unworkable. but i will have evidence of that in a minute.

-- >> i will have evidence of that in a minute. >> i do not know what is going on, we are dealing with people puzzle lives. people watching this are wondering what we are doing here. the senate came to an unprecedented bipartisan agreement. we were told the speaker was for this bill before he was against it. now everybody is against it. we cannot even get an up or down vote. no matter what we do, we cannot solve this issue. i think that is an outrage. this is not the way, which should run. -- way congress should run. i have no idea. i do not know what is going to have been at it tomorrow. what i fear is that, not much. -- what is going to happen after tomorrow.

what i fear is not much. let's let me thank the gentleman. -- >> let me thank the gentleman. i share the upgrade for working americans to have the tax benefits they deserve and the unemployment benefits that are necessary. it is important for us to realize we have passed two reports in the last few weeks. the idea of saying that nobody understands what is happening, we are following a regular order. anyone who wants to support the senate position would vote no on going to the conference. i think it is important for us to realize that these are independent organizations. the national payroll reporting consortium, we will get a copy

of this, they have said that what the senate has done is unworkable. what has the department of treasury said this is unworkable? -- >> has the department of treasury said this is unworkable? >> inexcusable was the term. i think these arguments that had been put forward the day before yesterday by the president of the united states who said it would be in -- inexcusable for congress not to further extend the tax cut for the rest of the year. house democrats will return to take up this legislation. we will keep up the fight to extend the provisions for a full year. for a full year. that is what we are doing.

there is no senate bill. it is a house bill. what we have our senate amendment. senate amendments. we are prepared to begin working to ensure -- we may have to work through this week and next, we are prepared to work to ensure that no one has the benefits jeopardized. we are playing with people's lives. we are trying to do our best. >> i have been informed that the association you mentioned did not take a position on this bill. >> they said it was complicated but they were willing to do the work. what i do not know why we cannot

have an up or down vote. it is complicated, they did not say they could not do this work. >> let me yield. that is the debate. what's i would like my own time. -- >> i would like my own time. >> i think a good number of people, you may have felt like this is not what you wanted. republicans hold a position that we believe we should continue doing our work and it could last a whole year. -- it should last a whole year. house republicans believed in our bill. there is much in decision that always takes place in the political process.

one thing we are being told is congress does not make decisions. they argue, thus, and fight. we believe that getting our work done to the end of september of next year is the right thing to do so that we can quit fighting. so that we conclude the debate and tell employers and employees, so that they can make long-term decisions. then we went through a process. >> a two year plan. >> two years. then we believe we would handle this as we did. the process is, and always has

been, we do what we do, they do what they do, we give it to them, they are the ones who rejected what we were doing. we are saying, we want to go to conference. in no way is this meant to diminish any group of americans. we feel we are trying to do the right thing by making a year- long effort. we believe this is the right thing to do. >> i would yield that my time. -- back my time. >> do you believe if we say we will go to conference, that is the end of it? harry reid says he is not going to do it. >> there have been mixed reports on this issue. >> let me ask you this, what is

the end point here if we send back something to them and they do not do it, we have achieved nothing. >> if i could reclaim my time, let me say we all studied, it is required that the two houses come together. that is what we are doing. >> you think you are requiring them to come back? >> we are proceeding with regular order. >> this is my first year on the committee. what's really? -- >> really? [laughter] >> i shared a passion for the importance of this issue. i thought i understood the ranking member to say that when

we were going through regular order, the two-month solution is not as good as a one-year solution. when we asked the senate to come back you said the senate majority leader has indicated he is going to refuse to come back? >> he refuses to reopen this bill. maybe you can answer this for me. what is the end product? they are not coming back. if we go to a conference, we have achieved nothing. reich? -- right? >> i hope the information has been misreported. what it has been reported far and wide. the chairman has the time. >> i asked for my own time.

i want to make sure that we do not misunderstand or misquote senator reid. i want to ask what senator reid said. senator mcconnell and i negotiated a compromise at speaker boehner's request. i will not reopen negotiations until the house follows through and passes the agreement that was negotiated by republican leaders. i have always thought that a one-year law -- i have always saw a one-yearlong extension. i am happy to continue to negotiate -- always sought a one-year long extension. i am happy to continue to

negotiate. before we reopen negotiations, the house of representatives must protect middle-class families by passing the bipartisan compromise that republicans negotiated and was approved by 90% of the senate -- that is the exact quote. >> it is fascinating to listen to you and mr. mcgovern speak here in support. you are going to have another opportunity. yeah, yeah, yeah. mr. mcgovern was a supplementary of them. -- was complimentary of them. we all know the story, they are not the enemy, they of the

opposition, the enemy is the senate. there are people who are unhappy with the senate. it jeopardize his, after two months, it does what they say they did not want to happen. there is no guarantee that we will by kicking the can down the road, that kicking the can down the road is not acceptable. we have a deadline we believe strongly that if the senate will do its job we can ensure that no american will see their taxes go up and we will see a two-year extension. >> thank you. i thank my friend from florida. i appreciate the majority leader

in the senate defending the senate. we have said that rep the year. it is worthless for the house to take action on a bill and send it to the senate and have the senate do nothing. to have the senate majority leader say we want the house to take action, it seems natural to me. in the lines of something you and i were talking about, my understanding of the way this has operated is that the rules committee is going to be close to midnight, it is going to jam something through, it is going to be a 2:00 a.m. abouvote. i believe we can do better. we talked about the material that was handed out. i think that material was handed out because that has been the

way the place has operated. we have fought for regular order. i wish it has been something we have done collectively. we would be invested in it collectively. there was a bad that we could have taken. i am proud we chose the better path. the better path which is to say, let's debate is under regular order tomorrow, let's not do it in the middle of the night, let's not waive any same-day consideration. i hope we can look at this as a step forward. there was a better way to do this and we spend it. i would say to the majority leader in the senate, there is a better way to provide certainty. we have said that this is with $1,000 -- worth $1,000.

we can do better. what do i have to believe? i have nothing to believe that. we can do better. we have to challenge them to do better. this has been a problem that is coming down the road. when you voted on it last december, we knew this day would come. to say to families in my district that they have to sit back and wait, that they have to fight the insipid before another two months-- uncertainty for another two months. come on we can do better. if it takes work the next two

weeks, i am in. -- working the next two weeks, i am in. >> i have some and people asking me to yield to them. you already did ask me to deal. -- yeild. ield. >> i am asking for my time. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate the reading, the comment from mr. reed. it gives the american people a good perspective on the attitude of the majority leader in the senate. the last time i looked, mr. reid was just the majority

leader. he is not the king of this country. for him to say we must pass the bill is an assumption. i am going to invite you to help me on the procedures if i get off track. we have talked about the need to get back on regular order. i do think that well 6 is not being caught in a country -- while civis is not being taugh in ou country, most people understand the bill passes one house, goes to another house, have to be passed in the same form, if it does, it goes to the president. if it is modified, it does that to the house of origin. -- it goes back to the house of origin. if the house of origin does not

agree with the change, then we have a conference. settle the differences between the two bills. the difference between the bill we passed in good faith last week with a bipartisan vote, all the good bills have passed this year. it went to the senate and was modified drastically. i appreciate the fact that we pointed out that the president has asked for a one-year extension. he has said it is inexcusable for the congress cannot pass a one-year extension. ms. pelosi has said it is unacceptable. even mr. hoyer has spoken out on behalf of this and said we need a one-year extension.

>> would you deal? -- yield. i am going to yield and then i'm going to recognize mr. hastings. >> tomorrow, when we have the motion to go to conference, we will be calling regular order. -- following regular order. we will be doing what we all think we should do. the fact that 80% of the senate republicans voted for what was sent over here, which i think is abysmal, is not binding on republicans in the house of purpose of this at all. -- house of representatives at

all. they do not speak for us. we are two independent bodies. i am thankful to the founders for treating the house of representatives -- creating the house of representatives. >> in >> many other senators are in fact support of of the measure that came out of the senate. we can be unhappy with them for having done that, but they are supportive of resolving the differences between the house- measure and the senate-passed measure. gosh i think that is appropriate to be said. that is probably the case. even if they voted for a bad

bill, they support regular order. have ar years, we didn't conference. people have forgotten what it is like to go the conference and have regular order. i think it is wonderful that we are going to be doing that and i want you to know that i will support the rule and the resolution, and i think it is rather frustrating to our colleagues that we are pointing this out, and i hope, again, we can move on the motions had get to where we need ago. >> i will yield to mr. bishop and recognize mr. a thing. we are still debating the rule. >> i would not be offended if you went to mr. hastings first. i am happy to receive that

yield. this is one of those things that is an entertaining evening. in a perverse kind of way. i missed the closer and i guess i will miss castle. closer will have a second rerun. i was amused if not amazed by mass slaughters opening statement. she had a psychic ability to predict what we were going to do with the republicans want to vote. you probably would not have been here at 7:00 05 and the first place. >> i should have known better, you are absolutely right. >> i am always right, listen to me again. there are three reasons why i will not be voting for her motion. mr. hastings and i am in the

middle of the middle-class. we are not for congressman, we are not as wealthy as the rest of you. a tax break for 20 days is nothing at all and it is almost worthless. it has to be a year. secondly, the pay for in the senate bill is totally unacceptable. the idea that they are going to come up with this pay for that will hurt middle-class homeowners is totally unacceptable and that is why i will not be voting for the senate version to go through. no. 3, the process that the chairman has outlined here is the norm. it has been for years, sometimes we forget -- that there were four years where we did not see one. it has been a long time since i have seen one.

what you have outlined here is the normal. that is the way things are supposed to be done. this is the traditional form in which we do these type of situations. for that reason, i will go on with what the chairman is out line. >> i am happy to recognize my dear friend from fort lauderdale. >> i was not all that anxious, and i came in here -- how we got off on the wrong -- the agenda i

received, it reflected that we were going to have an emergency meeting. in that particular provision, on the agenda as published, allows for a motion to concur with the said amendment of the middle class tax relief and job creation measure. is this the same thing that we are talking about now? >> most of that is the same, yes. i think my friend for yielding to me. we had retracted meeting at the republican conference. one of the things that we feel very strongly is listening to members.

frankly, as i looked down the aisle, there are three members of this committee that offered recommendations that the republican conference, and we underscored the fact that the vote to go the conference doesn't have you disagreeing with the said amendments. if you want to support the senate amendments to the bill, he would vote in opposition to going to conference. that cover the question that my friend has raised. pay the bill immediately to the president's desk, but it is the opportunity for the full body and the members to do exactly what we said. >> that i ask another question and i will yield of you. when do we get a chance to agree?

