exit today's negotiations on capitol hill over extension of the payroll tax cut. newt gingrich makes a campaign appearance in new hampshire, and i looked at three-time presidential candidate william jennings bryan. -- a look at william jennings bryan. >> for this year's studentcam video competition, we want you to tell us what part of the u.s. constitution has meaning for you, and why? get it to c-span by january 20, 2012. that is less than a month away.

the video documentary competition is open to student'' grades 6 and 12. for details, go online. >> the house of representatives held a brief pro-forma session today in which democrats tried to get a vote on a bill to extend the payroll tax cut that passed the senate. here is that pro-forma session. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 21, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable michael g. fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the pray will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend michael wilker, lutheran church of the reformation, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray.

gracious god, you give us light in the darkness. we praise you for the galaxies, stars, planets, and moon that shine in the night. we bless you for lamps and candles that ill lieu min our communities. we thank you for the fires that warm our homes and energize our work. we repent for the ways we pollute the beauty of the night, the ways we extinguish the light of companionship, the ways we fail to share your warmth. enlighten our darkness. be the day spring for those suffering from addiction and illness. be the bright morning star for those who are grieving. be the sun of justice for those living under oppression and in poverty. be the cleansing fire for those who survive violence and warfare. traveling send us with your

light to share with friends and strangers. welcing light our gatherings with your love. searching for justice and peace , light our way. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of t last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday -- >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, we would like to ask unanimous consent that we bring up the

bill to extend the tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the oor, mr. speaker. you're walking out. you're walking away just as so many republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers. the unemployed. and very frankly as well from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens. we regret, mr. speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of criticalmportance to this country. and that is the continuation of the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those that risk of losing them, and the continuation of access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on th daily for their health. and i am pleased to yield to my friend, mr. van hollen.

>> the cameras were turned off at this point. c-span has no control over them. steny hoyer and chris van hollen continue to speak on the house floor for another 20 minutes. shortly afterward, they spoke with reporters. >> good morning. mr. ben holland and i just participated on the floor of the house and saw to seek recognition so we could ask unanimous consent to place on the floor and to pass legislation which would give certainty and insurance to seniors, to the unemployed, and to 160 million americans who are at risk of losing their tax cut on january 1.

the ability to have that certainty, to have that confidence, not just at this holiday time, but in january and february, while we take action to try to come to an agreement on the one-year extension that we want. unfortunately, as has happened so often common the acting speaker, the republican presiding officer, walked out. he walked out, would not render recognition, and would not allow mr. and holland and i to make that unanimous consent request and move forward. this is unfortunate. the speaker has indicated that he is ready to go to conference. the irony is that he appointed five conferees, all of whom at one point or another have said that they are opposed to a one- year extension of the middle- class tax cut. in fact, had made comments

similar to the speakers that the middle-class tax cut is a gimmick. well, the middle class does not believe that. the working men and women of this country do not believe that. they do not believe it is a gimmick to reject having the wealthiest in america pay some additional, small increment so that this bill could pass in the senate months ago. i regret that the republicans who say they are here to work we do we are on the floor to do our work. and they walked out. now want to yield to mr. van holland, the ranking member of the above budget committee. >> thank you, mr. hoyer. i think all of you saw the presiding officer brought the house of representatives into session immediately gavel the 2) for giving us an opportunity to

ask for unanimous consent to take a bill which is identical to the senate bipartisan compromise bill to extend the payroll tax cut. the speaker of the house and the republican leadership were awol on the floor of the house today. i did not see any of them. as we were speaking, he -- we can enter into a unanimous consent agreement to take up the republican compromise bill, the identical house version is right here, and if we can vote on this today, we would get the same bipartisan results that they receive in the senate, the other day. by the end of today, we could have a bill on the president's desk that would make sure that 160 million americans receive a tax cut, a continuation of the tax cut beginning january 1. we can make sure that millions of americans who are out there

looking for job but cannot find one have unemployment insurance, and we can make sure that millions of americans will still be assured that their doctors will be paid. these are medicare patients. that will make sure if their doctors will be available because they will be receiving payment under the medicare system, full payment. so it is real tragedy that the house republican leadership did not show up today on the floor of the house of representatives, because had they been there, they could have entered into this unanimous consent agreement that mr. hoyer mention. we could have gotten this bill passed, and by the end of the day it could be on the president's desk. that may be somewhere in the capital, but they are not on the floor of the house of representatives, which is where the people's house transact its business. so we will be here every day, waiting for them to come to the floor of the house to actually take up this legislation, so we

can get it done. [unintelligible] they were here every single day, talking on the floor. why aren't your democrats here doing the same thing? >> your premise that are democrats would not be here if there was business to do is wrong. the fact of the matter, we repair to ask that the house take up a unanimous consent request. they walked out on us. they were not on the floor, and the acting speaker, who was on the floor walked out. more importantly than that, they walked out yesterday's when we were all here. they walked out on 89 senators, 39 republicans. senator brown, senator mccain, the wall street journal, senator snowe, senator lugar, one of the

senior republican members, have all said pass this bill. do what we do all the time, what families do all the time, when you cannot get an agreement on something you know you need to get an agreement on, but you want to continue in place the existing situation, you make a short-term agreement. say we will do this for a little while. that is what the senate did. they could not reach agreement. the house republican leadership knows they cannot get agreement, so they walked out yesterday, with all of us here, ready to do our work, without giving us the opportunity to vote on the senate product that had overwhelming bipartisan support. >> there have been situations where we had pro-forma sessions before. [unintelligible] i have been here a long time and i have never seen anybody ever

get recognized during this period did you genuinely think they would recognize you? >> i cannot remember a time -- i have been here a long time myself. i cannot remember a time when 160 million americans were adversely affected by the actions that we took guest today, where 160 million americans are uncertain as to whether or not their tax cut is going to continue on january 1. 48 million seniors were going to be lacking confidence that their doctors will be available to them because they are not going to be compensated properly, as everybody agrees they should be, and that 3 million americans are concerned about losing their unemployment insurance and how they are going to support themselves and their families. i cannot remember a similar situation. the republicans have taken hostage those 160 million people. they have taken hostage those 48

million people, and they have taken hostage those 3 million people, so that it would be done their way or the highway. in my heart of hearts, and my experience in the past, and my understanding -- you have heard me read the list of how many times they have walked away. the answer to question is, i was not surprised that they walked away from resolving this issue on behalf of the american people. >> it is the end of the year and we are back in crisis mode. you have said this has been a congress that go from crisis to crisis. do you think that is the case? >> i am glad you asked that question. one of the most difficult votes any of us have cast was when president bush was president and we had a deeply falling economy

and a financial crisis. president bush came to the democratic leadership of the house and senate and said we had a crisis, and we are going to go into a deep depression if you do not act. two-thirds of president bush's party, just as they did yesterday, walked out on america. democrats stood with president bush because we thought the country was in crisis, and we acted. as a result of that action, in my opinion, we avoided a depression. unfortunately, we still had a deep recession, which we are still suffering from. we are still pulling ourselves out of that. the fact of the matter is that we have been their time and time again, and acted in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that this government and this country remain stable and successful. the other point is, they were

not divided in the senate. they were not divided. you had 80% of the republican senators' support this payroll tax cut. the real question is, why is it that the house republicans are so divided from the senate republicans and the senate democrats and house and democrats with the president of the united states in terms of getting something done. that is the question facing house of representatives. the answer is pretty clear from the last couple of days. you have an extreme right-wing element in the house of representatives that has hijacked the process, and that is why they refuse to even bring up a bipartisan senate bill for an up or down vote. they were afraid they would get the same bipartisan result in the house as they got in the senate. they are afraid of bipartisanship. the reason is because they have this very right-wing element. let's also remember that the house republican leadership was

opposed to a payroll tax cut. two months, three months, six months, one year. their record is full of statements were they were opposed to it. their action the other day, by refusing to take up the senate compromise bill, in sending this bill off to die, was in fact intended to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish from the beginning, which was to have no payroll tax cut. the reason destroyer and i went to the fore today is to give them another opportunity to do that. it is absolutely the case that the speaker of the house and republican leadership could have come down to the floor today. they could have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to take up this bill, which is identical to the senate compromise bill, and we could have gotten this done today, and the american people could go to sleep tonight knowing that come january purse, they would have a payroll tax cut. unemployed americans looking for jobs would know they could still

put food on the table, and doctors would be assured that they would continue to be paid for the medicare patients they see. >> let me just add to what mr. van holland said. >> there is a bipartisan agreement that was voted on overwhelmingly republicans and democrats in the senate. in fact, it was the republican leadership in the senate -- let's remember the republican leadership in the senate blocked -- blocked the vote, house republican bill in the senate. >> let me add to your question, and then i want to say something about the conferees. not only is there an agreement by the overwhelming majority in the ninth state senate, the american public overwhelmingly agrees. poll after poll shows that they think we ought to get this done. it is not simply that the tea party control conference over

here disagrees with the united states senate. they are not representing the views of the american people. i pointed out to you, the conferees that had been appointed by speaker boehner have all opposed at one point in time or another, the extension of the payroll tax cut. this is a device, a gimmick, a political fray, if you will, to pretend support for something they have historically, over the last year, opposed. >> you were saying democrats [unintelligible] with all respect, this is a dog and pony show we have all attended for the last hour. [unintelligible]

>> with all respect, i think the premise of a dog and pony show, this is democracy. we are saying we believe, very importantly, we ought to pass what the senate sent to this house. let me answer the question. >> [unintelligible] all of it seems like game playing. >> we are not playing a game. we are prepared to have this bill come back and pass its and send it to the president, and we can do it today. that is not a game. none of the 160 million people who are going to lose that tax cut think it is a game. none of the folks on unemployment who are relying on

that unemployment to feed themselves, help support their families, think this is a game. this is not a game. why are you all here? what are we -- we went to the floor to speak to the american people. unfortunately, the speaker walked off. not speaker boehner, the speaker pro tem, walked off the floor. they shut off the cameras. they wanted to shut us down. we are here on very serious business, no games. that is what senator mccain was talking about. that is what senator brown is talking about. that is what senator olympia snowe is talking about. that is what senator lugar is talking about. they are talking about, get this work done. unfortunately, i can name 12 instances that i have on a list here where the republicans have

walked away from solving serious problems. this is not a game. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner gathered with a group of republicans chosen to negotiate with the senate on payroll tax cut legislation. senate majority leader harry reid has so far failed to appoint his own negotiators. question to house republicans about the impasse. >> good morning, everyone. the house voted to reject the senate bill and asked for a conference with the senate or could resolve the differences between the two houses. i appointed the eight men and women sitting here to negotiate.