>> the opportunity that we are going to have -- you vote no on going to conference and it gives you a chance to agree with the senate action. the goal -- >> agree to do whta/ at? >> if you support the action that was taken in the senate by virtue of voting no on going to conference, you are stating your support in the actions taken by the senate. let me just say that what we are trying to do, what we are trying to do here is to ensure that all of the issues are considered and we will have a chance to -- the real key is, let's get to conference and so we can resolve this. i know sweeping statements have been made about what the senate

is going to do, and this is something that i remind myself of regularly. i happen to personally believe that the chairman of the rules committee should be on that the tent, that there will be no one ever in disagreement with the rules committee. the fact of the matter is, as much as i'd personally like that, we know very well that that is not the case and that there are a lot of people with input here. when miss fox pointed out the fact the senator reid is not king, he can't tell us what to do here. we have this two-hour republican conference downstairs in which we discussed it. that is what later role in making this modification. your conference. but to show you how fast things as travel, i agree with your

majority whip who was the person reported in your conference to have said, it's going to take this into the dead of night. >> of the gentleman will yield, that is not what happened. i will tell you that that is not what happened. it is not what was said. the settlement that emerged was the same settlement that louise slaughter has raised with regularity. >> and still have high, and so have you at different times regarding doing things in the debt of the night. i applaud you and the republican conference, and i hope that it is a pattern different from the pattern you have established of continuing, as we go through things, to stall and then

change. let me call lot where we are in this matter. -- chronolog where we are in this matter. mr. boehner sat in senator mcconnell's office and senator senator mcconnell will have his proxy. they are promising to live by whatever agreement he said it reached. i am committed to bringing the house back, and we can do it within 24 hours. it is from mcconnell unprepared by my staff in order for me to know -- a chronolog prepared by staff in order for me to know

what is going on. on cnn, 12-18 in the washington post 12-17, the speaker reacted to reports that we may have to settle on a two-month extension. in january of 2009, house republicans will likely reject a two-month extension, citing a desire to avoid striking a short-term deal and what impact of such a deal would have. just under two years ago, house republicans including some of the more conservative members were arguing that a two-month payroll tax would effectively stimulate the economy and he offered the measure in response to that. captured in this video leaving the caucus giving a high 5 to

the senator from wyoming. later, senator mcconnell says that he obviously keep the speaker informed as to what i am doing. he calls the payroll tax cut compromise a bill designed in the past and said, i think, my friend, this is his floor speech. i thank my friend for the opportunity to work together on something that could actually passed the senate and to be signed by the president. on saturday, just a few days ago, the speaker called the deal a good deal. and a victory. i saw it with my own eyes. he urged his caucus to declare victory and passed it on a conference call. evidently, some of you have a

conference call on sunday had something happened during that conference call that causes us here could be here on monday doing what we are doing out. on saturday afternoon, the center gave his consent to allow the senate to adjourn for the year. once the party republicans on sunday in his caucus rebelled, the speaker reversed course and is designing the deal that he supported 24 hours earlier. let's be frank with the american people. politics is what we do. especially at the end of session, and nerves are frayed and members are anxious. and in this particular instance, when you decided -- i said what

scott brown commented, it is pretty serious although i think it is the alter ego, but the house republicans plan to scuttle the deal to help middle- class families and it is irresponsible and wrong. i appreciate their measure to extend it for a full year, but a two-month extension is a good deal when it means we avoid jeopardize and the livelihood of middle-class americans. it threatens to increase taxes on hard-working americans. she said that she spoke out against this unprecedented two- month policy experiment. there wasn't in indication that the house would be in disagreement with the senate action and we are offering a measure in this agreement. nonetheless, we are here.

what is paramount is that it not be allowed whole alaska. it is astounding that we come in here and put up these rules. the newer members don't know of what we do know. at this time, with the said going on saturday night, though there were 10 that voted against it, they are all over the world. >> will the gentleman yield? >> not at this point. it may very well be that they will come back here, but there is nobody on this committee that can save the senate is going to be back here wednesday are that the senate is going to be back

here thursday. >> i will yield to miss fox. i was not complete with my statement, but i will yield to dr. fox and i will yield to you. dr. hughes said they had adjourned, but i don't think they have. i read many reports that said that they are in session, and i wanted to see if i was wrong on that. >> and they adjourned. and when the senate adjourns, they go everywhere. that is exactly where they are, all over the world. everyone in your conference knew that. >> i was trying to make the same point, but the senate should understand they have a responsibility. >> i want to applaud you will for doing what you're doing, but

i caution you for your own good the you're committing political suicide. the reason you are is that you know the senate and you know how they act and you put this kind of pressure on them and you can reasonably expect the you got exactly what you wanted to. that is why we did not pass a payroll tax cut for unemployment insurance or the box fixed that we should do permanently had stopped coming in here. that can that we have kicked down the road that is narrow way is to be returned on groundhog day. he will do it all over again. all of you know that is the case. the president has not yet signed the spending measure. you don't know exactly what he is going to do. but it is almost offensive to believe that 89 senators, mcconnell, andrea, having an

action asked for by your speaker is now in the position of the wall saying that we are going to ping-pong something back over there that we know that we aren't going to pass. you are acting scrooge like, and everybody in america hot technology. >> the gentleman yield back the balance of his time, and let me just say there is no ping pong in the idea of going to conference. >> i did not have a chance. thank you, mr. chairman. in the spirit of clarity, i am a supporter of the louie gohmert solution. the only 60-dissolution that he ever supported was a 60-day payroll tax holiday of all payroll taxes.

not just 2%, but the entire 7.65% on employees and -- absolutely. 7.65% for employees, 7.65% for employers, and every nickel of income tax as well. the case that is being made is not that there is no such thing as a good 60-day solution, the case that is being made is that we have been talking all year about getting the american people some certainty in their economic situations. and we have the opportunity to do that. i don't know the senate as you have described this and that, mr. hastings, and i will tell you straight from the heart, i have only the expectation that they will be back in town this week and next week appointing

conferees and working with us to provide a long-term solution. there is no other thought in my mind that article 2, section 3 gives the authority for the president to call the senate back and if this is important as you will have made the case, by golly, you are exactly right. there are baby steps we take to getting back to regular order. this house under both republicans and democrats have ceded too much authority to the executive branch. and i don't believe it, but i knew that the very idea that you could believe that he said things they run capitol hill that they can pass their bill and leave town offends me. as a representative of 1 million folks in the great state of georgia, i doubt think that is

going to be the case. i am absolutely certain that they will be back. >> [inaudible] >> if they have done that before, it was wrong when they did it before. >> let me remind everyone that we are now considering the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from rochester. i would like to wrap up this two-hour discussion, this slaughter amendment and to move ahead. >> alecky yield briefly to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> there is a breaking news alert from cnn in titled, house republicans will allow upper down vote to extend payroll tax

cuts, and agent told cnn that the vote will likely be scrapped to avoid having house republicans who oppose a tax break for working americans. i read that with a great deal of frustration because, if you know, i don't know what we lose by passing the senate compromise. we have guaranteed a year-long compromise, we're not gambling with of the lives of middle- class americans, senior citizens, and unemployed. >> and have one of our colleagues from texas who has been waiting patiently, would she have the opportunity to present on this matter? >> we're not having a hearing on it. ms. jackson has known that.

>> whitby out of order for me to yield a moment to her? >> we are not having a hearing, said it would be out of order since we are not in hearing. >> we are in the midst of markup here, and since we are in the midst of marking of this rule, it is not permitted for representatives of the rules committee to be heard. i appreciate miss jackson lee being here as always, there are no amendments that have been filed to this rule. >> missed slaughter just filed an amendment to the rule. oh, amendments under the rule.

>> i will make my remarks briefly. what we're looking at here is the typical tax-and-spend republican policies. we saw the defense authorization bill with dollars in earmarked and pork. as the chairman confirmed, it was almost all deficit spending. ballot huge tax increase. spend money, raise taxes, we have an enormous tax increase on the middle class on january 1. in 10 days, i am not sure how anybody expect this. we had the opportunity to do -- turn tax reduction. we have the opportunity by taking up the gang of six. we didn't do any of that so we have tax-and-spend, tax-and- spend. the republicans walked away from this.

they have not brought any of those measures to a vote. he walked away from the super committee and they are here raising taxes. he can't raise taxes to solve the deficit. you have to start cutting spending. with record levels of government spending, you have to cut spending and raise taxes on the middle class to get out of it. i think this is the wrong direction for the country. i don't think this was the mandate given to members of congress in this session. >> what we are attempting to do here is proceed with regular order to weaken have a house- senate conference that will allow us to do that. our deputy staff director sat very patiently awaiting the vote on the slaughter amendment. i hope very much that we have a chance, i suspect you have talked to reporters, but there is no need for him to be sitting there.

the vote now occurs. those in favor -- mr. webster would like to be recognized. >> it is important that we talk about the policy here at some point in time of why this would be a bad move to concur with the senate amendment. what is wrong with it declared -- with it? i don't know how many of you have to fill these out? it is called a 941 quarterly federal report. every small business has to fill this out every quarter. this form has not changed in years and years and years. it makes it a little simpler when that takes place. under the paperwork reduction act notice, it says that 13

hours and 59 minutes learning about the law. 47 minutes, preparing and sending the form to the irs. one hour and three minutes. for whatever reason, maybe none of those senators has ever felt one of these out before. it is pretty sad if they haven't because they ought to read the forms that they produce. so here, who have 14 or 15 hours worth of work to do this. every small business, which is going happen? law only last two months. every quarter is january, february, march. if they were doing anything constructive, they would have only done at four particular quarter. now there will have to be extra

lines on here. they don't know of we are going to extend it or not, so all of these small businesses will be in jeopardy, not knowing when to fill them out. they may have allowed this film -- and this form or maybe another form. it is wrong. what you're doing to small businesses in this senate amendment is wrong. you're hurting them desperately. i have had a business for 50 years, we do our own work. it is a small business. are they tired of this kind of stuff we're all of a sudden, here is your form, but we don't know if this is your form. another one might have 10.4%, another might have 12.4%. you may have to fill out both

and will might have to read the law. maybe it will take a couple hours, maybe 50 hours to keep the records. maybe it will take three or four or five hours to fill it out. small businesses don't have that kind of time to spend filling out federal forms because the congress failed to take into consideration what they do. we want to argue about the process. the senate did this. the nine of them voted for it, so it must be right. the reason it is wrong is that it hurts millions of small businesses that will have to live within this period start a, -- within this. sorry, but this is a bad amendment. >> of the vote now occurs. in my opinion, the no's have it. call the roll.

[roll call vote] 4 yay, 8 nay. >> are there further amendments? the aye's have it. clerk, call the roll. [roll call vote]

there are 8 yay, 4 nay. >> the gentleman from north charleston will be managing this rule on the floor at 9:00 tomorrow morning. just shortly after 9:00 tomorrow morning, and i hope everyone has a great evening. we look forward to seeing you in the morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> wrapping up an evening of live coverage from capitol hill, the house rules committee, the house adjourning and back in session tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. about an hour and a half or so ago, the speaker of the house spoke with reporters after the long caucus that you heard referred to in the rules committee. we'll see the remarks from the speaker now and we will follow that with the remarks of the minority leader policy.

>> of the house republican conference met this evening to talk about our way forward. our members believe that we passed a reasonable and responsible bill for the payroll tax credit for a year and would take care of the doctors that treat medicare patients, a reduction in their payments and solve that problem for the next two years. it was exactly what the president asked us to do. our members cannot ha want to just hunt and to a two-month short term fix where we go back and have to do this again. we're here and we are willing to work. he will appoint conferees and we will hope that the senate will appoint conferees. we're willing to get the work done now and do the right way. has become clear that what the

senate did pass is going to toss -- cost and job creators of all kinds of problems. there is great confusion about the way the senate bill has been put together. problem now and will have plenty of time for next year. >> of the message coming out of the conference tonight is that our members want to make sure that we are here to continue to work until congress passes a year-long extension of the payroll tax holiday. we out right reject the attempt by the senate to kick the can down for 60 days. it is an unworkable solution demonstrated by the report out today, people in the business say it will cause increased expense and confusion and will not only hurt small businesses but their workers.

will asked the rules committee to go to a meeting tonight, we expect them to have the rule for tomorrow. tomorrow we will come in and not only move to pass that rule, but we will also take up a motion to reject the said amendment and code a conference call that we can actually work the differences and out and we can resolve the situation and the people of this country get some certainty as far as tax policy health care policy going forward. >> when the republicans laid out the pledge to america, we look at what the sec has done, only for two more months is not where america is added. tomorrow, we will solve the problem. the other thing we said is that we are going to follow the order in which the country was created.

the senate can pass the bill, the house can pass the bill, we go the conference and you move forward. we said we did not like doing things in the dead of the night. he will fly the rules committee will go tonight, but these rules will take place tomorrow in the light of day. this is a new house, a new direction, and we want to move forward. listen to what the democrats had said, from the president on down. harry reid saying on december 7 that congress cannot leave until these issues are dealt with. we're not going to go home until you finish this. chuck schumer said that will stay here as long as it takes to get this done. we will stay here to christmas and new year's, and nancy pelosi as early as the seventeenth as december, will return to washington without delay and will keep up the fight to extend

these provisions for a full year. that is what we are fighting for. a full year, putting america back to work. >> in the almost three years since the president was elected, the employment was an act, near, or above 9%. almost every single member of congress has decided that we need to extend the payroll tax relief for hard-working american families. almost every member of congress has decided that we need to have a longer extension of unemployment insurance reformed so that it is physically solvent. the debate is coming down to two points. do you want to do something for 60 days that kicks the can down the road, that no business, a

job creator, or family in america can count on, or do with the president ask us to do? we don't agree all that often, but do we want to do with the president asked us to do and do a full year? are you at least willing to work over the holidays so that maybe the american people might have a little better christmas? or are you not willing to work over the holidays? house republicans stand ready to appoint conferees. we stand ready to do what is necessary to get the payroll tax relief, the unemployment insurance reforms and get it ready for the american people. >> can you explain, three votes or four votes tomorrow? >> obviously, we will have a

previous question, motion, motion on the rule. he will have a motion to reject the senate amendment and go the conference. we expect the minority to have a motion to instruct conferees, and we will have a majority resolution that will lay out our house position that is consistent with the bills that we passed last week, consistent with what we have all been saying. as the president said in his statement, a much better path forward is an uncertainty. that is a year's extension of the payroll tax holiday so that families, working people are not going to have the gas from month-to-month what the tax status is. >> can you help us understand what happened between your conversations leading up to this

and now? did you miscalculate or miscommunicate and now we are in this back and forth? >> the house passed a bill to deal with what the president asked for. extend the payroll tax holiday for a year. i made it clear to senator reid and senator mcconnell that the house was not going to enter into the negotiation until such time as the senate did its job. it was time for the senate to produce something. we disagree of what they produced and as a result, we are asking to go the conference so we can resolve the differences. >> how did they negotiate a bad deal? >> the senate did their job and produce a bill. the house disagrees with that. >> you were talking like it might be something that you could go along with and now you practically sound like

cheerleaders, are you enthusiastic about this? >> we believe this is the right thing to do for the country. that is why the house passed it in a broad and a bipartisan manner. that is why we are willing to stay here and get the job done so that the american people in small businesses have some certainty about what the tax code is going to look like for all of next year. thank you. [unintelligible questions] >> shortly after, minority leader nancy pelosi spoke on the subject of the payroll tax

extension joined by minority whip steady hoyer and congressman cliburn. >> the evening, everyone. we came back to washington on saturday when we heard that the senate had passed the bipartisan bill overwhelmingly, 89 votes, voting for a bipartisan agreement negotiated by majority leader read and minority leader mcconnell. we were very hopeful that by now the president could have signed this bill. it was even a knowledge as a victory by the speaker that insisted that negotiations had taken place between the majority leader and the minority leader. that was then, this is now out. what is important are the facts as they relate to, as they are

relative to the lives of the american people. we see stalling action on part of those that were never really for a payroll tax cut in the first place. president obama went around the country with the american jobs act and the payroll tax cut was very appealing. they supported it overwhelmingly. they want the tax cut and the jobs that will engender, and they want us to work together. can you work together to get this done? well, we did. we support -- is not everything we would have written into the bill, but it is about cooperation and about coming to agreement meeting the needs of the american people. here we are, a few days before christmas, and the republicans are coming up with another

excuse as to why we can't do it now. it is not a reason why it is necessary, it is an excuse for why they don't want to do it. here is what is at stake. they will continue to have a payroll tax cut. over 2 million people will lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act upon the senate resolution 48 million americans will choose their own doctors under medicare. those are working will get a tax cut, over 2 million will have lost their jobs through no part of their own. 48 million seniors will have something to lose in this. economists tell us that passing this will have 600,000 jobs on

the american economy, for us to move forward with the payroll tax cut. the ui brings more money back into the economy than almost anything. $1.50 for every dollar spent. and the health of our seniors is very important to us. we have been trying to get the compromise of the senate, it was a step forward. it takes us down the path for what we have for the end of next year. what we must have is a bill that it says takes us to the end of next year. we want to remove all doubt that when you gather around a kitchen table, when you sit down to holiday dinner, you know that come january you will still be able to pay the bills. these people, after january 1, unemployment beneficiaries, they will have no way to live. this is critically important to

their personal lives. it is important to the growth of our economy. not to do it will halt the momentum we have for growing the economy. for republicans to say we are here to work, welcome back to the capital. we should never be in this position. we are in this position because the senate republicans, the senate democrats, the house democrats, not a loving the proposal, but agreeing to the agreement. it is the radical, tea party republicans who are holding up this tax cut for the american people and jeopardize in our economic stability. mr. hoyer. >> thank you very much. the president and we in the

american people have indicated that it is important we continue the middle class tax cut. it is good for them and it is good for the economy. it is good for expanding our economy. we have made it clear, the president has made it clear, that the continuation of unemployment insurance is critical. it is critical for those who are going to lose their insurance. it is also critical to our economy. critical to jobs, the growth of jobs in our economy. it is critical to extend the payment for docs who serve medicare patients, 48 million senior citizens who will be adversely affected if doctors cannot get reimbursed. this is critical that we act.

we passed a bill. senator reid tried to put that bill on the floor to see whether or not it had majority support. we believe it would not have had majority support. the republicans refuse to put that bill on the floor. senator reid and john boehner met. they talked about how we would make sure we had an extension. i am not sure everybody was for a middle-class tax cut. i'm going to read a quote. but just 80 days ago, just before the agreement in the senate was made, senator mcconnell was seen exiting speaker boehner's office.

leader mcconnell said he was in constant communication with speaker boehner before this deal was made. in my opinion, what we are seeing is a leadership of the house and senate who believes that this compromise, while not perfect, was something that ought to be done. i am not sure that speaker boehner is for extending the tax-cut. let me give you a quote of his. on june 23, 2011, house speaker john boehner called the proposals to extend or expand take cuts "another a little short-term gimmick." does that sound familiar?

he thought a year's extension was a gimmick. he now thinks 60 days is a short-term gimmick. he is not for this. and so we see, not withstanding the fact that the president of the united states could accept a bill that would give us certainty talked about. the certainty that there would be a continuation of that tax cut on january 1. a certainty that doctors would reimburse at a level that they could continue to serve patients. a certainty that those on unemployment insurance who cannot find a job would have sustenance for themselves and their families. let me read one additional quote i read earlier today.

this is not a partisan issue. 39 republican senators voted for the speed 83% of the republican members of the united -- for this. 82% of the republican members of the senate voted for this. why in heaven's name can you come to agreement in washington d.c.? almost 100% of the democrats are for something, why can you not come to an agreement? that is the question i posed to speaker boehner. why cannot take yes for an answer? -- why can you not take yes for an answer? why can we not give the american people assurance? they needed particularly at this holiday time. i am hopeful the house of representatives will pass the bill. that was saturday night. speaker dinner is under enormous pressure. -- speaker boehner is under

enormous pressure. that was from the tea party. he has guts and feedback from republicans who say, we'd just do not like it -- he has gotten feedback from republicans who say, we just do not like it. not that it is short term, we just do not like it. they do not like tax cut for the middle class. as a matter of fact, many republicans would say, we do not want the extension of unemployment compensation anyway. he went on to conclude that he is hopeful the majority will proceed, it seems to me this is best for the country and all individuals who are affected. senator scott brown said the same thing, that did the senator from nevada -- as did the senator from nevada. ladies and gentlemen, the american public understands

that what is happening is a partisan convulsion driven by the tea party in the republican house. they are insuring that america is faced with the uncertainty that we will face -- that we have faced in appropriation bills. republicans cannot come to yes on behalf of the american people. i hope speaker boehner decides that, while this is not perfect, it will give 60 two people that on january 1 they will have what they need -- it will give assurance to people that on january 1 they will have what they need. that is the least we can do in this holiday time, putting our country on a path of continued economic recovery. i am pleased to yield to my good

friend, representative from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i think all of us have heard a question asked time and time again, why can you not all work other on behalf of the american people? we just saw a vote in the senate. i think it demonstrates that the senate can work together. 99% of the democrats in the house have indicated that they are for this bill.

if it does not happen, it is not the senate, it is not the house democrats, it is the leadership of the house republicans once again capitulating to a small group within that refuses to do what for the middle income people of america, what they want to do for the high income. we have seen the recent studies. i have seen three of them. very significant studies, the cbo study that looked on the last 30 years and said that the policy we have pursued in this country has held 20% of the income earners have experienced

only 18% growth in household income, while the of a 20% have experienced a 65% growth in income. what we are doing here today, if the republican leadership continues to pursue this policy, it means that those people who have suffered so much in the last 30 years can look forward to a post-holiday season without their unemployment insurance, without this tax cut continuing for 160 million, and for 46 million seniors, they

will see themselves cut off from their doctors because doctors will walk off the field and will not treat medicare patients if they experience this 30% to 35% reduction in their costs. i want to say to the american people that the democrats in the house are willing to join that bipartisan delegation on the other side of this building and say to the american people, merry christmas, have the kwanzaa -- happy kwanaa, happy hanukkah, and hopefully, a

happy new year. >> the reason the republicans are not taking yes it is because no is their answer. that is driven by the tea party republicans who will be responsible for this tax increase if it happens, which i hope it will not. earlier this evening, i saw a republican leaders say that tomorrow we would have the opportunity to vote on the senate bill. i just heard from our ranking member that that is not the case. they haven't got it them -- have instructed them that we will not vote on the senate bill. i do not know what has happened in between. whatever it was, it was harmful

to the american people. my guess is they are afraid that their members are not going to stick with them. i do not believe that all republicans are against the payroll tax cut. the american people are for it, whether they are democrats, republicans, or independent. the senate is for it. in the house, we support that agreement. it does the job to get this tax cut in place so we can get on with the business of doing a one-year proposal we all want to do. why is it that a couple hundred people in the republican caucus can hold up a tax cut for middle income people, access to medicare, and unemployment insurance? it is because they do not support the tax cut.