we are here and ready to go to work. we hope they will come to the table and resolve these differences. it is important to note that the president, bipartisan leaders in the house and the senate have all asked for the same thing over the course of the last several months. let's extend the payroll tax credit for a year. we are asking to get the senate members to work with us so we can do what everybody wants to do, extend the payroll tax credit for the next year. >> as the speaker said, we are here in washington working today because we want to make sure that the middle-class and working families of this country have the certainty that their taxes will not go up for the entirety of next year.

that is the house position. that is the only issue with which we differ with the senate, and we are asking for the senate majority leader to appoint conferees to come join us to try to finish the work for the american people before the end of the year. if you think about it, people are sitting there across america scratching their heads, wondering what washington is doing. by the very fact that the president call it's probably a mile away from here, we are sitting here. the differences between us are not very great. all of us want to make sure that people have tax relief certainty for the year. we can do this. we have time. let's get to work. >> we just want to ask the

conferees to join us at a table like this so we can give working, middle-class americans the tax relief they need and deserve for the next four years. the deal with the unemployment issue as well, and take care of physicians who are about to receive a cut in reimbursement rates for medicare. we don't need to kick this around for two months and then come back to the same place and have the same argument. we would like to get together, move forward with lasting certainty for the marketplace, the workers, the physicians, and for the country. >> when families and businesses have difficulties, what they do is get back to basics. nothing could be more basic in washington than a conference committee where the house and senate differ on at a piece of legislation. as a physician, i can tell you that no medical practice, no

hospital works into month blocked. that plan surgical procedures out a month in advance, and unless there is a longer extension to the payroll tax temporary holiday as well as the unemployment benefits, as well as positioned payments, patients will not be able to see their doctors. we've got to get back to work. >> and there is enough time to get this thing done. that is for sure. coming from a state that has 38 months of double-digit unemployment, fiscal more than just extending unemployment benefits, it is about jobs. the keystone position in both bills, 20,000 direct jobs right away, more than 100,000 indirect jobs as part of that. .ake a look at spectrum terp it is bipartisan on both sides of capitol hill. the last thing that is so

important is we look at making sure that physicians are compensated for treating medicare eligible individuals. it is a good package. there is enough time to get it done between now and the first of the year. >> i am honored to have been asked to be on this conference as a conferee. as a nurse, i am concerned as well about the doctors. i know how important it is that our physicians have that certainty, but also i were seniors, that they continue to get good medicare benefits. as a mom, i care about those single moms out there who are going to be dependent on this tax exemption. we cannot take money out of their pocket right now, especially at the holidays. >> obviously these meetings are

too important to address this in a couple of months. the idea of a conference committee is a jeffersonian principle. we need to develop longer-term solutions so we help these people who are depending on these important programs. >> i am a doctor and the daughter of elderly parents who depend on their medicare benefits. i was on the radio this morning with someone in the hudson valley and it was pointed out to me that it would be very difficult to manage payroll would just a two-month payroll tax holiday extension. he said to keep fighting, this is why you are there. we are determined to do the right thing for the american people. this is not partisan. this is about common sense, doing what is right.

nobody in their right mind thinks two months is better than a year's extension, and we are determined to make this happen. >> i think the american public is tired of business as usual in washington. the senate democrats shortchange american public by passing a measly two-month extension and then racing home for their vacations. republicans are committed to a full year tax cut for families and businesses. we are willing to work to the holidays to make sure this happens. mr. president, senate democrats, vacation second, do your jobs first. what possibly are you doing today that is more important than ensuring the payroll tax cut is in place. >> i have an 11-year-old and 13 teixeira home, and i would love to be a home with them for the holidays, and with my wife. but the american people deserve that we do our work. this senate bill of 60 days is

just that, reckless policy. we need the senate to come back into session, sit down with us, and come back here. the american people as are for us to be at the table, getting our work done. we will stand strong through the end of the year to get this done for the american people. >> we will take a couple of questions. >> [unintelligible] i have often heard here in washington -- do you think it does not mean much? >> we are looking for or counterparts to sit down here with us to extend the payroll tax cut for one year. >> scott brown says you are playing politics and he is going to prove it. >> we have to chambers of the congress, the house and senate.

ralph produced the bill, exactly what the president asked for. the process is to sit down and resolve our differences, and we are here, ready to go to work. [unintelligible] >> your mailing of this has been a fiasco in helping re-elect the president -- your handling of this. >> we have pushed for lower taxes over the 21 years i've been in this conference and will continue to be the party of lower taxes. the fact is that we can resolve these differences between the two parties and give the american people a real christmas present. [unintelligible] >> both parties are here to sit

down their resolve their differences. >> are you open to the idea of doing the extension if you had a guaranteed vote on the one-year? >> we are here to do the work and it is time for our senate counterparts to sit down with us. we are here, ready to do our work. >> [unintelligible] the time to do a work is now. -- the time to do our work is now. [unintelligible] >> president obama spoke to house speaker john boehner today

and urged him and the gop to vote on an approved a bipartisan senate bill that would extend the payroll tax cut an additional two months. the conversation lasted roughly 10 minutes during the daily one house briefing. this is just over an hour. hello, everybody. good afternoon. thanks for coming to the white house. before i get started, i would like to read to you something i am still looking for -- here we go -- a readout of the president's calls with speaker of the house john boehner and majority leader harry reid. today the president made separate phone calls to speaker boehner and leader reid. in his call to speaker boehner, the president reiterated the need and his commitment to work with congress to extend the payroll tax cut for the entire year. and the fact that the short-term bipartisan compromise passed by almost the entire senate is the only option to ensure that middle-class families are not hit with a tax hike in 10 days and gives both sides the time needed to work out a full-year

solution. the president urged the speaker to take up the bipartisan compromise passed in the senate with overwhelming democratic and republican support that would prevent 160 million working americans from being hit with a holiday tax hike on january 1st. the president also spoke with leader reid and again applauded him for the work he conducted with minority leader mcconnell to achieve a successful bipartisan compromise that passed overwhelmingly in the senate on saturday, and senator reid reaffirmed his commitment to secure a bipartisan, year- long tax cut after the house passes the two-month extension. the president urged the speaker to allow a vote on the one compromise that democrats and republicans passed together -- urged the speaker? did you mean the senator? >> yes, the president urged the speaker -- returning to the speaker here -- to allow a vote on the one compromise that democrats and republicans passed together to give the american people the assurance they need during this holiday season that they will not see a significant tax hike in just 10

days. those calls took place within the last half hour. >> did he get an answer from either one? >> that's the extent of the readout i have for you. >> jay, given the calls, is the white house more confident at this point that some sort of compromise could get through to prevent this tax hike from -- >> the compromise exists. it is embodied in the senate bill that was supported by 90 percent of the united states senate, republicans and democrats alike. it is available even now for the house to vote on. unfortunately, thus far, the house leadership has refused to allow the house of representatives to vote on that measure, which has overwhelmingly -- overwhelming bipartisan support. we urge the house leadership, speaker boehner, to reconsider

that position, to allow the senate bill to come up, to allow the house of representatives to vote on it, because we are confident that it would pass with both democratic and republican support. i know you all are aware, because many of you have been reporting on it, on the growing chorus of republicans who are calling on speaker boehner and the house leadership to do the right thing and to pass this bipartisan compromise so that americans don't have their taxes go up in 10 hours -- 10 days and 11 hours. that's the result of failing to act -- taxes go up. the bipartisan compromise exists; it was worked out by the senate democratic leader and the senate republican leader in a process that was agreed upon with the speaker of the house that produced a result that the speaker of the house told his own membership that he supported and that he recommended they support.

they should just get it done, and then we can all -- the senate, the house, the administration -- work on extending the payroll tax cut for the entire year, a commitment this president has made from the beginning when he was the first to put on the table, through the american jobs act, a payroll tax cut extension for 2012. but we have to get this two- month extension done or else taxes will go up on the american people. and it really is not that difficult. the house has the ability to call up the senate legislation, pass it and move on, and taxes will not go up. the average american family will not have to worry about how to make ends meet with $1,000 less next year. so we urge them to do that. that's what the president urged the speaker to do just moments

ago. >> would the white house and congressional democrats be willing to give some sort of ironclad commitment to pass a full year's tax extension by a certain date early in 2012 in exchange for passing this two- month extension? >> the president is committed to a one-year tax cut. that's what he's been pushing both here in washington and around the country since september as part of the american jobs act, and then when it was separated out from the american jobs act. senate democrats, house democrats are all committed to doing that. republican leaders of both houses say they are committed to doing that. it can be done, so it would require finishing the work that senators mcconnell and reid started as they tried to reach a year-long agreement. they made good progress, but

work needed to be done, which is why they then moved to the two-month extension to ensure that americans didn't have their taxes go up. that is the sensible thing to do -- pass the two-month extension, return to work on the year-long extension, or else explain to the american people -- 160 million of them -- why congress would not listen to them, would not listen -- why the house republicans would not listen to their senate colleagues, would not listen to republican elder statesmen and stateswomen all around the country and the city telling them to do the right thing here. it's bad for the country and it's bad for the economy and it's bad for the american people not to pass this bill. so we feel very strongly about it, as you can tell. >> does the president expect to hear back from speaker boehner on whether this might be an option? >> look, i think it's pretty

clear -- again, not because i say it but many others are also saying it -- that the ball is in the house's court. there is a compromise available, an avenue out of this blind alley, if you will, that they've driven themselves into, and it is the senate bill. vote on it, pass it, and we can move on to discussing and figuring out a solution for the year-long extension. >> i know what's going to happen and i agree with the editorial this morning in the wall street journal -- probably the best thing to do at this point is just get this behind us and move on, urging the house republican leadership to change course and endorse a compromise reached in the senate that got the support of 90 percent of those members, democrats and senators alike.