they were against it. president obama went around the country, it was one of the most popular features, he made the issue too hot for the republicans to handle. they cannot put it on the floor, afraid their own members will abandon them. this is a pivotal moment. decisions that are made will affect americans directly. affect americans directly. this in an immediate way. clear that the facts are -- not procedural arguments, the do nothing congress. in any event, we are going to make sure republicans understand -- the public

understands senate insisted upon by speaker boehner and once again walked away from, as he walked away from the agreement with president obama about default, the $4 trillion bargain. middle income tax cut for 160 million americans. we will take questions. >> you said earlier today that you saw -- thought speaker boehner thought this was the

earlier today you said you were not so sure he was for the catgut. -- tax cut. >> mr. boehner was for this before he was against it. he was against it before this morning. what explains that? the american people. mr. mcconnell was not and is the ethic and the next week he said we are going to put it on the floor. -- not a enthusiastic about this and the next week he said we are going to put it on the floor. the american people have been pulling for this to give stability to middle-class families so they can help grow this economy, which every economist says this will do. i think, basically, all he knows the right thing to do, and that is why he came up and said -- out and said this agreement

would give certainty for the next 60 days and was a victory. his caucus came back, the tea party faction, and said we do not like this deal. he reversed himself. i think he knows the american people believe that what the senate did was what they wanted to see. they are hopeful that the senate proposal is approved. >> the gop says they are going to vote to appoint reid. -- conferees. if that happens, will you? >> i do not think we should go to conference. we do not have an opportunity to vote on the bill. the american people ask for

three things, jobs, a tax cut, and for us to work together. this proposal meets that. it is worthy of a vote on the floor of the house. >> the payroll tax cut does not expire tomorrow. you are for a one-year extension. everyone is for it. what is wrong besides with the>> let me ask you this, one of the tactics republicans have used is to push it up to theheavy covered the senate? do you know how long it takes to -- have you covered the senate? do you know how long it takes to get something done? it is an agreement that does the job. we can come back and start tomorrow negotiating on the one-year. there is nothing that

forecloses that option. this paves the way for that. we have an ideal situation where we can remove all doubt and uncertainty, for us to work together to give them a tax cut. to continue our economic growth. that is what this does. at the same time, it enables us to go to the table to start working on what we need to do in order to make it a 10-month arrangement. i know how sophisticated you are. you are probably asking because you are curious of my view. you must know that the success the senate had, i was told that mr. mcconnell was high five in one of his members -- high- fiving one of his members, so proud of this accomplishment. let's take yes for an answer. the republicans do not want a

class. -- a payroll tax cut for the middle class. they do not believe in extending tax cuts. we know where they are. we know where we cannot go. >> i want to say something on your question. it perpetuates the uncertainty that mr. boehner says he does not want. legislative process and think -- none of us have watched this legislative process and think things are certain. we do know that the senate has passed a bipartisan extension ofwe do know that if we pass that morrow, and send it to the president, the president will

sign it. we do not know for certain that people will not lose the middle class tax cut. they will not lose reimbursement, and unemployment insurance will continue. we know that for certain. when you ask what is wrong, it perpetuates the uncertainty of which the republican congress complains. we can get sick and the tomorrow bypassing the middle class tax cut -- get certainty tomorrow cut. >>-- by passing the middle class>> why did democrats vote against the payroll tax cut package? >> i know how closely you

attended the particular is of the legislation. there were poisoned pills built into that bill so it would not be exempted by the senate was signed by the president. -- not be accepted by the senate-- or signed by the president. it had its own destruction built into it. putting a woman and she says, i -- it is like a man courting a woman, and she says, i'm would love to marry you, i will marry you on february 30. that day is never coming. the day is never coming whether the republicans will be honest about what they want.

american people to know, we want -- it is important for the american people to know, we want to work together. we have. you wanted us to get a payroll tax cut. we have the opportunity. you want us to keep the momentum going on economic growth and job creation. it does it. let it down to it, put the bill on the floor, take your chances, see if your caucus is willing to vote for it. that is probably why the story changed. you were there when he said we are going to take of the senate bill? in a matter of minutes, that

was gone. there were many who would like to vote for this clean bill. it is relatively clean. we have all had to cooperate on it. if you are for it, put it out there in a way that brings people together but does not have seeds of its own destruction in it. >> can i make a short addition? >> you may. [laughter] >> senator mcconnell said this is designed to pass. secondly, let me finish this thought, you asked why we opposed it. it was designed to fail. they built into that things that they knew the senate had

not agreed to. how do i know that? the republicans would not allow it to come to a vote on the senate floor. they objected to its consideration. that is what. >> i wanted to mention, i am sure i heard this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, henry clay. then ron paul. in the daughters of john huntsman talk about their campaign trail experiences. now a discussion on former house speaker henry clay of kentucky. he was known as the great compromiser. from "the contenders," portraits

of the people who ran for president a loss, but still changed history. history nevertheless. >> this is a portrait of kentucky's henry clay, known to us from our history books as the great compromiser. during his 49-year political career, he served as secretary of state, speaker of the house, and as a u.s. senator. and he was a contender, making five presidential bids, including 1832 against andrew jackson and 1844, when he ran

against james capel. tonight we are zero vacation in ashland, henry clay's home in lexington, ky. for the next 90 minutes, we will explore the life and legacy of this man, unsuccessful in his long quest for the white house, get having an outside influence on american history. if we're in henry clay's parlor right now. let me introduce you to jim klotter, for 25 years now, the kentucky state historian. why is henry clay relevant to americans living in our time? >> first of all, his famous comment, i would rather be right than be president, still speaks to us across whatever we are doing, whether we are in politics or something else, to do more -- to do the right thing. he also said the politicians need to remember their country and sacrifice for their country. that is still something we need to remember as well.

the man known as the great compromiser, the man that forge these compromises that not only get the country together but were constructed. as well as all the things he did in his life, a clarion call over and over to say to us again and again that we can do a lot of things if we just tried like the self-made man, henry clay, did. >> a very complex and interesting time of american history. let's start with some basics about his biographer. where and when was he born, and how did he get the kentucky? >> he was born 1777, the seventh child. his father died very young. his mother remarried to a younger man. clay like to think of himself as a self-made man, working himself to the bone, coming up ranks from a very poor family. in essence, they came from a fairly well-off family. they had slaves. there were not that bad off. it was part of the persona that clay indented for himself. from there he went on -- his

family basically came to kentucky, leaving him back in virginia when he was 14 years old to be on his own. he finally joined him in kentucky when he was 20 years old as a young lawyer. he married well. the easiest way to get rich is to marry well and he did that. this a state we are an, an example of what he did with his start in with his promise, and he made himself and the someone all americans can admire. >> who did he marry? >> he married lucretia cray -- clay. she was from the heart family, an early family of kentucky. marriage into the family gave him entry into a lot of political circles that would have been denied him. she also had some money. they basically have the connections, and use those connections to move forward. once he got his foot in the door, he felt he could open the door himself with his own abilities. >> if henry clay was here today through time travel, will he look like?

what would he sound like? >> no one could sit down with henry clay and leave without liking him. he was not a handsome man. everyone says he was ugly. there were always comments about his large mouth. they say his mouth was so large, he could not even spit properly. he was a man who liked the ladies, as they said. someone at that time said that he could kiss someone with one side of his mouth while it was resting the other side of his mouth. as soon as he opened his mouth, great oratory came out. he could charm you. he had charisma. a person of the opposite party when time came to henry clay's home. it was a room filled with people, a room bigger than this. he said, would you not like to meet the famous mr. clay? this democrat said no, sir, no, sir, i do not choose to subject myself to that. he knew that he had that personality, that charisma, that charm, that anyone who would meet him would like him one-on- one.

>> was this just a genetic gift, or did he school himself, did he have a mentor? where did he get this from? >> he worked at it. he had heard patrick henry's oratory in virginia and he was amazed by the force of his oratory. he wanted to be like that. he talked about giving speeches to the cows in the field as practice. he came to look kentucky as a lawyer. you almost have to convict the jury through the force of your words, not necessary -- not necessarily the law itself. he developed. he was also waste -- he was almost a self-made order, too, because he could turn on a minute and speak on the issues. it was impossible to challenge clay in a debate because he would get up on the spur of the moment, but all the facts and figures and win the argument. john c. calhoun was prepared atoll for two weeks, and clay got up and demolished him instantly. that was the kind of man the

clay was. had he been able to appear on television, he could have really been a very effective politician. of course at that time, you did not campaign for president. there was no radio. so that force of oratory was the only way. >> we have been talking with historians and people here at ashland about him, they keep telling us that he was the equivalent of a rock star in his time. everybody in the country knew him. now when a country without mass communication, how was it possible for everybody to know who henry clay was? >> politics was the sport at that time. it was a game that everybody followed. there were no organized force as we know it, things like that. there was not any musical thing except in the church and things like that. the politics and the oratory, everybody wanted to follow that as closely as they could. the oratory and speeches of clay, or webster, young boys and girls in school would write these down and practice them

over and over again. they wanted to be like henry clay. but he was like a rock star. he would be followed by an adoring people. he would go into towns -- there is an example of 100,000 people turning out to hear him speak at one time in dayton, ohio. he had children named for him. he had a steamboat named for him. he had everything named for him. he was a people but liked to see -- he was a person -- he was a man that people like to say, to savor the excellence of henry clay. >> politician still talk about henry clay today. let's listen to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, the kentucky senior senator, referencing henry clay. >> he served the people as the speaker of the kentucky house of representatives, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, if the secretary of state under president john quincy adams, and of course, as one of the greatest senators to ever walk through the capital.

it was also honored to receive his party's nomination for president three times -- in 19 -- 1824, 1832, an 1844. the essence of legislating in the senate, as 100 viewpoints are brought together to create one law, is compromise. henry clay became known as the great compromiser. he forced a compromise that would keep his precious union together. clay did not compromise of this is a forsaking his principles, rather his skill was to bring together the disparate ideas and forge consensus among his colleagues. that is a skill we could certainly use more of now. >> during the great debates we just went through this summer over the debt ceiling in the budget, there was so much talk

about compromise in washington, whether or not it is a lost art. talk to us in that context about henry clay at as the great compromiser and what sort of skills he brought to bear their? >> if i wanted something to happen, he would work very hard to make it happen. it would sit down with people and find out what they wanted, go to the other side and see what they would want and try to find some common ground, somewhere in the middle. it cost him, though. as they say about compromises, in the attorney general's office in the 1960's, is said blessed are the peacemakers because they shall take hell from both sides. in the sense, clay came at the problem from both sides. it hurt him politically. at the same time, he felt that he had to do this because the nation required. the constitution is a compromise. if the nation did not compromise on these issues, it would tear

itself apart. so clay had an urgency behind everything he did, and he actually compromise some of his principles for the sake of the union, giving up his beloved tariff issues for the sake of keeping the union together and not having secessionists' break off and war against injured jackson. but the same time, -- or against interjection. but at the same time, the greater thing he would not compromise was a union. he said one time that the key to his heart was the union. that was the one thing would never compromise on. >> we're talking about because of today, the american system which is something he promoted as a major component which includes carrots, you just reference, building a month -- spending the money from the terrace on building american infrastructure, and also a big debate on an international bank. we're still discussing how effective these things are in today's economy. what was the country like them and the level of debate over issues such as the tariff and

the national bank? >> very philosophical issues, issues from the very start of the nation. there were still issues when henry clay came around and they are still issues today. to have a strong central government or strong state governments? he thought the national government to do things for the nation's debt and -- in the states cannot accomplish these. it hurt him politically as well. he felt like these internal improvements were necessary to tie the country together, otherwise it would fragment into east and west and north and south. his comment was that he knows no north, and the south, no east and west. to him it was one country, indivisible. and these would be ways to keep it together. the terrorists would help american industry and allow it to grow. it did not say he had predicted had to be there all the time. but it needed to convey against britain and things like that. and then the bank of the united states, at the time the united

states was being formed, hard money was the only legal currency. the government did not print paper money. the banks did, but they could be weak, the banks, and the money to go away. clay wanted to make a central bank that we would really not happen to the federal reserve system was set up in a 20th- century, and that bank of the united states became very controversial as well and it hurt him politically when he supported that. he said all this was necessary for the good of the nation. >> henry clay sounds like a pretty good guy, but he said he had a lot of enemies. he was also known to have some vices. what were his vices? >> his eyes is became more prominent the longer that he lived, as part is the political scene when. because of his youth, he was known as a person who liked to gamble. he said it was a very good political tool. he could sit around with the british and sat across from them and play poker with them and see how much they like to block or

commerce that would call his bluff. he sought as a tool in some ways. he loved to gamble as a lot of people did. he would lose huge amounts of money one night in when that back the next night. his wife lucretia, when someone chided her about her husband being a man who liked to gamble so much, said, i do not know, he usually wins. he did win a lot, but he liked the spirit of gambling. as he got older, he did not do that as much, he liked to drink as most americans did. he preferred wine, but he never really got drunk, but he enjoyed it. all those things were used against him by the moral side of america that thought that clay was a womanizer, a blasphemer, a duelist, and a drinker. and so those these would be used against him over and over again. at different times in his life, but there was something to some of those. there was much exaggerated. it became part of the stereotype of henry clay.