it is harming the republican party. it is harming the view, if it's possible anymore, of the american people about congress. so do the right thing. pass the payroll tax cut. make sure americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st. yes, alister. >> jay, just staying with this theme, so specifically what is the president offering the speaker in return for sort of reversing himself on this? >> you misunderstand here. there is not -- this is not a game of poker, high-stakes poker, as one republican congressman deemed it. we're talking about 160 million americans and their paychecks. there's no political quid pro quo here. there was a bipartisan compromise reached with overwhelming support from republicans and democrats in the senate, at the direction of the republican leader in the house, that initially garnered the support of the republican leader in the house. historys review some here.

the president and democrats initially supported, put forward the american jobs act, which was paid for entirely, including the payroll tax cut extension and expansion, and the pay-fors in that bill were what the president very firmly believed that if he could have his way entirely was the way it should be done. when republicans blocked that and the senate democrats crafted a separate payroll tax cut extension with ui extension and some other measures, and tried to move it and have it paid for by asking the 300,000 wealthiest americans, millionaires and billionaires, to pay a little extra, republicans blocked that. so we compromised. the president, the senate compromised. and the deal that was passed, the compromise that was passed by the senate by a vote of 89- 10, did not have the pay-fors that the democrats wanted, did

not have the pay-fors that the president initially submitted, but they had a compromised set of provisions that paid for it that won the agreement of 89 senators, including 39 republicans. that is the essence of compromise. the bill even included an extraneous political victory that republicans insisted on. >> let me try something else, but staying with the theme. the cr runs out on friday. when will the president sign the omnibus bill? >> when it gets here. >> what happens if it hasn't got here by -- >> it will get here. i'm sure -- i'm not sure if it's physically here yet, but when it arrives there's a process in that august institution that takes time in terms of producing the bill for him to sign, but he will sign it when it gets here. >> all right. and on syria, what do additional steps to pressure the assad regime mean? what are you talking about there specifically?

>> the fact is -- of the matter is that we have throughout this process worked both unilaterally and collectively to increase pressure and isolation on the assad regime. what you've seen is a continuation of horrific acts of violence, needless violence, against the syrian people. and it's clear that every metric shows the situation is moving against assad. defections of the military are on the rise. diplomats have begun leaving their posts and coming out in support of the syrian opposition. the opposition is more unified and more inclusive. the regime has been cut off by the arab league, by its traditional allies and neighbors like turkey, and the regime is under increasing financial duress due to international sanctions and weak domestic economic policies. it is only a matter of time before this regime comes to an end. only fear is holding it together, and governing that is

based on fear is always doomed to fail. >> are you talking about sanctions or what? >> i don't have details to provide to you about additional measures we will take, but we will continue to pressure, working with our international partners, the assad regime. and the writing is on the wall. the isolation increases. and more and more members of the international community of nations are joining the call for syria to stop this atrocious behavior. yes, jessica. >> clearly the president will stay in town to sign the omnibus, but now he said it's up to the speaker to take -- make the next move. so what is the president's next move? will he go join his family in hawaii? >> i don't have any scheduling updates to give you. we are obviously in a pretty fluid situation. but the president made clear in

his call to speaker boehner earlier today, as i made clear in the readout, that the action that must be taken is the house needs to take up the senate bill that was supported by an overwhelming percentage of republicans and democrats in the senate and pass it to make sure that taxes don't go up. >> which is to say he has no intention of negotiating -- >> the negotiating has happened already. it is not -- as i just explained, it is not at all the case that this is simply the president saying, here's what i want and do it; this was a compromise worked out by the republican leader in the senate with the democratic leader in the senate, with the approval -- in fact, even the instigation -- of the speaker of the house. >> so the wall street journal today opined that the president has won this battle politically -- to paraphrase, not quote

them. but if the payroll tax cut is not extended, the economy -- most economists are saying we will suffer. so how concerned is the white house that it doesn't get extended and the nation's economy will take a big hit? >> we are very concerned of two things, the micro and the macro, if you will -- the macroeconomic effect on growth that not extending this tax cut, not extending unemployment insurance would have; outside independent economists, not the ones who seem to disagree with basic economic fact, say that it could have a negative of up to 0.5 percent of gdp. we firmly believe that in the end, because there is such, now, overwhelming support for the payroll tax cut and extending it for a year, that this will get done. we believe that eventually the house leadership, house

republicans, will understand that this is not about giving president obama a victory; this is about exercising their authority on behalf and at the demand of the american people, a bipartisan consensus of the american people as represented by the enormous bipartisan vote in the senate. it's the right thing to do. and at the microeconomic level, we're worried about individual families who need that extra money, an average of $40 a paycheck. as you know on tuesday, the white house called on americans to add their voice to the conversation here in washington about why we need to extend the payroll tax cut. if congress fails, if the house fails to act, the typical family making $50,000 a year will have about $40 less to spend or save with each paycheck. that adds up to about a thousand bucks for the year.

the response has been extraordinary. over 17,000 submissions i think is the last information i got. someone contacting us from connecticut says, "i can buy lunch from the cafeteria for almost a whole month for my twins. i can buy food or pay for gas. i can save it for my daughter's prescriptions -- prescription deductibles. to some people $40 is nothing, but $40 is big money for us." in west virginia someone wrote in saying, "after everything that comes out, including my mortgage, my take-home pay is $150 every two weeks. so minus $40 would be $110. i can barely get by now. that 40 bucks is my gas for my car to get to work. taking $40 away from my pay would just about put me under." this matters. this is real, real stuff. this is not about high-stakes poker or political brinkmanship.

it's about 160 million americans and their families and the impact that failure to act would have on them. and the voices are growing louder from average americans, from republicans in congress and the senate -- even in the house now -- from respected commentators within the conservative arena. the house needs to act. they're not behaving in the interests of the country. we want to do this together with them. we want to work with the congress, with republicans and democrats alike. that is how we achieved the compromise in the senate that was authored -- co-authored by senator mcconnell. it's time to get this done for the american people. hey, mr. knoller. nice to have you in the front row. how are you? >> well, thanks. don't tell norah. is the white house at odds with speaker boehner when he said

earlier today that rather than do a two-month bill now, there's plenty of time left in the year for the senate to come back, choose negotiators and work out a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut bill? >> we disagree with that proposition because we need the insurance -- we need to make sure that taxes do not go up on january 1st, and that insurance is the compromise two-month extension that was voted on by -- 89-10 -- by republicans and democrats alike in the senate. we are absolutely committed to working with congress for a year-long extension. the president was out there, certainly without any republican support in the beginning here in the fall pushing this. republicans have gone from opposing it to tepid support to now insisting that it would cause -- we'd rather have taxes go up on the american people on january 1st than create the

uncertainty of a two-month extension. let's take you back to that, for some of us, distant period in the summer when republicans were insisting that, as part of the deficit, or rather the debt ceiling negotiations, that we return to raising the debt ceiling every few months; and in fact that we would return to it by the end of the year. you want to talk about an uncertainty that would be created for the economy? the threat of default? you remember what it was like in august. so their concern about the uncertainty of passing this two-month extension seems hollow to my ears. >> on another subject before -- >> yes, sorry, mark, go ahead. >> -- we let you go, is there any white house comment about eight american soldiers charged in the death of a fellow soldier in afghanistan? >> i apologize, mark, i haven't got anything for you on that.

but i can take the question and get back to you. >> thanks. >> yes. >> thank you, jay. there were reports that there were three, i believe, iranian -- or, sorry, five iranian engineers that were captured in syria working on a power plant. with the statement that you issued earlier today, you said that you're condemning, i guess, the syrian regime and you are calling for action, i guess, bend the -- people in the region to bend against the regime, but are you calling for stronger action? i mean, this is -- or have you been speaking to your allies in the region to take stronger action against syria? because things are -- i mean, especially with the iranians now in the country, i mean, it seems that things are ramping up there. >> well, i would simply say that, from the start of this process, with regards to syria, we have ratcheted up pressure on syria. you have seen the united states working with our partners, working with our allies,

participate in an effort that has increased international isolation of syria. and so the steps we have taken have been all in one direction, if you will, which is to put pressure on syria to make clear that assad has lost his legitimacy to rule and to further isolate his regime as we call on him to cease the violence and to begin a democratic transition in that country. we will continue to take those steps to pressure the regime to stop its crackdown. i think as we've seen in terms of the -- by the reporting and by the international condemnation of what's happening in that country, the world is watching. and increasingly, assad's legitimacy is -- has been lost around the world.

and that process will continue. >> are you aware of these reports of the iranian engineers? >> i do, but i don't have anything -- i mean, i've seen the reports, but i don't have anything specific for you on that. >> and there have not been discussions with people in the region for increased action? >> again, i don't know -- i don't have any response on that. let's go ed and then -- >> thanks, jay. yesterday you were graciously answering my question about the president on 60 minutes saying that maybe -- >> you want to know if the invitation for christmas still stands? >> well, i was going to let that pass. but have you had a chance to talk to the president? >> no updates on scheduling. >> ok. in all seriousness, i did ask you yesterday -- i didn't want to belabor it after the president came out. he came out while you were talking about -- there's been a lot talked about this week, with the president telling cbs that if you stack up his accomplishments in the first couple of years it's the fourth best in history. he said only lincoln and a

couple others were ahead of it. so can you talk a little bit about how he compares to -- >> sure, i mean, this has obviously been of great interest in the conservative blogosphere, but the fact of the matter is, he has -- he was making a point about the volume and substance of the legislative accomplishments, and the foreign policy accomplishments, in his nearly three years in power. he was not making an assertion of -- that only historians will make about the success or -- this was not a comparison of success to other presidencies except in the significance and substance and size of the legislative accomplishments, whether it's health care reform, which was an effort that took 100 years to accomplish; or the recovery act, which was an enormous response to an historic economic crisis; the bailout of the automobile industry, the saving of the american automobile industry against great political opposition; and on the foreign

policy front, continuing to take the fight successfully to al qaeda, embodied most notably in the successful mission to remove osama bin laden from the battlefield; the successful efforts that we led to bring the international community behind the effort of the libyan opposition to remove moammar qaddafi from power. i could go on, and believe me, i will, as time permits. but it was within the context of the substance and volume of what has happened in the face of enormous challenges in these past nearly three years. >> can i just follow up on another subject, which is there had been commentary a couple weeks ago but now it's sort of died down because of the payroll tax cut fight -- but that the president might make some recess appointments. and there are a lot of people

in both parties wondering, does he reserve that right? i mean, we don't know when they're going to actually recess, i suppose, as we continue -- this drags out. but is there a possibility that richard cordray could be named by recess appointment? are there people in the nlrb? what's your sense about that possibility? >> well, i don't have any announcements to make or speculation to engage in on that front. i mean, we're not relinquishing any rights here. that's certainly the case. i would note that it is unfortunate that although we had some significant nominations succeed, many, many others unnecessarily have been blocked. the effect of that, whether it's on ambassadorial nominations or judicial nominations, is very damaging, and it is a constant problem and a growing problem where random senators put holds on nominations that are absolutely uncontroversial.

and that practice should stop. and i think this president will continue to nominate highly qualified people for important positions around our government and our foreign service and onto the bench. you mentioned richard cordray, and this is a perfect example of an abomination in terms of senate behavior. he is widely respected, has broad bipartisan support across the country. he is exactly the right person for the job to be the consumer watchdog, the overseer of this agency that is in place to ensure that average americans don't get taken advantage of by financial institutions, that they have an advocate for them here in washington. republicans blocked that because they want to water down wall street reforms, reforms that were put in place to help prevent the kind of financial crisis that almost tipped the

global economy into a depression. seems like a bad idea. yes. i'm sorry, i did say -- david, go ahead. yes, sir. >> yesterday, the president said he needed the speaker to do something. the speaker said, "i need the president to do something." my assumption would be the speaker expected something more than a phone call. he was looking for something from the president as far as negotiations; you say there's nothing to negotiate. the speaker is in a corner, he's boxed in a corner. is the president going to do nothing to help the speaker get out of that corner? >> the president is doing everything he can to help the american people. the speaker is very capable of helping himself by calling a vote on the senate compromise, a compromise that received the support of 80 percent of the republican senators and even a greater percentage of democratic senators. there is a bipartisan compromise available to him as a lifesaver, if you will. >> but politically he's in a box. is there anything the president can do? >> well, i mean, honestly, the

important thing here is not who's up and who's down politically because, as i talked about yesterday, we are beginning to see some positive signs in the economy. we are a long way from full economic recovery, but the last thing we need to do is fail to pass a payroll tax cut extension which would have a negative impact on the kind of economic growth that we have been seeing and need to continue to see. it's just wrong at every level to prevent this from passing. >> on north korea, there were some indications coming out of china that maybe there's some power-sharing agreement. can you update us on the situation in north korea? have you had any kind of communications through intermediaries or the north korean government itself? >> all i can say is that

closely. kim jong-il had designated kim jong-un as his official successor, and at this time we have no indication that that has changed. we hope that the new north korean leadership will take the steps necessary to support peace, prosperity and a better future for the north korean people, including through acting on its commitments to denuclearization. as i stressed i think the day before last, we are in a period of transition. north korea is in a period of national mourning. we're monitoring events closely. we hope that the new leadership will support peace and prosperity and a better future for its people, and that it will abide by its commitments on denuclearization. >> and no communication from the north korean government or intermediaries? >> no, not that i'm aware of. kristen. >> thanks, jay. on tuesday, the administration called on the american people to weigh in, to lend their voices to this. realistically speaking, do you think that that's going to help break this impasse? and if so, why? i know you just read some testimonials. >> well, i do think it will

because as i've said now for a while, even prior to this current situation, we are optimistic or at least hopeful that congress will act on some of these common-sense, mainstream measures to help grow the economy, help the american people and improve our employment situation, not because we're for them -- that's probably a negative in the eyes of the highly politicized and partisan house of representatives republican party, but because their constituents are demanding it. and i, of course, don't have a ton of data here, but i suspect that the voices that we're hearing from -- by people who are responding to the #40dollars that we started yesterday, that they are

representative of folks around the country in the districts of house republicans, as well as democrats in the states all over the country for whom $40 a paycheck is a big deal, that it means the difference -- for someone from north carolina, it's the -- "that $40 buys my gas for a week to drive to work, or it buys my groceries for a week. it's hard enough making ends meet and $40 is a lot of money to me." in texas: "that is almost one week of groceries for me or how much it costs to fill my gas tank for one and a half weeks or medical co-pays at the specialist office. which one am i to go without? this is going to hurt. please don't let this happen." look, i think that the thousands of responses we've had so far are representative of the hundreds of thousands and millions of responses you would get if you were -- and if the

members of the house of representatives were to survey their own constituents. for most people, $1,000 out of their paycheck next year is an enormous hit, and in this economy, we cannot let that happen. yes. >> and on afghanistan quickly -- >> sorry. >> -- a senior military commander suggested that troops might need to, in fact, stay -- american forces might need to, in fact, stay beyond 2014. can you respond to that? and is that a possibility -- >> well, i appreciate the question. thank you, kristen. as established in lisbon at nato and as made clear through the president's afghanistan policy, one, we are in the process of drawing down the surge. and by the end of 2014, we will

have turned over full security lead to afghan forces. we have made clear all along that much as in iraq when we turned over full security lead to the iraqi forces that would be part of a process that may include troops in support. and make no mistake -- and i have an announcement to make, which is that we have met the commitment to reduce by the end of this year our forces by 10,000 in afghanistan, as we begin to reduce the surge forces, as the president committed to do. and we will continue that process, and when the surge forces are out between that end date, which i guess is september of next year, through the end of 2014, there will be a continued reduction in u.s. forces as we turn over more and more of the country to afghan security lead.

that has been clearly spelled out from lisbon on so that -- and is entirely consistent with what general allen said. >> and so just to put a point on it, the commander was wrong -- was not -- >> no, i said it's entirely consistent with what general allen said, that the process of turning over entirely the security lead to the afghans is the result of a gradual reduction of forces and a building up of afghan security forces. we have said from the beginning that there could be u.s. forces in afghanistan beyond the end of 2014 in a support role just as they were after august 2010 in a support role in iraq. from that point forward in iraq, we have drawn down now to zero in accordance with our agreement with the iraqi government. so that is entirely consistent. yes.

>> back on the payroll tax cut for a second, a follow-up to david's question. put yourself in the speaker's shoes -- are you suggesting that he cobble together maybe a house majority of willing democrats and whatever republicans he might be able to get to go along, even if it goes against the majority of his own caucus in the house? >> am i suggesting that for the sake of 160 million people he should allow this vote to happen and allow his house republicans to vote their conscience, which would result, because of overwhelming democrat support, in the passage of the senate bill? yes. >> that's one way he could do it. >> absolutely. that's the reason why they didn't vote on it the other day, because it would have passed. and that's the shame of all this. there are, i'm confident, more than enough house republicans who want to bring this to an end, who want to ensure that americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st and

certainly don't want to explain to their constituents why they took a vote so that their taxes would go up. and if it came to the floor of the house, it would pass. it would have near unanimous support from democratic members, and i am confident that the 30-odd republicans it would require to pass this measure would vote yes, at least. and then we can move on to the next thing that we all agree on, which is that we have to get this payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extended for the full year. yes. >> might that not spark a revolt within his own caucus? >> the president has an enormous amount of responsibilities. every president does. he cannot be responsible for the internal politics of the other party in one house of congress. he is simply focused on doing what is best for the american people, and working with republicans, as well as

democrats, to achieve what's best for the american people. and that's what the bipartisan compromise reached in the senate represents. ninety percent of the united states senate on a substantive issue, an important issue like this, is quite an accomplishment. senators mcconnell and reid deserve a lot of credit for the work they did on achieving the two-month extension and on the progress they made towards a full-year extension. and so the house should act on that. it doesn't happen that often when we have this kind of bipartisan consensus on an important issue. we should act on it. yes, sir. >> i'm just trying to get a little bit better sense of what happens next. as you said, the ball is in the house's court. did the president set any time -- did he and boehner set any time to talk again? or is this the time, the time that's behind here on this clock? >> there is nothing more i can read out to you from the conversation with the speaker of the house.

the president was very clear, and i provided you the essence of what he said to the speaker. there is an available solution: the house should pass the two- month extension to ensure that americans' taxes don't go up. the president, as he has repeatedly, affirmed his commitment to a one-year extension. he, after all, started this conversation and has been pushing for a full-year extension since september -- and there is a way to get there. and this president and democrats have been clearly willing to compromise, to accept that they could not get republican support for what we believe and they believe was the right thing to do, which was ask the 300,000 wealthiest americans, millionaires and billionaires all, to pay a little bit more so that 160 million americans got a tax cut. but since the republicans oppose that almost unanimously, senate democrats, with this president's full support, were able to work out a compromise

with senate republicans, that included pay-fors that we found acceptable and that made sense as a policy matter, that did not violate the president's principles in terms of doing damage to the economy or harming the very people you're trying to help with the payroll tax cut extension or with unemployment insurance. >> so why did he decide to call boehner? when you were asked yesterday if he was going to be calling boehner you laughed it off. >> no, i didn't laugh it off. i simply said that there was an available action here that the house should pass the senate bill. the president speaks with speaker boehner periodically. he called him to urge him to do the right thing here, which is bring up the senate bill in the house, which is something he can still do, contrary to some tweets i've seen out there. they absolutely can take up the senate bill and pass it. it will be signed by this president, gladly.

margaret, and then -- i'm sorry, then i -- margaret, then in the back, and then i'll jump around -- laura. settle in, folks. >> i'm going to, like, take a stab at this, but i feel like it may not work. (laughter.) so i feel like we're all caught in the middle of basically a game where i'm wondering -- are you guys just sort of making the house republicans twist in the wind a little bit more, and then this is going to get worked out? it just seems, if the president was really done with it wouldn't he just be on a plane to hawaii right now? >> i don't have any scheduling updates to give you. the president just got off the phone within the last hour now with the speaker of the house, urging him to do the right thing, to take up the senate bill. this is not about, like -- look, there's a clear avenue here. we're shining a light on the path out of this cul-de-sac that they've driven themselves into, and it is to vote on a bill that -- we're not asking them to vote on a bill that only

democrats supported, we're asking them to vote "yes" on a bill that 82 percent or something, or 80 percent of senate republicans supported. >> doesn't the house -- >> it seems not that much of an ask. >> doesn't the house's way out of it now effectively do that with just sort of a little bit more so that their members can vote for it? and i mean, in the end, if what you really want is just a resolution, doesn't that resolve that without really undercutting the places where you guys want to -- >> closing what resolve? >> a two-month extension with some language that requires a year-long deal. i mean, isn't that -- it doesn't seem that out of reach. >> well, i don't know what that means. requires a year-long deal on whose terms? i mean, you saw what the house republicans put out yesterday, and clearly demonstrating that this is not a payroll tax cut for them, it's about trying to get some political victories on ideological issues. so they took the willingness that senate democrats

demonstrated and this president demonstrated to accept their totally extraneous provision on keystone, and decided that that wasn't enough, they wanted a little more, and they wanted a bunch of other things that simply moved them away from bipartisanship and moved them away from compromise. so the president is committed to a full-year extension. he has demonstrated his willingness to agree to pay- fors that are different from the ones he put forward and from the ones that senate democrats put forward. but they have to make sense. they have to make economic sense, and they have to make sense in terms of the impact on average americans out there. so they should pass the two- month, and then we can get to negotiating the year-long. >> on iraq, the vice president made a couple of phone calls yesterday, and i guess i'm just wondering, is the president -- has the president or has vice president biden spoken with the vice president of iraq?