>> he died in 1852, so what 50- year career that we're talking about spans the first half of the 19th century in america, a great many years for the formation of the nation and also sectionalism and the fight's over slavery. we have so much to talk about. during this program we will be opening up our phone lines for her participation. we will give you the phone numbers now. it will be a little bit of time before we get the calls but if you are interested in do so, you can get in line. we welcome your questions and, answers to your input into the spirit of american history, it makes the discussion much richer. we also want to listen to it kentucky's junior senator rand paul about henry clay. >> henry clay's life is at best a mixed message. as compromises were over

slavery. some could argue that he rose above sectional strife to keep the union together, to preserve the union, but one could also argue that he was morally wrong and that his decisions on slavery, to extend slavery, where decisions that may actually may have ultimately invited the war that came. that is compromises but that during the 50 years of his legislative career, he not only accepted slavery but he accepted the slave trade. in the name of compromise, henry clay was by most accounts not a cruel master, but he was a master nonetheless up 48 slaves, most of which he did not free during his lifetime and some he -- and some the only free belatedly, 28 years after his death. he supported the fugitive slave law throughout his career. he compromised on the extension of slavery. when he was the speaker of the house, there was a vote on extending slavery into arkansas

and the vote was 88-88. he came down extraordinarily from the speaker's chair to vote in favor extending slavery into often saw -- in arkansas. before we eulogize henry clay, we should analogize it -- we should knowledge and appreciate contras when he refused to compromise. william lloyd garrison told a small abolitionist press for 30 years refusing to compromise with claes desire to send the slaves back to africa. garrison was beaten, chased by mobs, and imprisoned for his principled stand. frederick douglass travel the country at the time. he was a free black man but he traveled at great personal risk throughout the countryside and he proved ultimately that he was a living, breathing example intellect and leadership could come from a recently freed slave. >> and we are back and we're

with another guest like to introduce. alicestyne turely is a history professor of the university of louisville. welcome to our discussion of henry clay. before we get into the area where you spend a lot of your scholarship, which is slavery at that time, taught the lesson a general sense about your presence of henry clay. what are your views of this man? >> i take the view of him as a rock star. as a popular candidate, he is very impressive. he is a lightning rod. he seemed to be able to give people fired up, either for or against him. he has the ability to inspire, and even on the abolitionists scenes, -- issues, he takes more heat than senators who are actually more -- john c. calhoun, for instance. henry clay's more talked about, read about, focused upon than

some of the more prominent political figures. >> we spent time talking about is basics and not really delved into his position about slavery. explain to was what his philosophical and political positions were about slavery. >> philosophically he was against the idea of slavery. for his time, he would have been considered extremely liberal and he was touted as a liberal, an abolitionist, and emancipationist. he did not believe in slavery but he also did not think african-americans could survive in america as citizens. so the whole idea of the american colonization society, freedom outside of the united states, it became his platform that he really stuck to throughout his political -- political career. he never did deny the fact that he thought african-americans should have their freedom. he just was not willing to risk -- he knew the political damage

anti-slavery could do to his political career into the country. >> he was a slaveholder, correct? >> he was a slaveholder and an anti-slavery men, and the cost and great grief all his life. in that north, he was criticized as a slaveholder, and in the south, he was criticized for its anti-slavery views. had taken one side of the other, he might of been much better off as a politician, as abraham lincoln in the north did, and got elected with all the northern coast of southern votes. add clay done that and freed his slaves, it may help him as a politician. >> and the fact it was not willing to do it and stuck to his emancipation ideas, despite the criticism, that says a lot. >> what we know about the number of slaves he held a hearing how he treated them? >> he was recorded at the height of having 35. when he died, he was still holding slaves. he emancipated some.

the most famous case is at charlotte, who was a servant in washington, who does not want to return to kentucky when he wants to come back, and she literally takes him to court and loses. he also gets credit for freeing trawls and some of the other slaves here on the estate -- freeing charles and some of the other slaves uranus state, but he by slaves, and too. he spends time at the markets here in lexington, purchasing slaves, and is known for the quality of sleeves that he purchases. again, he is one of those people with a dual nature. >> people used to talk about slavery in kentucky being the mildest but it did not really matter. it was still slavery. abolitionists came to kentucky and say that slavery is the mildest, but it was still enough here to cause the heart the second. that is really what slavery was.

they heard the last on the back and the screams of the slaves, and that was the death knell of liberty. and alice the part of clay that he could never quite pick up on as much as the other parts of his life. >> i want to spend more on the american colonization society. i read that at the first meeting, some famous american names around the table, including andrew jackson, his nemesis, and daniel webster, james monroe, francis scott key, who wrote the star spangled banner, how popular was the american colonization movement in this country? >> it was extremely popular. clay is considered one of the major -- if not the founder. he gets federal funding to buy the land. he promotes the idea of resettling african-americans in haiti and canada. he is known for this. this is what he becomes a lightning rod in the free black community in the north, because this is what causes them to

unite against henry clay, in a sense of, why should we have to leave the united states? it is popular in the white community, not popular in the south. >> lead area was a death trap, and the people in america that had been slaves, they were slaves, their forefathers had been here a lot longer than a lot of the white people, the white owners, so they were more american and a sense. why should we leave our homes? >> no connection to africa whatsoever, and the fact that clay was trying to remove primarily free blacks, the colonization society represented the removal of free blacks from the country, not slaves. those another controversy apart. >> i'm going to introduce other person to our discussion. ashland is open for tours and interprets the life of henry clay appeared we have a special guest, avery malone, the

director of operations here. let's kill plans -- a little bit of sense of place. ashland today is and what part of lexington? >> we are about a mile and half of downtown and about a mile and half from new circle road. we are in the southeast edge of town and a beautiful residential area of lexington. >> and many acres this house have today and how many did henry clay have had is zenith? >> today we set about 17 acres here ashland. we have a contract for the first 125 acres that henry clay purchase. but at its height, the state was about 670 acres. >> we should learn a little bit more about his family before go on tour here as well. he and his wife had how many children? and did they all live here? >> they had 11 children. however they did not all live here at the same time. there was a lot of tragedy in the family.

all six of henry and lucretia's daughters would die. only two suns made into early adulthood. one of the sons died as well during their lifetime. there is a fair bet a tragedy here. >> the house interprets henry clay of what period in his life? >> we interpret henry clay throughout his lifetime. we mention where he was born and show a picture of his birthplace. it goes until his death in 1862. we talk about the span of his life and his family and his political career as well as his farming and legal career. >> what we're going to see now is what visitors would see as they tore the first floor of the state. so take this on a bit of a torah, if you would. >> we are in the foyer right now with a click family would have welcomed their guests. the clay family established a long legacy of welcoming guests here at ashland. drawing room the where the entertainment -- with a family entertained the guests. this is where we're filming

tonight. many of the clay pots important guest will have come to this room. it was the most formal room in the house. but we also have the dining room we can see lucretia's ice-cream service on the table. it was a gift given to her by her sister purchased in france, and the creature was particularly known for her strawberry ice cream. -- in the accretion of -- lucretia was particularly known for strawberry ice cream. all like to take the next into the study. in the original house, this room was used by henry clay like an home office for his three careers. he was of course a farmer, a lawyer, and a statesman. like to draw your attention to his portfolio in document box. currently we have the portfolio on one to us from the supreme

court. henry clay would use these items when he went to washington, d.c. we also have a pair stirrups that say age. clay -- h. clay. as a farmer, he believed in breeding the best of the past. because of this philosophy, a 11 kentucky derby winners control their bloodlines back here to ashland. next we have the library. henry clay began his legal career in 1797. we have a law license on the wall. this was issued to him in 1797 in virginia. he returned to his legal career throughout his life as a source of revenue. his legal career and his great oratory help define who he was. >> we will be back with you throughout the program. you will be available to answer some of our questions and tickets on a tour through some other places of the house. thank you very much for this

view of ashland. for some of the famous people he may of hosted here? >> william henry harrison met with clay here. martin van buren came here two years before they thought it would be running against each other in 1844. he stayed four or five days. the question is -- did they talk about trying to make the texas issue go away, because both later said that they oppose the annexation of debt -- of texas. it was a clear issue in that campaign. today meeting rooms like this and talk over that? we did not know. a lot of famous people have been through this area and all those people wanted to see henry clay. all foreign visitors it went beyond the mountains, they wanted to come to lexington, but cultural center of the west and the political center of the west with henry clay here. >> if we will take our first phone call from brian in springfield, illinois. welcome to our conversation about henry clay. >> i want to think c-span for

the series. it is a great idea. i am calling from spain for -- from springfield, with a non- abraham lincoln question. i want to ask about 1824 and the corrupt bargain charge against henry clay when he backed john quincy adams and accepted the secretary of state position. do you think that is the reason that we're referring to henry clay as a contender instead of president? >> the 1824 election. >> that was used against henry clay the rest of his life. it was one of his major political mistakes. there were four people in that race in the constitution said the top three vote getters would go to the house of representatives for one vote. henry clay ended up being no. 4 on that list. he probably should have been on a list because if he had gotten and the speaker of the house, he could have used his vast popularity by campaigning in the house of representatives. but he did not. he became the president-maker,

not the president. before he even left kentucky, he said he wanted a favor john quincy adams for the president. adams had the same viewpoint at that time, jackson he called a mere general, and he always feared the napoleons of the world. he thought that america might elect a general and they would use some pretext to take over and become a dictator. clay with the washington knowing he was going to support adams. his mistake was not in supporting adams. adams did not carry but nine states. 13 were needed. clay-and adams was elected in the enclave made a big mistake, he accepted the offer of the secretary of state position from john quincy adams. that was a steppingstone to the presidency. half of his people said he should not do it in half of them said he should. he could not turn it down. and it was then used against him as a corrupt bargain. >> andrew jackson was his

greatest nemesis. what was jackson's position on slavery? >> much more hostile than probably one of the first presidents. he marched into the floor to clear out what he considered a threat from florida. one of his major campaigns into florida was the issue of free blacks with british support living in florida all along with native americans who were reading into american territory, taking slaves out of the nine states. he is very hostile toward any idea of freedom. much more so. in our next telephone call is from scott from boston. do you have a henry clay question fourth? >> i went to high school in east port, maine. it is on moose island, in little

island they're very very close to canada. we all know that henry clay had insisted -- the island had been taken by the british after the warmaking 12. he insisted that the island to return to the united states. even john quincy adams was willing to let canada and the british have the island. i am wondering if the historians will know why he was so adamant on the return of moose island. >> he took the strongest position of all the american delegates. he wanted america to have a strong position. adam -- adams was afraid it when i get a treaty that this position, clay tried to get everything that he could. i'm not sure on this island. i am sure there is another story out there that can tell us. >> we will get started live on

claes antagonism toward the british. what can you tell on a general point? >> he felt of course that the british were still trying to hold on and punish america with the war of 1812 pretty definitely wanted a war with england. he felt america, despite the fact we had a very small army and navy, could still breed -- could still beat england. i do not know of that was a force of pride or ego, or what that was with clay. i often wondered if it had something to do with the british asking americans -- african- americans the fight against americans during the war of 1812. if that could have been a part of it. >> also when he was a young man, apparently his father's grave had just been dug. apparently some british soldiers came into the household and they were trying to raid the household and they actually thrust their swords into the freshly dug grave thinking there might be good hidden there. so he had an antipathy toward

the british very early. he said debt the kentucky militia alone could capture canada when the war 1812 started. he was wrong about that as he was about other things. when he got to britain after the peace treaty had been signed, he stayed over and met all these important people. he came back with a different view of the british. he still fear them and thought they would try to bully america, they he became known as prince hal because he associated with royalty so much, a little may rub off on him. >> let's talk about the 1832 election. he faced off against an jackson for the presidency. in 1832, it was probably one of those elections that clay could not win. jackson was still popular. the things that make historic upset with jackson, like his indian policies, his policies toward african-americans, those were positives for andrew f. -- for a jackson in his era -- in

the south particularly. in 1832, clay also face the fact that there was a third party out there that would take a sizable percentage of the vote, probably mostly from the whig party. it was known as the anti- masonic party. poll issue of masonry which we still here today, movies and things like that about it, the anti-masonic party that that mason should be done away with. >> clay was a mason? >> clay was a mason and enter jackson was a mason. clay was not practicing at the time. he would have a hard time winning any time -- any way. and in the banking issue came up, berkeley favored a read charter of the national bank of america. jackson vetoed it. clay thought it would be a very popular issue that people would go to him and say this was the right thing to do. but he did not realize that jackson's veto message was a great political message, because it made and jackson speak for the people and it gets this

corporate monopoly, this bank. and clay could not win on that issue. as of clay lost on several levels. >> how close was the election? >> clay got 49 electoral votes, jessica 219. >> c-span has a website for this video series, some video there that you not see during this production. we have details about the losing presidential election and the outcome. let's return to the house now on the second floor. what you have forced? >> we are in the henry clay betterment now when you consider the bed behind me. this is his 1830's bid. we even have a letter read talks about comfortable this bad was and it did not even have bedbugs. upstairs, we also have henry clay's dueling pistols purchased in 1799. later altered a bit. we believe that these went to war with his son in mexico.