what is -- what was the point of those calls? how does president obama feel about the arrest and the charges against this vice president? and what, if anything, at this point can the u.s. do about it? are you considering pulling aid? if you're not -- if we're not -- >> well, margaret, let me stop you there. first of all, i think we read out some of the calls that the vice president made. separately, this kind of political turmoil has been occurring in iraq periodically, as they have taken steps forward and, occasionally, steps backward, but generally made progress towards political reconciliation, towards democracy, and away from the use of violence in pursuit of political ends. that has been progress, but it has often been hard won. that will continue. we certainly expect that there will be difficult days ahead in iraq.

but the progress has been substantial. what is utterly nonsensical is the suggestion that somehow we should have left troops in there, and that would have had any impact on the political disputes. because maybe folks weren't paying attention, but political disputes have been happening while there were 40,000 troops, 80,000 troops, 150,000 troops. the key metric here is that those political disputes have increasingly been resolved through negotiation, not through violence, and elections were held, a government was established -- these are all signs of important progress -- all while violence declined significantly. we will continue to have a robust and important relationship with iraq. we will continue to have frequent, i'm sure, discussions with iraqi leaders. and we will continue to weigh in and encourage iraqi leaders to make smart decisions as they continue to move forward with

the development of their democracy. i wanted to -- as long as we're on foreign policy, i just want to be clear on a question that kristen had about afghanistan. i just want to say, on 2014, the president will make his decisions on the size and shape of our post-september 2012 presence, after the reduction of the surge forces, at the appropriate time in consultation with our afghan and nato partners. any post-2014 presence would of course be at the invitation of the afghan government, and would ensure that we will be able to target terrorists and support a sovereign afghan government so that our enemies cannot outlast us. i just want to be clear about that. but the framework that i discussed at the top was laid out at lisbon. i think i owe you -- yes, lesley. >> can i ask a quick question, following on margaret's question? do you have any reaction to the prime minister's sort of suggestions today that he wants to shed some of the members of the coalition government that he might not sort of get along

with? >> look, we have -- i would refer you -- i don't have it in front of me -- to -- we did a readout of the vice president's calls, yes -- to that statement. and we have worked, the vice president has and other members of the president's team have, with iraq on the political process. it is very important, and has been, and will continue to be, that iraqi leaders pursue a representative government so that everyone's interests are properly represented. and beyond that, i would just refer you to the statement we put out. >> he also said that the u.s. has asked him to free some of the hashimi guards that he had jailed. >> who did? >> he said that the u.s. government had asked him to free some -- >> maliki did? i don't -- i just don't have anything more on that for you today. yes, alexis. >> two quick questions. can i just --

>> alexis and then, yes -- >> john. >> john, of course. okay, alexis, then john. >> two quick questions. i want to clarify: you were reading these moving comments from people who talk about what they can do with $40. the president had originally asked for the 3.1 percent, an expansion. when he's thinking about getting a year extension, and i just want to clarify, he's still talking about sticking with an extension, not an expansion, considering that they would get 60 bucks a paycheck, correct? >> well, no question, but that was part of -- and i'm glad you mentioned it, alexis -- because that was part of our compromise. >> he's not going to argue for that -- if he gets the two- months insurance, he's not going to then say, okay, look, let's go back to talking about expanding this. >> well, i don't want to predict, but he may say that that would be a good thing to do. but he is absolutely willing to sign a appropriately paid-for one-year extension of the payroll tax cut at its current levels. he -- you're absolutely right -- initially supported an expansion of that, and as part of the compromise -- another

data point in my presentation on the ways in which the president and senate democrats have compromised in these negotiations, and the way that that compromise has led to a result that garnered a vote of 89-10 in the senate -- i mean, i think that's, again, a demonstration of his understanding that in a divided government you don't get everything you want. and he was willing -- he is very willing to sign into law this two-month extension that was passed by the senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. and he is very eager to work with congress to continue the progress that senators mcconnell and reid made towards extending it for a full year at its current level. he believed, and still believes, of course, that more would be better. but what absolutely must not happen is that nothing is passed by the house and taxes go

up. >> so let me ask another question to follow up on ed, real quick. ed's question about the president's sense of history and where he fits into it -- in my previous experience covering the white house, most presidents get that information from somebody who does that analysis for them, somebody -- from a historian or a political scientist or a political advisor. can you tell us where that assessment came from? did the president do it himself? >> the president is a well-read individual, and was prior to coming into office, and reads voraciously in office. so, no. i mean, i think that's -- look, i think that's an assessment that others may have made on the outside simply by the sheer volume of what has been accomplished by this president and by congress in the last three years. and part of the size of the record -- and voters will judge it and historians will judge it in terms of where it fits in

terms of american history and its relative success or greatness. talkingot what he was about. he was talking about -- he came into office, working with congress, facing enormous challenges for this country -- an economy in freefall, the real threat of a global depression, two wars and enormous challenges elsewhere in foreign affairs -- and he, with congress, took action to deal with them. that's what the times demanded. and congress passed some very big pieces of legislation that did big things -- wall street reform, successfully saving the american automobile industry, the recovery act, health care reform -- and then, of course, as i mentioned, a number of foreign policy successes -- successfully and responsibly ending the war in iraq, beginning the drawdown in

afghanistan, taking the fight aggressively to al qaeda, repositioning ourselves -- reorienting ourselves to reassert ourselves as a pacific player and power because of the neglect that the prior administration had towards asia. these are all big things. and you all and your successors and historians will judge the success of the things that he's done, and voters will have an opportunity obviously to do that in less than a year. but there's no arguing about the volume and the substantial nature of what has been done. >> can we just ask -- the speaker's office has put out a little readout of the call, and they're saying that speaker boehner appears to be dug in as well, just as the president was on the two-month. speaker boehner is saying, bring the senate back, appoint the conferees, what we've heard before. and the quote from the

speaker's office is that the speaker said, "let's get it done today." so where are we? we seem to be at the same spot. >> today, congressmen van hollen and hoyer, if i'm not mistaken, attempted to bring up the senate bill in the house and they were gaveled down by republican congressmen. that opportunity is there. if the speaker wants to get it done today i'm sure we can get it done today. we can pass the two-month extension. >> he said he wants a one-year extension. >> well, he knows, and the president made very clear to him, that the avenue available to him, the speaker of the house, to avoid raising taxes on 160 million americans is to pass the measure that won overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. this sudden insistence on the uncertainty created by a two- month extension is just -- you guys know, you've been covering this. you know it's -- it just

doesn't ring true, right? i mean, this was the same leadership that thought it would be a good idea for the global and american economy to have periodic fights and stalemates over -- and brinkmanship -- over defaulting on the full faith and credit of the united states government. talk about uncertainty. the uncertainty that we have to eliminate is the uncertainty that americans have right now about whether or not their taxes are going to go up on january 1st. there is a bipartisan compromise available to make sure that doesn't happen -- just take it. just take it. follow the advice of numerous republican senators. follow the advice of the wall street editorial page -- words i never thought i'd speak. (laughter.) follow the advice of senators mccain and corker and grassley and others, and pass the bipartisan compromise. make sure that americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st. ann.

>> since the speaker has now responded to your statement and says that he wants the president to urge senator reid to appoint conferees, isn't this the classic definition of a stalemate or a deadlock? >> well, it's a classic -- there is a stalemate in that the speaker will not act. a bipartisan compromise was negotiated. and as you know and reported on, it was supported overwhelmingly by republicans in the senate. it was the product of a negotiation that the speaker of the house helped initiate and urged to happen. it was a product that the speaker of the house endorsed through his own colleagues on a conference call, as has been widely reported. it is a product that has the support of republicans in the senate, in the house, outside, in conservative circles. it should just get done. and what is absolutely the wrong way to look at this and would be a disservice to readers and viewers would be to say

both sides are to blame; neither side wants to compromise; democrats won't move and republicans won't move. no. that's not the story of what happened here in the senate. democratic leaders, republican leaders got together, worked out a compromise that won overwhelming support from republicans and democrats. that's the kind of stuff people are dying to see in washington, and it worked; the president supports it. for a while, it seemed -- or 24 hours there -- it seemed like house leaders in the republican party supported it, until i guess they were told not to by a subfaction or some representation, some sizeable group within the house republican conference. but that's not -- they're not speaking for the overwhelming majority of the american people, republicans in the

country, for -- certainly for their colleagues in the senate, all of whom want them to pass this bipartisan, sensible compromise to ensure that americans don't have their taxes go up, and then as everybody has agreed on, to then refocus our efforts on getting a full-year extension. >> (inaudible.) >> that's the way out there. there is a bill -- there is a bipartisan compromise available. the negotiation has happened. he sat down with senator mcconnell and senator reid and urged that process to begin. they worked hard on a year-long. when they felt like they couldn't do it by the end of the year they recommended this two-year -- two-month compromise. republicans and democrats overwhelmingly agreed. they should take it up and pass it. laura. >> two questions. one is, can you tell us how long the conversation lasted with the speaker? >> about 10 minutes. i don't have an exact time for you, but it seemed like about 10 minutes.

>> and so obviously more was said than what you said in the readout if it was 10 minutes long. >> i'm not going to give you a transcript if that's what you mean. but, look, the president -- >> unless they just both repeated themselves over and over. (laughter.) >> the president was very clear in stating what i told you he said. i don't think he could be any clearer. >> i guess what i'm trying to figure out is both sides have now put out readouts where they say that their principals essentially reiterated their public positions. my question is whether in this conversation there was any hope for advancing this beyond the publicly stated position of each side. >> again, i've given you the readout. there aren't -- it is an absolutely fair representation of what the president said, and i leave it to the speaker to characterize what he said. but what i described to you is

exactly what the president said. it is exactly his position. it is his public position and it is his private position the house should take up the senate compromise. >> you've talked a lot about how everyone is committed to a year-long deal and we'll get that done, but we just need to pass this crisis moment. what makes you think that it's going to be so easy to get a year-long deal, given that, with all due respect, the parties have failed to do so until now? >> well, look, senators reid and mcconnell made progress; that process needs to continue. the ways -- there are ways to do this that are not difficult. they represent choices, but there are ways to pay for this that the president can accept, democrats can accept, and we see no reason why republicans wouldn't accept.

the issues that they put forward in their -- whatever that thing is that they voted on yesterday so that they could avoid actually voting on the bill, were filled with things that had nothing to do with the payroll tax cut. nothing at all. >> right, but what makes you think that you're going to be able to get past all those things that have nothing to do with the payroll tax when you start negotiating in january? >> well, again, i think that the voices of the people from west virginia, texas, connecticut and everywhere else are going to be heard. but let's be clear: great progress was made in the senate. there are ways to do this for a year that everybody, we believe, can agree on -- certainly, at least, the president, senate republicans and senate democrats, as well as house democrats.

i mean, there's one -- speaking of isolation -- i mean, there's one isolated group here that doesn't want to join the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans who support doing one thing on behalf of the american people. increasingly, i think that isolation is becoming clear. and i expect that house republicans will be hearing from their constituents and maybe from other folks whose opinion they respect, and maybe that will have an effect. the politics of this are really so far less important than the substance here, because as i think jessica pointed out early on in the briefing, there is an absolute economic impact of failing to act here. there's a macroeconomic impact, a reduction of economic growth by up to 0.5 percent. that would have a direct effect on employment. there would be a terrible and direct effect on those who would no longer receive unemployment insurance as

they're trying to meet their house payments and pay their bills while they're looking for a job. and all of that -- the withdrawal of all of those resources from the economy would be negative, and the effect on individuals of losing $40 in their paycheck, every paycheck, is real and harmful. at this time where we're still in a fragile stage of our economic recovery where things are getting better but are far from good enough, the last thing congress should do is, in an act of total disregard for a bipartisan consensus, total disregard for the effect it would have on 160 million people, refuse to vote on this compromise. yes, sir. >> thanks, jay. >> sorry, john, it took me so

long. >> no, that's all right. it seems that the payroll tax cut is going to expire whether it's 10 days from now or two months or a year from now. and you just spoke about the impact that it would have if it's not extended on middle- class families -- 160 million taxpayers out there. has the president or his economic team given any thought to making this payroll tax cut permanent? >> no. >> why not? >> because it was specifically -- it was specifically designed to -- a year ago, working with republican leaders, designed to give the economy at that moment the boost that it needed and, again, notwithstanding those who choose to ignore basic economic facts and call themselves economists nevertheless, it has had a very positive impact this year on the economy, both on growth and job creation, and would continue to have that. now, at some point, you hope that the recovery is at a stage where we would no longer need that added help. that's why it is a one-year measure.

again, the debt ceiling -- the willingness to go through a debt ceiling showdown every three or six months i think makes clear that their concern about -- the stated concern about uncertainty is suspicious to say the least. republicansalso -- overwhelmingly supported the temporary bush tax cuts, right? so this is a real-world impact. this is not an esoteric exercise. it's not a political exercise. it's a bill that would either provide americans with an extra $40 per paycheck or take it away. and americans who live paycheck to paycheck and americans who are doing a little bit better than that and saving a little bit will have to change their budgeting next year if the house walks away from this bipartisan compromise that 80 percent of senate republicans support but for some reason the

house republican leaders don't. >> so the president and the administration believes, then, that a year from now those taxpayers that you referenced will be able to handle that $40 hit in their paychecks? >> well, there are a lot of things that -- there's a lot of water to pass under the bridge economically between now and a year from now. there are a lot of -- as you know, reporting as you do on these issues -- a lot of other things that will have to be decided next year economically that will have potentially an effect on tax rates and a number of issues economically. we would also certainly hope that the -- i'm not here making any kind of economic prediction about growth or anything except to say that we need to take the measures we can take to help the recovery along, to give it the kind of momentum that will lead to the kind of economic growth that will bring down the unemployment rate and put people

back to work and eventually get us to a point where, yes, we would not need that kind of measure that we need now and that americans need now. all right. >> the president's shopping trip real quick? he's got bo, he's buying dog stuff, he's getting pizza and stuff. so what's the symbolism, what's the -- >> i'm personally looking forward to a little of that pizza, having not had lunch. >> what symbolism, if any, should we read into it? is the message that the dog is the president's best friend because it's washington this time of year? is the message that everyone should go out and spend -- is the message that everyone should go out and spend money before christmas? is the message that -- is there no message and this is just the first time he's had a chance to go shopping? or is the message that he can't get anything done until congress acts, so he might as well go shopping? >> he did buy a game that cost about $40. >> it's multiple choice. >> hashtag 40 -- >> i wouldn't vote for -- >> and an expensive chew toy. >> yes, i think scott did my

work for me there. so -- no, the -- i would refer you to the pool report. i was here as this otr, as we call them, was happening. the president is obviously very busy here. shortly before making that excursion he was on the phone with senator reid and speaker boehner. and sometimes it's nice to get out of the house. thanks very much. >> later, we interviewed house majority leader kantor on payroll taxes. >> joining us here on c-span, congressman eric cantor, the house republican leader. thanks for being here. what are the options over the next 10 days? >> we are here in washington today and what we are asking is that the president and harry reid joined us in trying to

resolve the remaining differences over the issue of how to extend the payroll tax holiday. the house republican position is very clear. we want to make sure that the working people of this country have a year guaranteed where their taxes will not go up. that is the position taken by everybody in this town, which then lends some question to white in the world is it that what the senate has produced, 60 days, is acceptable. it is not acceptable for the working people of this country and for families to be able to operate that way. >> is it even feasible to reach an agreement in this limited time frame with the holidays in the middle? >> the only thing that is keeping a deal from being struck is harry reid's insistence that he wants to keep his members on vacation. we are here to go to work. we are here in washington. what we are talking about is only one issue. there is nothing else on the table other than this payroll

tax extension as far as were the difference lies. the difference lies in the timeframe of the extension. we are saying that we are willing to compromise on that. we have always been willing to do so. but somehow, it seems acceptable to the president and harry reid to allow folks to go on vacation while we should be doing our work. my sense is this, we owe it to the american people at the end of what has been a very tough year for them to show that washington can do something and can produce a result, not just kick the can down the road for 60 days. we will be back in this fight. we want to leave it. let's set a new town that we can do things together and we can find common ground to see better days in this country. >> and yet you see the description of congress as dysfunctional, stalemate, standoff, and people look at you and say you cannot get anything done, both democrats and republicans. >> in this situation they hear everyone's saying that we

should have payroll tax holiday extension for a year. own the president's barre words said it was an excusable for -- a very own words said it was inexcusable for congress not to extend it for a full year. now they're saying they cannot have more than 60 days. that is not true. it would take a couple of hours to just resolve the differences over the pay-fors and let the american people get on about their lives. they will be left in a lurch if 60 days is the answer, or of the tax holiday is not extended. it just defies reason as to why harry reid thinks it is more important to keep his members on vacation rather than going to work. i would also say that we are sitting here within a mile of the white house. the president is in town.

why isn't he asking us to come there? why isn't he on capitol hill trying to resolve the differences? these differences are not great. we can do this. >> have you been in touch with anyone from the white house or the president directly? >> absolutely. i know the speaker as well as my office and myself have been in discussions with the white house. i think we can get this done. it is not that difficult. if everyone would come off of an insistence that somehow a 60- day take in the canned is a good thing -- kicked in the can is a good thing and provide real relief for the american people, that is what we should do. >> clear up one issue on the conference call on saturday. there were some indication that the speaker was supportive of this two-month agreement and that changed on sunday mornings "meet the press." what happened? >> the speaker and i have been on the same page, that we believe a year-long tax relief

for the american people is where we need to be. that is what the house passed in a bipartisan vote. and frankly, we're all leaders are in this town, and all members say that is what we ought to do. harry reid somehow feels that the only thing we can do is 60 days. what we are saying, and the speaker is saying is that is not acceptable. we are here to do our work and we are asking them to join us. >> walk through the process procedurally of what c-span viewers and others can expect. the house remains in a pro- forma session on friday. what could happen? >> as you know, the house on tuesday rejected the senate suggestion of 60 days and move to go to conference to put the full year back in the body of the senate. now what needs to happen in or for tax relief to be provided to the people in any sort, the senate has to act.

if taxes go up, it will be because the senate did not come back to town and do their work. we are asking if it's that -- if harry reid would appoint conferees and work out the differences. knowing where the negotiations were when they broke off, we are not very far apart at all. it is inexcusable for us to allow any kind of politics to get in the way. what we're talking about is people's hard-earned money and we are talking about people in this country who have been through a very rough year. we care about those people, all of us do. let's do the right thing. >> what are the odds of an agreement? >> i'm so -- i'm hoping that something will dawn on the president to get engaged and say, let's resolve these differences together. we can get it done today.

that is how easy this really is. we can get this done today. said a new tone for this town for the beginning of this year -- set a new tone for this town and for the beginning of this next year that we can get things done. >> congressman, thank you. >> thank you. >> tonight, newt gingrich makes a canteen appearance in new hampshire. tomorrow, a look at the keystone pipeline. then barry levin and robert kaplan on wall street's relationship with washington. "washington journal" begins a 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> during a camp -- a campaign

trip in new hampshire to it, newt gingrich held this press conference. he spoke about mitt romney's attack ads. this is 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as president hamid i am prepared to campaign on ending