henry was into duels, one with humphrey marshall and one with john randolph. the duel with john randolph actually takes us back to henry clay as speaker of the house. when henry was chosen as speaker of the house, he was chosen because they thought it was a man who could meet john randolph on the floor or on the field. it happened that they met on the field. john randolph compared henry clay to a character in the novel "tom jones" and basically called him mike chard -- a card cheat on the senate floor. clay was not there to defend himself -- it was seriously and [no audio] jeered. >> how long did was a part of the american political life? >> the net -- the killing goes

back to the 1860's. and henry clay knew he was not a great shot. why was he involved in this? >> honor was the whole issue. clay had a great sense of honor. if your honor was at that, you had to defend it. sometimes you defended it through newspaper stories, and sometimes it gets so bad he thought the only way to defend it was to challenge someone. and if they answer the challenge, then he twice went to the dueling grounds. that would be used against him as well. randolph was particularly -- >> this is senator john randolph of roanoke, right? >> yes, a man who is very eccentric. at one of the great quotes about henry clay. it may apply to other people, but he said that henry clay was like a rotten apple in the moonlight -- keep both shines instincts. that is a great vision there. the clay both shines instincts. he admired clay because clay had

the ability to do things. even in the latter part of his life, randolph is a fine man wanted to come to the floor of the senate so that he could listen to that magnificent voice one more time. >> our next telephone call is from david in san francisco. >> one quick comment -- anybody who thinks that today's politics are overly divided should really take a look at the political divisions of the jacksonian era. the question is this -- particularly dr. carter, do you find it a bit ironic that the republican party, which was formed out of the whig party, has evolved from a party in founded by henry clay on the basis of public works and federal investment and local projects, into one that opposes all of that, in particular with

mitch mcconnell's comments. >> basically, the whig party evolved into the republican party. abraham lincoln himself had been no big and became a republican. it had many of the aspects of the whig party. in the modern day, you probably have aspects of both of those buried the democratic party has a lot of the fractions of the whig pattered rigid party, some of the business organizations, come from the league party. in a sense he lives on in both parties, and maybe not enough. >> comments on the question? >> you mentioned the 1830's. you have the rise of the anti slavery -- the new england anti slavers decide which becomes a thorn. he does develop some democratic ideals. ideadefinitely against the of a gag rule and, chris, which

many southerners and northerners wanted for the sake of freedom. he definitely over rules that idea. he wants these petitions. even though it is unsupported, he wanted heard. >> before we get too far to the 1830's, we have not spent time on what the first of the three great compromises he is known for. the missouri compromise. would you talk about the politics around my? >> missouri wanted to come into the union in 1820. the question is -- will it be a slave state or not? maine at was to come in at the same time, so they made one slave and 13. the whole question of slavery as, it is light a fire bell in the night, it is always been there smoldering like a fire. now the very compromise fees that fire and brings it to the forefront of the debate. where was slavery and what it

continue? would be everywhere in the nation? would there be limits on it? and it tends to limit it completely. clay was not a man who makes the first compromise. a lot of the ideas were his, but a lot of other people, he worked to get it through. it was not really is compromise. but then it seems like it is done. but in europe -- missouri passes a law this is the free blacks would not be able going to missouri. a free citizen should be of a go anywhere. clay work out a very convoluted i did that satisfy the ever buys, and satisfied nobody, and at the same time, it ends the crisis. he hopes this labor will not be an issue. to clay, slavery is a real thorn in his side. he could never come up with a solution on that. if it is a one, it was a self- inflicted wound because clay was

a slave owner. >> and that makes it difficult for him. he starts out with people believing that he is a mask and a patient s and that he is on the north side. and then over time, he is aided by both the north and south. it is a no win situation for him. >> we are halfway through our 90-minute discussion on the life and times of the contender harry klee, who ran for the white house throughout much of his political order pier. five times in total, three times as his party's nominee, and always unsuccessful, but with a great effect on the future of this country. we will take a short break and be back at ashland, his home in lexington, kentucky, to talk more. >> our look at the life of henry clay continues live in a moment. we feature profiles of key figures who have run for president and lost, but changed political history nevertheless. our live look at the contenders continues next friday, traveling to augusta, maine and

talk with historians and take your calls about the presidential campaign of james g. blaine. the series lives -- bears live every friday night it 8:00 p.m. easter through december 9 hearing on c-span. and for more permission on our series, go to our website to find a schedule of the series, biographies of all the candidates, historians appraisals, and portions of their speeches when available. that is all at our website. we now to turn to -- returned to kentucky and our discussion on the life of henry clay. >> welcome back to ashland, home of henry clay in lexington, ky. a place that has been preserved and is open for tours. people spend their professional lives helping to carry out this place hoping that you'll be inspired to come down and visit them after a 90-minute discussion tonight about henry clay. let me reintroduce you to our

guests. a professor of history. at the university of global. >> pan-african studies at the university of lowell. one of 10 departments and that countries -- and we were colleagues at georgetown college, where i teach american history now. it is 12 miles north of lexington. so they are very close. >> and when you were colleagues, did you like to debate a lot. >> we did. it is hard to debate someone like jim. is definitely a scholar on kentucky history. i try to keep up. >> 25 years as state historian. what does that job and dale? >> it is basically a self- defined job. but to me, it involves writing the history of the state. i try to do that. it involves working with people who are writing about it kentucky history and offering advice and suggestions. trying to stay out of their

waste, sometimes. it also entails going around and giving talks and things like this to tell the story of the state and the people who lived here. >> and the director of tora operations here in ashland is with us. tell us about how many people come to this place every year and how it is financed. and how it is operated. >> it varies by season how many people you'll find here at ashland. certainly that tourist come when the leaves change, at christmas, and throughout the summer. we have somewhere around 15,000 a year come to see us. we're financed through a variety of methods and means. and we're very fortunate to have all of our visitors and all the friends of ashland who donate to keep us open and for us to tell the public about henry clay and the compromise. if you in what year did the place open for tours? >> we opened in 1950 for tours.

and this was only two years after henry clay's great granddaughter died. she was the one who really preserved ashland by starting to henry clay memorial foundation. just two years after she passed away, and her son was here until 1859, so we were only open downstairs. after he moved out, we opened it throughout the house. if all three guests available for your questions. let's take another question from shelby and california. >> i am also a great-grandson of the mr. lauer, who had helped with the anti-slavery movement. before get to my main question, of like to say that he had all hardware store, and when slaves would come into town and they needed to be housed, his secret and magical phrase was, we have some to dub -- we have some two-

penny nails and. my grandmother knew that there was some kind of magical significance to that. and so when she had a horse, she named the horse to a penny nails. perhaps we can remember all those slaves they were able to find freedom. and what a great country this is. and what a terrific thing to have c-span. i'm grateful to put dissipate in the series. >> we do need your question. there are a lot of callers and 1. >> yes, i saw a masonry emblems on the buildings and the beautiful city of louisville, ky. but question was -- could you tell us please what association henry clay of had with that city? >> the city of lowell. >> clays son, henry clay jr., lived in little and in lexington. clay jr. use some of his life money to basically buy a lot of

property when a little was on the rise. became quite wealthy as a young man. that son ended up being killed in the mexican war. killed byclay would visit therep his son. it was a rival of lexington, though. louisville eclipsed their population in the 1830's for the first time. lexington was a backwater. his connection with louisville was a mixed one. it had generally supported the whig side. louisville was a mixed one. >> let's go to willie in ohio. >> i would like to note -- any connection, at any association, i have always been under the impression former heavyweight

champion cassius clay always said that was his slave name. any association at all? >> certainly the name stands out for americans because he was considered an abolitionist in lexington and ran an anti- slavery newspaper. my understanding -- i do not think there was a real family connection with cassius clay. >> there was a story for the new yorker once that i did some research for -- the man known as mohammad ali was originally known as cassius clay and was named for the abolitionist leader. the family he came from was from western kentucky. he took the name because cassius clay was an abolitionist or anti-slavery men.

>> the election of 1840, henry clay tries for his whig party nomination. he was succeeded in that quest by whom? >> and william henry harrison. >> and harrison offered clay the vice presidency? >> i am not sure about that. it would have been rotten. >> why did he offer him his cabinet? >> he had some positions in indiana and other places and had some history of accomplishments. not a great deal. clay was expecting to get the presidency. it was a time when the whig party thought it would win. we policies look like they would be needed to get out of the depression.

they had a great shot of beating the incumbent, martin van buren. this is one of the examples where henry clay is not a good politician. he had been in congress, but was not a good manager. he trusted his own instincts too much. he did not take the advice of other people. they got a rule changed in the condition that clay, who had the majority of the vote, now said they would vote by delegation. however the state voted, the whole state voted for that person. harrison realize that clay was very important in the whig party. he wanted to make peace, not have clay on the opposite side. clay basically said he would rather stay where he is because he thinks there are more important things to do there and he does not want to be associated with harrison. >> our next caller is bill in

lexington, ky. >> i am calling from lexington. i am absolutely -- i am actually a teacher at henry clay high school, right up the street. i would like to ask whether the panelists think henry clay's reputation as a compromise are hurt his chances of being president and whether or not his losses as president, a three- time loser, actually made it possible for him to have a greater impact and a more positive one on the country through a long legislative career? >> i am going to ask all three of our guests to answer that question. let's start with you, alicestyne turely. >> it definitely does hurt him. he is unwilling to change his position on taxes, so that upsets the southerners. his stand on anti-slavery upsets

new england and the northerners. he is trying to straddle the fence and i think it hurts him more than help them. >> avery malone, the question. did his years as a compromise or ultimately hurt him in his quest for the presidency? >> i am sure that i know that being a compromiser is not popular during the present time when, it -- when someone is taking a position of power. usually, you want someone to take a strong stance. >> clay was not consistent all of his life. he was one time opposed and later on he favored. he changed different positions overtime. his enemies used that against him and said he was not consistent. he would compromise and as long as he was getting votes. he was willing to make a change

and say he had been wrong. that sometimes would cost politicians. it cost him. >> we had an earlier caller reference the treaty. we talked about henry clay and the british. what was the treaty of all against? >> it ended the war of 1812, which americans were not winning at the time. it was worse because they thought the british would still be fighting napoleon. napoleon was out of the way by the time the deliberations started. america had not negotiated from a place of strength. in a sense, it was the best treaty they could get. they did the best they could. henry clay and three other people of importance. it takes a long time to come about, but given the fact that they did not have a lot to work with, they came out with a very strong treaty. it did not heard that and

jackson had won a battle after the treaty had been signed. it was almost like the two things came at the same time that would have won the war, even though the treaty had been signed after the battle. >> could you tell us about his jacket and its significance? >> it is the jacket that he would have been given to negotiate peace. this is very significant in that it is one of the few pieces that belonged to henry clay. it also served as an artifact during the time that kentucky a &m was here. they used the jacket as an artifact then as well. >> of phone call from michael in denver. >> we grew up in milwaukee, wisconsin. in the 1950's, we went to henry clay elementary school. he has always been a source of fascination for me.

i used to come to love will and lexington on business and i am sorry i did not realize you guys were there. i have a very simple question. this best-selling biography on him, called henry clayit is ver. would it be a good choice for me to learn about henry clay ordeal have something else to suggest? thank you very much. >> we happen to have that book here. it is one of several books available in the bookstore. they have a number of biographies. what would be the book you would pick up about henry clay? >> that is the most recent biography. it has the human side of henry clay. it is the newest biography. if you want political emphasis, there is one about 20 years old

that is about the same size. but if you want to start with something smaller, there was a book done many years ago that had a chapter on henry clay. that is a good introduction about henry clay. if you want to compare clay and webster, the great triumph for, the redbook in the 70's called "the great triumph for an -- the great triumvirate." if it's a good place to start with a there is a book from the family legacy of henry clay. it comes out next month. it takes place beyond his lifetime to the present. >> for him, definitely the triumvirate. those bring in daniel webster and some of the other important figures of the time. for african-americans, it puts it in perspective as far as what

is going on in the country and what the great debates are about. i have not read the newer version. i am waiting for jim's book that is coming out. that will be the next one i will pick up to read. >> the working title is "the great rejection, henry clay and the american presidency." the great rejection as a "that was said about play at the end of his life. i am about to finish writing it early next month. then i have to go to the publication process. it is about one year away. >> the current speaker of the house has many of the powers he can look back to the speakership of henry clay. he spoke about henry clay recently. let's listen to speaker john boehner. >> henry clay was the first,

what i call, strong speaker of the house -- the real leader of the house. when our country was founded and the congress was put together, the first speakers over the first 20 years or so came out of the english parliament system. they were more of a referee. they did not have any real power. but clay was the first real speaker of the house that had some power. there are a lot of things you can say about the role of the speaker. henry clay was clearly a very strong speaker. if you look at this time between 1820-1860, there was no one person in the united states more responsible for holding our union together man henry clay. >> by the way, that was from an event that was organized where they invited all living speakers to talk about the role of

speakers. it was held here. it is in our video library if you like to go back and watch it. quite an interesting event. to both of you, how did henry clay enhance the powers of the speaker? >> the force of his personality. no one wanted to debate him. certainly he had the force to win the argument. i think that alone had great influence in power. i do not know if any of the speaker could be compared to. >> what about the power of committee assignments? >> the committees basically understood that the speaker had the power to put the people he wanted on the committee. he was known as a fair man. that was very important. both sides of the aisle respected him and his opinions.

when he knew there is a certain issue coming up, he would put his friends to that issue if he wanted the issue to go a certain way. he also changed the rules. they gave the speaker more power. it allowed him to be a much more important, powerful figure than anyone before him. his force and is well is as important as anything else. >> the next telephone call is from raymond in michigan. hello, raymond. ramin, we are going to move on. let's take a call from chevy chase, md.. >> good evening. lincoln wasn't -- once referred to play as his ideal of a statement. i always believed the men had never met, however, recently i came across a web page to the purported to show a book and was described by clay to lincoln.

could the panel comment on this? what is the thinking now? the clay and lincoln ever meet? -- did play and lincoln ever meet? >> we do not know, basically. there is one person who left a memoir that said that person had seen the two in lexington. mary todd lincoln, who was from lexington -- her family was very closely allied with the clay's. she came to kentucky several times. he certainly heard henry clay speak. whether they met is unknown. you have to think they tried to meet its nothing else. if lincoln had come to ashland,

the two of them would sit in the parlor. they would go back and forth. but clinton never said he met clay. in think he would have said that had he met him he did say in 18601864 things to write the inaugural with. clay's a effect on abraham lincoln was important in the douglas debates. >> we are going to take a call and then we must spend some time talking about the 1844 election. let's listen to a question from charles i in california. >> hello. my question is this -- i am at a

ian.uck a i understand from the panel that henry clay is considered the favorite son of kentucky. although he and lincoln were members of the whig party, i do not understand how he could be the favorite son and not abraham lincoln who, when he met harriet beecher stowe, he said "you are the little lady who started this great war." neither are mentioned as being great in their time. yet all the times in which they live and even today, their influence is greatly felt, especially by many african- americans who are historically informed. >> abraham lincoln -- kentucky

-- he may have started off being a friend of kentucky, but with the immense a positive proclamation was issued the decay -- when the emancipation proclamation was issued he became a hated figure in kentucky. henry clay considered himself a westerner, but many southerners would choose him over a remington, who was certainly considered a traitor -- over lincoln, who is certainly a traitor to the kentucky cause. harriet beecher stowe is a popular kentucky figure. lincoln and that relationship, he is more popular in the north and new england than he ever becomes a in the south, particularly at the end of the civil war. >> lincoln in the 1860's -- in 1860 received five votes in his home county. even his in-laws did not vote for him.

to vote for holtz-eakin in 1860 in kentucky would be like voting for -- to vote for clinton in the 1860's in kentucky would be like voting for -- many kentucky and is turned against the administration. lincoln and his party are on the outs in kentucky for a long time. it is not until the 20th century that kentucky starts to reclaim abraham lincoln. they built a memorial to his birthplace. kentucky has reclaimed lincoln belatedly, but he was on the wrong side after the war. >> how far from where we are physically it is the birth place? >> probably an hour and 15 minute drive on the interstate.

>> in that time period, how long would it have taken? >> it took longer to take -- it took longer to go from lexington to franklin. >> we had a brief picture of an artifact you have here in the collection, which has an inscription to abraham lincoln. >> this book is actually called "the life and speeches of henry clay." there is an inscription that says "to abraham lincoln with costa regards to french ship, ashland h -- "to abraham lincoln with constant regards to friendship, ashland h. clay. >> we do not know the's were

delivered personally. >> we do not. we do not know if they ever met. there is no documentation to say that they ever had. we do know that henry clay did know abraham lincoln. the must've been some kind of relationship based on this artifact. >> we have a little less than 20 minutes left. henry clay is the first of our 14 contenders at our look in american -- at our look at american history. let us take a call from robin. >> i have three questions. i will try to go really fast. claes contradictions were mentioned. i am curious to know whether he changed his mind or, was it merely political posturing? >> the second question, another caller mentioned the two cassius clay's.

i am curious whether henry clay or any of this household members or immediate family members had any known slave descendants like jefferson. politicians also -- have -- politicians often have a political lineage. is it known if any other prominent politicians share henry clay's minutes. >> before you go, have you been here? we lost her. abolitionists -- a position change or posturing? >> i think it would be wrong to call henry clay and abolitionist. he was definitely not an abolitionist. he was for the idea of emancipation. he never changed his position on that. as we discussed earlier, especially in the election of 1840, it hurt him. he tries to straddle the fence, but he never backs away from his

idea of emancipation. >> play spoke out for the first time publicly against slavery in a letter to the local papers. 50 years later he does the same thing again when they're trying to get slavery abolished. they took basically the same stance. he was pretty consistent over a 50 year period. over those 50 years the world change around him, but his views were still the same. >> i know of no -- a question of whether or not there were african-american -- i am not aware of that. >> did he have any descendants who were african-american? >> if there is one story that appeared 40 years after henry clay's death. a woman said she had been a mistress of henry clay.

i have found nothing to substantiate that story. there are several henry clay's in this area. she could have been mixed up with somebody else. a list and has been compiled and i did not see her and name their anywhere. i do not think that happen. cassius clay, probably not. and offspring showed up at his door one day at the kansas play home in kentucky. the shock of that caused the white to divorce ed henry cassius clay. if anybody had the same connection to play as far as being related to play, i am not sure if i know of anybody else. >> there is no family dynasty then? >> i do not think so. >> the 1844 election against

james paul, this time clay was successful in obtaining the whig nomination. everyone says it was one of the dirtiest campaigns conducted. what were the issues or was it real personal politics? >> clay went in as a favorite on this for a change. james capel was the first dark horse candidate -- james k. polk was the first dark horse candidate for presidency. clay had been organizing his campaign for two years. the rashid music with clay's picture. -- there was sheet music with clay's picture. there were buttons and metals. the democrats had to attack. they attacked played pretty heavily on all of the issues. the 1844 election with the perfect storm. he wrote to many letters and

said to many things on texas annexation, which was a big issue at the time. all of the issues of preventing gambling and carousing came back ever used against clay. i think it is for a combination of things. poult said we needed to annex texas. no. abolitionist opposed to that. clay opposed annexation unlisted to place on a peaceful basis. he went against manifest destiny and the national mood. he wins some votes because of his stand on that as well as loses some votes. there are a whole slew of issues. issues of fraud, bad luck, and things like that. >> you hear a lot about this being an early example of politics of personal destruction. was this from both sides?

was henry clay a practitioner of those kinds of politics? >> he certainly trusted the wrong people in the 1844 campaign. he does not listen to advisers. this is still a problem for him in 1844. he believes his own press that he is the favorite. the does not see the challenge as serious. he is not really campaigning. he shoots himself in the foot a couple of tons. >> his son went to fight in the war against mexico. what happened? >> he was killed in the war. he was very depressed. it was almost like he was trying to go off to fight. he is wounded and tells his men to retreat. they do and he is killed.

it hits henry clay very hard. he makes an anti-war speech. he basically says, i support the troops, but i oppose the war. it is a speech that many people considered a very courageous speech at the time. it went against the national mood in the south. >> less take another call this is from new jersey. >> hello. i was wondering if your panelists could talk a little bit about the relationship between john quincy adams and henry clay. >> thank you. >> clay and adams were a very mismatched couple. adams had a new england, puritan background. he was critical of everybody, including himself.

he is critical. he is a man of great talent. he speaks many foreign languages. he is well versed on the presidency. he was the son of a president. adams is getting up at 4:00 in the morning and clay is getting back from a night of card playing. he said it was wrong. you could turn it around henry clay was a very different type of person. they constantly tweet each other and talk to each other. they did not like each other in a lot of ways, but they respected each other. when clay makes john quincy adams the president of the united states in 1825, he was a very loyal secretary of state.