-- as president, i am prepared to campaign on ending unionism -- as speaker of the house committee have to represent your entire conference and i did. a major concern was to maintain a majority, which no republican had done since 1928. i avoided issues that would put nancy pelosi back in charge. having a house where nancy pelosi is not in charge is a good thing. >> you talk a lot about eligibility in terms of running against obama. is there anything else that can make you more it delectable? >> the primary reason that reagan so dramatically outperformed was that he could

passionately communicate the belief in america at a level that people decided they wanted to commit. i think the campaign i would run would be a much more aggressive campaign for drawing a very sharp distinctions and allow people to decide which future you want. i think that is a big difference. take the difference in tax policy. i am prepared to make creating jobs my number-one commitment. so i want a tax policy that has zero capital gains tax. mitt romney wants a tax cut that is lower than obama. he recently said, basically, he wanted to take the whole issue off the table. i do not want to take the issue off the table. if you want income redistribution, 9% unemployment, and people on footsteps, go ahead and follow obama. but if you want a future with

paychecks, you need new to gingrich. i would reach out to more people. i would reach out to latinos, two asian americans, two african-americans. i will come the naacp inviting me to the convention. i would argue paychecks over food stamps. >> governor romney's health care reform in 2006, which was passed two years after he switched positions on abortion, provides for taxpayer funding of abortion. would either of those provisions be fine with you at the federal level? >> i did not know the second thing. planned parenthood by-statutes -- >> in massachusetts --

>> we have to check this. that is strange. my position is very straightforward. i have always voted for the amendments that block all federal funding for abortion. i have said publicly that the no. 2 executive order i will sign on the very first day would reinstate riggins makoto -- reinstate reagan's mexico city mandate. i would put the money into adoption services so that young women would have the choice of life rather than death. i think that abortion providers in america should not get anything in. >> at some point, do not need to

fight fire with fire? >> you are now going down the other end, like so many of the other candidates. >> the last three national surveys show me tied with romney. the virginia out today shows me beating him. there is another survey that shot -- the show's ron paul in first place, me in second place, and rooney in -- and romney in third place. you cannot have $9 million of falsehood thrown at you and not expect an impact. we will have to fight our way back. but the last two days in iowa have been very positive. we did six or seven events session with very large crowds. i emphasize a couple of things. one, i will remain positive. i will talk about what i would like to do. i will talk about what my principles are, how we solve the

country's problems. number two, i think the negative advertising is shamefully dishonest. called on governor romney to disown his pack. his super pact is his staff raising money from his friends. they have $1,400,000 set for by a negative ads. if he wants to drown in positive ads, i do not care because i do not think he can say in a positive things to win.

if i do not have influence over my staff and over the millionaires to give me checks, how can you run america if you cannot be candid. they are destructive. the only thing it is helping is barack obama. >> on the payroll tax cut, your support for speaker boehner, i'm still not clear. does that mean that you support house republicans sticking with the one-year plan, even if it means that it expires and americans get tax cuts? >> why is the president and the senate allowing this to expire? if everybody buys the liberal line, the president jumps up and says, oh, gosh, this is a

crisis. why is it a crisis? this is a barack obama, harry reid deliberately deceptive strategy for purely political gain. it is disheartening to see them turned into a third world country with politics that are not worthy of the united states. and all they have to do is bring the senate back. what is a big deal about the senate coming back to washington to do their job? so i am fairly firm in saying let's pass the one-year extension. where's the president? where is the senate? why is this not their fault. i think it is always -- i think that the idea that it is always the house republicans' fault is fundamentally flawed. >> you told nbc that the heat in the kitchen are just medium.

what do you have to say in response to that? clark's -- >> he is kidding, of course. look, i will tell you what. he wants to test the heat? i will meet him anywhere in iowa next week, 1-on-one, no moderator. just a timekeeper. i would be glad to debate him anywhere. we can bring his ads and he can defend them. so let's test this kitchen. i am happy. i will go in the kitchen. ask governor romney if you'd like to play in the kitchen. i do not think so. i think he wants to hide over here and pretend that it is not his fault that he is putting people with falsehoods. it is his money and his ads. i can take the heat plenty well.

there are 120 ads that ran against me in 1990 and 1996. i went through two shutdowns. i stuck to my word. i oppose the republican tax increases in 1990. i think that i can take the heat from barack obama. frankly, it would be a fair exchange. he will get a fair amount of heat in the process. >> could you elaborate what you meant by your comments on the war in iraq. >> look at what iraq is rapidly degenerating into. i do not think we grasp how big a problem radical islam is. and how long it will take. that is something that we will not just a chief with military activity. i think it is a much harder and much larger problem. i am very worried about iraq. the i -- the reports that the

shia president is about to arrest the sunni representative. in december 2003, i was in both "meet the press" and "newsweek." he said he was not there just to release said don king he was there to create -- release saddam, but he was there to create change. >> last question. >> you have a member of your defense advisory committee --

now you get pure a unvarnished information in. >> i do not think anybody ever gets. unvarnished information. pure on want -- it's varnished information. out of the conduct of the dice, i think you get a much -- of advice, i think you get a much clearer view of the world. thank you very much. i hope you got my note. >> will you be on the ballot in virginia?

>> 10,000 last night and about 12,000 or 13,000 this morning. we have a rally last night were people are bringing more petitions. we have one more event in richmond tomorrow morning. sometime in the action, i will personally deliver them. it shows you that a guy who runs for six year and has millions of dollars has a different operational style than a guy who rouses thousands of people. in ohio, it was reported that we're doing just fine. the only reason we did not do missouri is not because it did not know about it. missouri is not done by caucus now. we will be on the ballot in virginia. >> given your comments about massachusetts, what is your opinion of massachusetts. >> i love massachusetts. it is the center of american liberty. it is the city upon a hill that

begins in massachusetts. i like visiting boston. it is a terrific city. >> what about living there? >> i have visited harvard and spoken at the kennedy school. >> you will be fighting back in new hampshire? >> they will not come at

william thomas the third is the chair. >> thank you for being with us. i will begin with you to setup this speech. the setting in chicago, the impact it has had on delegates 1896. there was a great depression.

the democrats were split down the middle. the incoming president, grover cleveland, was very unpopular. so he comes into this convention as a dark horse candidate for the presidency. he is the cause of free silver. helping debtors, helping people in trouble economically. he gives this speech where people go wild when they hear appeared part of it is because he had a wonderful voice. he sounded -- he did not sound like a 36-year-old man. he really set this up so that he would give a speech at a time in

the convention where he knew the majority of delegates were for him, but at the same time, no routing speech would be given at that time. so he found his moment and he took advantage of it. >> his words recorded in 1923. here he was challenging the cayley. he was relatively unknown. he ran for the senate and won the popular vote, but lost because nebraska given to the republican candidate. >> it was a tumultuous time in american politics. there was a major strike that tore the country apart. it revealed to americans just how unstable -- how unstable the economy was and how deep this depression might become.

he ran as a democrat and a populist in 19 -- in night -- in 1894 for the senate. he gained a lot of national attention with this senate campaign in 1894. i would like him to -- i would like to listen to the lincoln- douglas debates. he emerged as a national figure at that time. the country was desperate for leadership. all the parties were divided. the republicans were divided. the populists were on the scene. the republicans had won the presidential conference. but the second place and vote- getter was the populace. and the democrat, cleveland, was far behind. so the democratic party was in deep trouble -- deep trouble in this part of the midwest. >> he was one of 14 presidential

candidates who lost the election but changed politics. >> they tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. rest in our broad and fertile prairies'. burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. destroy our farms in every city of the country. said of having a gold standard because england has, but england because the united

states has. if they dare to come out we will fight them to the uttermost. having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world subverted by the commercial interests, the labor in interest, we will answer the demand for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the labor of this crown of thorns. you shall not crucify man upon the cross of gold. >> how long was the speech and why was it referred to as a cross of gold? >> it is about 45 minutes long. it was a powerful metaphor since most people were christians. william jennings bryan was a very serious evangelical christian.

some wanted to keep the country on the gold standard. they wanted to restrict the supply of money. they wanted to keep interest rates high. for many people that supported him, this was a way to keeping the americans who were in debt deeper in debt. it was a way of keeping the british economy the supreme economy in the world. the british economy was based on the gold standard. it sounds like a technical issue but this is th haves against the have nots. that is the way that bryan saw it. to crucify mankind on a cross of gold was connected to pontus pilate crucifying christ. in the same way, they thought that the american economy was run for the interest of those who already had property or money or banks. there was a real class divide at that time. now, we have a lot of anger about the economy but this is

not focused the same way as it was then. every dollar that people had in their pockets could be redeemed for some gold, and silver as well. and there was more silver in circulation than there was gold. this was really a call for cheaper money, lower interest rates, and greater economic opportunity. >> you talk about his charisma and what he meant at that time. he essentially became a celebrity. he was receiving as many as 2000 letters a day.

you also write about something that he did which was viewed as revolutionary which was campaigning for the office as opposed to the front porch strategy in ohio. >> they had a lot of money. he was able to get checks from john a. rockefeller. other big industrialists could just write him checks. there was no restrictions on campaign donations. bryan could not get that kind of money. he had to go out and campaign for himself. he could not depend on a large machine. he was a wonderful person and he loved to speak. he made necessity a virtue. he had to go on passenger trains. he spoke as many as 6000 times in that campaign. many times a day. for him, this was an opportunity to become known. also the only chance he had to reach americans directly.

>> he is the first campaigner to use the railroad in this way and campaign across the country. stephen douglas had done something similar in 1860. he was trying to take up a campaign swing throughout the south and through parts of the north. for the most part, american presidential candidate sat on their front porch and other people campaigned for them. bryan campaigned at every town in illinois, ohio, virginia and traveled all over america bringing his campaign to the people. >> as always, we want to hear from you.

we are in lincoln, nebraska. this is referred to as fairview. william jennings bryan and his wife moved here in 1902. let's take a step back. he ran for the house of representatives, and yet he was born in salem, illinois. walk us through the early years of william jennings bryan. how did he end up in nebraska? >> he was born in 1860 into a world that was being transformed. the civil war that followed, 1862-1865. he was too young to serve in the civil war that followed, 1862-1865. he had not served in the military. many men in politics had served in the military. he did not have that opportunity. instead, he read for the bar and went into practice as a lawyer in lincoln, nebraska.

he started his own law firm, a partnership. he practiced basic law in a growing urban environment. that is when he became active in politics. >> at the time and in many ways still, going to law school is good training to go into politics. his father was a judge in illinois. his father had helped write the illinois state constitution. a very close associate of stephen douglas. really, politics was in his blood. he never thought of doing anything else but enter politics. he became a lawyer because he wanted to get involved in politics. he came to nebraska because he knew that the democratic party was very weak here. he thought there would be a good opportunity for a young man to rise quickly within the

democratic party. >> let me go back to the way he was able to capture the imagination of the country. three times getting the democratic nomination. how do you receive the nomination and he lost all three times? >> henry clay received the nomination three times. this was a little bit different 100 years ago. there were a lot more voters, and a lot more media. more money involved. clay had a pretty small country. america was not just a country, by the early 20th century, so this was a modern campaign. >> as you write in your book, 14 million americans voted in that election. that was 80%. 80% of eligible voters cast

their ballots. >> they voted in colorado. that is the highest percentage of eligible voters of any election from now until the present. we have never had that a high percentage of eligible voters again. >> can you touch on his senate bid in 1894? >> sure. he started out to get the populist and democratic nomination. the populist was an insurgent movement in american politics rapidly rising. they had secured the house in nebraska. the irony of his 1894 senate campaign was that the republicans win the legislature and the democratic candidate actually wins the governorship. there was two debates, one in lincoln and one in omaha.