they had never been friends, but they're respectful of each other for the rest of their lives. >> we are reaching back into the earlier part of henry clay's career. this is a good time to look at one of ashland's most prized possessions. it is the washington goblet. quite this is the washington goblet. this was the item of greatest patriotic speculation in henry clay's at home. it is chipped and broken. this is out in the clay received it. it had belonged to george washington through most of the revolutionary war. here is the second artefact and at his house. he used it to connect to early nationhood and as an object to venerate george washington. he felt washington, as many throughout the country did, was a great inspiration to our country and hope to inspire

patriotism to people who visited aslan. >> we are quickly running out of time. let me ask you about henry clay and his wife. he had such a long political career. he was in washington so frequently. did the family moved to washington, or did they remain behind? >> his family did go with him to washington early on. the 1830's was the last time lucretia would go with henry clay to washington. she had plenty on the farm to a deeper busy. she had children and get a children to -- children and grandchildren to occupy her time. she was not heavy into fashion and attention. she enjoyed the solace and aslan provided. in the later part of henry clay's life, he was gone as much as he was at home some have surmised that henry clay was

addicted to travel, which is one thing we would all probably like to do more of. he had gone quite recently to campaign. on ships and to see his daughter in new orleans. christ our next call is from kentucky. this is gerald. >> really enjoy the program. henry clay was my seventh cousin. his grandmother, sarah watkins, was sister to my and grandfather. i am real proud of in reply and that connection. my question is -- the three times he won the nomination, it seems like the timing was really not good for his candidacy. do you believe there was a presidential election during his time of prominence that would have been better timing, that he could have won the presidency? >> he could have won in 1840

pretty reasonably. in 1848, zachary taylor was the e.ig nomine taylor had done nothing in his background. clay very reluctantly try to get the nomination in 1848 and failed. had clay gotten that nomination, i think he would have won. the democrats were divided that year. clay was quoted by someone as saying that the nearest he could get the nomination, his friends were basically deserting him. clay felt it was a betrayal of all the things sea, could have done. kraits us move ahead to 1850. henry clay's last big effort on public policy. what was the compromise all

about? set the stage for us. >> 1850, the decision about the expansion of slavery, house lay states come in as free or slave holding, the idea of strengthening the fugitive slave law becomes a one of the breaking points. the idea of california. the idea was california could make their own decision about whether or not sleighs to be held in the states. misery comes in -- missouri comes in. new mexico and arizona. now we are truly into the manifest destiny or the united states reaches from coast to coast. for african-americans, the fugitive slave law becomes a major issue in american politics leading up to the civil war. >> on the compromise of 1850,

henry clay was not successful. he was -- how did it all turned out? >> in 1849, and because back to the senate. they had been at home. he has nothing to gain. he comes out of retirement and hopes to save the country, in his mind, one more time. 1850 was the compromise. in missouri, he broke all the roles. -- all the rules. clay goes off to rhode island and the bill does pass the smell under stephen douglas. clay thought this would bring peace in his lifetime. he died two years later. within a decade of that, the

civil war began. >> henry clay died in 1862. the is buried where? >> in lexington at the cemetery. >> right nearby. we as a video of his grave site. his funeral was quite the event. >> his trusted servant car -- his trusted servant, charles, is by his side to the very end with the funeral pyre. people came from all over. the trains are coming in. thousands of people in lexington came for the funeral. it is national news. >> at the thing about that monument, i think he has more images in the nation's capital than any other individual. life magazine said he was one of the most influential americans at -- of all time.

the fact that henry clay pulled a divided nation together, the nation is still one nation, at is still one democracy, and is still trying very hard. >> a very quick call from bowling green, ky. >> why do you suppose henry clay was not interested in a 1's perspective on slavery? the reason i ask the question, a european-victorian woman had traveled to america to kentucky in 1835. >> i have to interrupt you. we have very little time. >> she was sent by britain. that was a note to play not to like her. he had principles about a woman was replaced. >> had women been able to vote,

at henry clay would have been president. at the outset, women in america like henry clay. everybody uniformly said that women like henry clay and would have voted for him. she came to-land. she did not like the children, but she liked henry clay. >> views on why a uniquely was important to the country? >> the polarized and made america make a decision on slavery. the 1850 compromise, african- americans fled to canada. it increased public awareness of slavery in america. that was his major contribution, i think. >> we adjusted the surface of a 49-year political career of

henry clay. our first of 14 contenders. men who did not achieve their quest for the brevity, a chain of american history. thank you to our guests. i have a couple of other quick to thank yous. the memorial foundation for preserving ashland. ensuring it with us tonight. the director and curator, outstanding help from our crew for putting this together and the volunteers and staff at ashland. a personal thank-you to c-span's former board chairman to -- who traveled all the way to kentucky to be with us. thank you for being with us as we learned more tonight about the life of henry clay. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] iraq's with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire -- >> with the iowa caucus and new hampshire primary next, here is our lineup. grover cleveland, william jennings bryant, eugene anddebs, al smith followed by a

businessman and a member of the gop, wilkie. >> a couple of polls show ron paul leading in iowa. we will hear from congressman paul next on c-span. jon huntsman cost daughters talk about their experiences on the campaign trail. tomorrow we will get the latest from the payroll tax cut extension. our guest served on the budget committee. later, pierce morgan is scheduled to testify on phone hacking. we will have live coverage about 9:00 a.m. eastern on c- span 2. next, republican presidential

candidate ron paul holds a town hall meeting in manchester, new hampshire. a texas congressman is campaigning in the state and then head soon i was before christmas. -- heads to iowa before christmas. >> we have several distinguished guests. >> we also have representatives, so thank you all for being here tonight for this event. tonight will consist of a short interview between myself and dr. paul. after, we will open saw hall of for your questions. we thank you very much for your

support, but we want to encourage undecided voters to ask questions first. dr. ron paul is a 12-term congressman, and he is the champion of liberty in the united states. there is so much all of us know. consistency, and integrity it is all it takes for me to say i am glad to call them a friend of mine. thank you very much. [applause] >> you have been married for 53 years. how did you meet your wife? >> that is an interesting story, and i had better make sure i got

the numbers right, because it is 54. before i explain that, i want to introduce my granddaughter's. i did get a couple days off this weekend. their older sister got married. it was saturday night, and the rehearsal dinner was friday night. grandparents are supposed to be at the rehearsal dinner, but jay leno talk to me into going out there, but the family was very happy. they watch it, so they did not hold that against me for not being there. and we had a great weekend to end are delighted to be here. the story about meeting my wife is little bit different.

my first stayed with her was on her birthday, and she was 4 years old. that is incorrect. it was her fourth birthday. now she was born on leap year, so it was her 16th birthday, and we were in high school. it was one of those dances, and the girls have to ask the boy is. i said if they are on leave year you only have to byron presents every is an -- on leap year you only have to buy presents every four years. we were married my senior year in college, and i knew i was going to medical school, and i say i worked my way through college, but she worked my way through medical school.

>> this year the deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, and the debt is 15 trillion dollars. you recently unveiled a dramatic plan to balance the budget in three years. in the first year you cut and one trillion dollars. why are you so sure this will help the economy? >> the government spends too much money, and they have a tendency to wasted. there is a difference between government spending money and people spending the money. liberal economist secretes the idea that except -- that it makes no sense the people spending the money. they say even if the government spend money paying people to dig all hole in the ground and another group to fill in bohol if would-be -- the hole it would

be productive, but common sense tells you that is not true. if the government does not spend the money, that means it is left in your hands. that is the big problem. that is the problem the whole world faces. if you did not have the monetary system we have today were governments can spend money and cannot tax and not barbaro enough, -- and cannot borrow enough, they can print money. everything the government does does not restore confidence and because of the debt burden. if an individual gets into so much that they cannot get their business to grow any more because they spend their time paying for the debt, the only

way they can get growth again is to get rid of their debt. people liquidate by going bankrupt, but other people say, i have too many cards. i have two houses, and i cannot keep up. they have to say, no more credit cards. i have to work harder and pay off the debt, and when that is paid off they can have economic growth. governments do not want to do that, because politically there is a noise, because generally the people do not want anything cut, and the politicians do not want to cut. they keep spending and spending until we get to where we are today common and is unbearable. now the biggest problem is even though they are hearing the

message from people like you big, thereing is too vagu is no serious effort to do anything about it. they give lip service to it, the congress should do this, but even the proposals, they are not even talking about cutting anything. if we did not pass a budget, the super committee was supposed to meet, and there was going to be an automatic cut of 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years, but none of it would start until 2013, and the amount of money that would be cut would be not even enough to cover the debt. every month we run up $100 billion of debt, so it does not even touch it. they are not serious about it.

this is why i run this program trying to emphasize that you cannot spend money and the deficits matter. you do not people -- you do not put people on the streets. there are programs, and you can still work your way out of its if the country would change our attitude about the overall goal of government. to me the goal of government should be limited, and that is to protect your freedoms. goo[applause] the big problem is i tried to to balance thestuts budget in one year, but we have

to have a changed attitude of what we are doing, and people say is that is a problem and we need to change it. i go after overseas spending, and i would cut $500 billion from overseas spending. i am tired of people being drained, so i would get our troops home and be done with these wars, and we could save a lot of money. goo[applause] the other savings comes from getting rid of departments, and that is a fair start, and also to go back to the budget levels of 2006, was the opposite of what they do it in washington.

they have a baseline that guarantees growth, and if they reverse at the little they call it a cut, and i would go back until 2006. the government in 2006 was not too small band. -- was not too small. that is what would have to be done. if not, as the consequence is serious. the debt would explode. you are going to have more inflation, and we are up against it now, because the government keeps trying, but think about how the standard of living is going down for people. people with social security, their prices are going up. if the prices go up, you lose it

off. we cannot create trillions of dollars and think the debt will have no affect. i am convinced you have to cut spending, and i do not see this as a sacrifice. the blue fund bailouts might think of it as a sacrifice -- people who fund bailouts might think of it as a sacrifice, but my goal is to get rid of the income tax. that would be a good thing for everybody. [applause] if it were less regulations and less interference of the government in our personal lives and stopping these wars, to me that is not a sacrifice. that is common sense, and the american people are coming in this direction.

the young people are leading the charge, and i like that, su. >> thank you. you did touch on military intervention, and given your experience thought, what would you do to make sure we have a strong national defense? >> strong national defense is key. defense of liberty is important, but strong national defense is part of the. -- part of that. i think our defenses are down one we spread ourselves so thinly around the world. we are in 130 countries, 900 spaces. it is an economic burden for us. we have to remember a recent

empire that it and dust. the soviet empire. they were so foolish they went into afghanistan and had a war, so it is an economic consequence, but it also creates problems for us. how does having our troops around the world of send us here? we have lost some lives and a lot of money figuring out where the boundary is between afghanistan and pakistan. we do not worry about our own borders around here. [applause] i think our defense is diminished. what i am proud of is the fact that the military has been very supportive of our campaign. when you look of the donations, we get over twice as much money from active military people than all the other candidates put

together. that means the military is looking at what i am talking about, and they did not feel excited about what is going on. it would be nice to say maybe we are turning the corner and they are coming home from iraq and the war is over. that is not my assessment. the embassies there, and 17,000 contractors and state department people will be there. we have not changed our policy, so if we are having a strong national defense, the policy should be designed to defend this country, not to pretend we can police the world or to pretend we can buy friends by foreign aid or force them to be our friends by taking them over or bombing them or installing dictators. we have been doing it for a long time. it is not good for us, and if we want a strong national defense, we have to change the policy,

and the move right now is since the cold war ended, the declaration was that we have to spread our exceptional as some around the world. we have this obligation to tell everyone to live like we do and to have elections and do these things. the problem is when they do not elect the people we want, we ignore them or throw them out of office, and sometimes it -- take for instance, this undermines our defense when we support dictators in saudi arabia. there is a lot of resentment for us from that, and i happen to think our country is exceptional, but i do not believe if we are a good country and have exceptional values that you spread them by bribing people or bombing people. we should set a good example where people would want to emulate us.

we should have peace and prosperity to saying, americans are doing it right. let's be like americans. that is the only way we can spread are exceptional as them. -- spread our exceptionalism. [applause] >> how you compare the european debt crisis to our own debt crisis and democrats the european debt crisis is very -- how do you compare the european debt crisis to our own debt crisis? >> the european debt crisis is very similar. in 1971, we as americans could print dollars as if they were gold, and the world kept accepting them, and they still do, so we ship out dollars, and they put him in the bank like it was gold, and they built their

monetary system on our dollars, so all these years, we have had the benefit from this off, where our best export is paper money. financially it is not a great deal because our jobs go overseas. it seems like a great deal to print money, but because they prop up their currencies around the world, they are in trouble, but the world is still trusting the dollar, and we are on the verge of bailing out europe. the european union -- 0 has only been around for 10 years, and -- the euro has only been around for 10 years, and carnegie has said we will bail them out. now you do not know -- ben bernanke has said we will bill them out. the build of fear. they do that in foreign policy

and economic policies to get people frightful to go along what they are doing. we will bail out europe. confidence whether it is in europe or year, if they pull it off and where they can tie things over, it it puts more and more pressure on us until finally the world will reject the dollar, because of this could work forever, americans would not work again. we would just print money. that is not the way economics work. this past week i was looking at how much foreigners are holding our debt, and whether it was a trend or not, i do not know, but there was a big drop in the amount of debt foreigners are holding this year. they will quit buying our