7000 people turned out for the debate in october of 1894. 15,000 people turned out for the debate in omaha. so this was a great political event for the public. bryan started out talking about the income tax. this was an important issue. this is the first income-tax in 1894. bryan had been part of that. it was a 2% flat tax on anyone making more than $4,000 -- so on the rich, and they started his debate with john thurston on that issue. and then you went to the union pacific railroad and its monopoly power. the issue is down on the list in 1894.

it was not as significant as it would become in 1996. >> in 1895, the supreme court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. a radical thing for the highest court to do, to say congress passed a law, the president signed the law, but this law is not constitutional. this helped to enflame the things on bryan's side. >> and the irony that in 1913, the signing of the 17th amendment did what? >> the direct election of senators. bryan is expecting to get elected. the republican majority elects john thurston to be the senator from nebraska. bryan runs for president and

gets the nomination and the man that he ran against was the republican committee chair for mckinley. >> does this home reflect william jennings bryan? >> it was considered quite nice for the time. as you can see, it is well furnished. he made a lot of money speaking. it was a prize for his career. he worked here. he worked here with his wife. you'll see a double desk that they worked on together. that is important to mention about him. he and his wife were partners in his career. often true of political wives now, but you do not think that much about the 19th century. it was certainly true of them. >> we're joined by bob puschendorf. thank you very much for sharing your time.

how did he use this, and how often -- how long was he in that study writing? >> he would have used that probably daily. the study was the heart of the home. >> why don't you show us what the desk looked like? also some of the other artifacts that are on top of the desk. >> these are the partner desks that he and his wife shared. they would exchange conversation, they would compose writing and letters, and they would formulate some of the positions he would want to take. >> on the top of the desk, a copy of "the commoner." why was that significant?

>> it can best be stated right in a quote in the first edition. "it would be to satisfy it by identity to the common people and proves to its right to the name which it has chosen." >> it would be set aside if by the community to the common people. >> how does this reflect him when he moved in in 1902? >> this reflects the life style of mr. bryan and their family. the most important thing came out of the restoration of this home was the role of his wife annette -- a representation in this office. >> the two sat directly across from each other and work on everything, correct? >> they certainly did. his wife was a beloved wife and helpmate. >> how much of the material there is original? >> very few of the pieces are

original furnishings. these furnishings and this office have been collected to represent what was originally in the room based on some very fine photographs. >> he was seated in that chair, adjacent to you. would he feel comfortable, would it feel like his study at the turn of the century? >> it would feel very much like his office at the turn of the century. even a cluttered desk and the open bible. >> we will check in with you, bob puschendorf, throughout the program. thank you for opening up this home to c-span cameras. we're joined from west virginia. we welcome your calls and participation.

this is the third of our series, looking at the life and political career of william jennings bryan. caller: i would like you to talk about thomas nast. >> thomas nast. >> he was a cartoonist who was responsible for the image that we have of santa claus. he was a german immigrant. very popular images that he created of the democratic donkey and the republican elephant. by the time that bryan ran, i do not remember if nast is still alive or not, but besides those images, he is best known for the really vitriolic images of boss tweed, the corrupt boss of tammany hall in new york. his images of boss tweed looking like a seedy devil really help to bring tweed down.

there was a prosecutor who was able to bring down the tweed ring. later on, a democratic presidential candidate. >> we will go now to sacramento, calif. go ahead, please. caller: my question originates from the american presidents series. during the grover cleveland episode, there was a question about what grover cleveland thought of william jennings bryan. he said that grover cleveland hated william jennings bryan and he was not able to finish. i am curious what he hated him for and if that was true. >> i will start. you can follow up. grover cleveland was a hard

money democratic president. he did not like bryan's position. it was the silver at issue and the income tax that bryan had championed in the house and helped pass. it was the breaking of the cleveland administration of the purchase act that most got the ire of grover cleveland. >> the democratic party, of commercial interests, especially from the east where cleveland was from. people who believed in thomas jefferson and that the government should not do very much in the economy. during the depression of the 1890's, grover cleveland said that the people should support the government but the government should not support the people. this is different from what

bryan believed. he was a liberal -- in our parlance today. he was a democratic liberal. he believed the government should help those who could not help themselves. he wanted to redress the balance between corporate power and the power of workers and small farmers. also, cleveland had broke the pullman railroad workers' strike with federal troops. the cleveland attorney general was grover's attorney. for bryan, cleveland thought that he represented all that he did not like about politics. >> i want to use these words and get your reaction. >> they're filled with convictions and bereft of charisma who are willing to lead a charge against secular forces.

>> bryan was a champion of those who needed help. he was a man of great conviction. one of the things he was trying to do that was most difficult was to take on the economic powerful class that had emerged in american politics in a way that did not look like class warfare. that was what was so hard for bryan to be able to do, to not appear to be a demagogue, to speak sincerely. he was trying to speak to the people without tearing down but instead attempting to build up. that was a very hard case to make. he did it beautifully but it was a very difficult attempt to reveal the inadequacies of

american society at the time without looking like someone who was just tearing down the american ideal. >> those are your words. are there parallels to someone today in american politics? who would resemble a william jennings bryan? >> i'm not sure. there are people who want to be william jennings bryan. sarah palin might try to be. angry populist. they believe that a small greedy elite is after the majority of americans. bryan was representative of an anti-monopoly movement. a movement where people believed that corporate america was taking the country in a revolutionary direction. we have come to grips and come to peace with big business. we cannot imagine a society where that is not there. that was not true for bryan. >> we just looked at the desk that he worked with mary side by side. most businesses were like that

in the 1870's and 1860's and 1850's. they were small partnerships and firms. that time before 1896 was a time of enormous industrial growth. colossal corporations. the pennsylvania railroad employing more people than the united states post office. these were corporations with enormous resources, enormous wealth, and enormous power. most people had experienced a very different america, one with small partnerships. the change was arresting. bryan was speaking to that massive transition in american society and life. >> i want you to listen to the 1900 campaign in which william jennings bryan talked about the issue of transparency. knowing who is contributing to

him. hear the words of william jennings bryan from the second of his three campaigns for the white house. >> an election is a public affair. this is held for the benefit of the public and as a means through which the people select their officials. they give direction as to the policies to be adopted. there is no sound reason for secrecy in regards to campaign methods and publicity will prove in itself a purifying influence in politics. the necessity for publicity has increased because of corporations. the people have to know what influences are at work in the campaign. they will decide whether any party has made it impossible to protect the rights of the people. >> has anything changed a

century later? >> that sounds like the basis of citizens united. obviously, people love money. they want the government to do the things they want the government to do. there is a lot of influence if you have a lot of money. bryan was in favor of public financing. he did not want private individuals to give any money to elections. he realized that would not fly at the time. his idea was to let least publicize the donations. let's make sure that everyone knows it is above board. for example, rockefeller wrote a check for $250,000. standard oil was involved. he wanted that to be known.

the first campaign finance law which had passed which banned corporations from giving money to campaigns directly. individuals could still give as much money as they wanted to. this is still something that we argue about all the time. the court has ruled on it, but it is an issue which has certainly not died. >> william joins us from detroit. >> i had a question i wanted to ask, because i just caught the program and i wanted to understand -- william jennings bryan, was he a supporter of the gold and silver standard in currency in america? >> he wanted the money supply based on both gold and silver, which is the time what it meant that more dollars would have been in circulation. prices would have gone up, but people who produce crops would have seen their prices that they could get for their crops

go up and interest rates would have gone up because there was more money in circulation. it sounds arcane and exotic to us today. he wanted more money in people's pockets and interest rates to go down. >> he gets the nomination in 1896. he is renominated in 1900. what happened in 1904? >> democrats decided to go with a candidate that they thought could appeal to more traditional voters. they nominated for someone who had only run for a judge before. a very great candidate, i think it is fair to say. he did not go around the country giving speeches. more like grover cleveland in

many ways. he had some of bryan's policies, but none of his commitment and appeal to ordinary americans. and he got killed in a landslide by teddy roosevelt. >> and the party comes back to william jennings bryan in 1908, why? >> the party is in great need of a leader. it is a party that is divided by region, and it has had a great deal of difficulty uniting around a candidate and making its voice heard in the election. >> teddy roosevelt becomes president and then william howard taft is elected in 1908. let's go back to something else that was, i guess, rather revolutionary. the debate that took place and how that occurred in 1908. >> it was not a debate like we have now.

it was the first time in which both candidates recorded speeches on wax cylinders. you can hear scratchy renditions of them at the library of congress. this was the original version of records. they only lasted up to 3 minutes. you went to a studio and recorded them. bryan also sold these to campaign supporters. this is a way that you could hear bryan and taft without them having to go to speak to you directly. we take that for granted now but it was the novelty of the time. >> we will begin with the words of william howard taft, followed by william jennings bryan. >> i have known a good many people who are opposed. i have known many members there religiously choose to use that

term. i did not realize the immense importance of foreign missions. the truth is, we've got to wake up in this country. we're not the only ones in the world. there are lots of people that are entitled to our sacrifice to help them on in the world. >> imperialism is the policy of an empire. an empire is a nation composed of different races living under different forms of government. a republic can not be an empire because government derives its just power upon the consent of the governed. our experiment in colonialism has been unfortunate. instead of strength, it has brought weakness.

instead of glory, it has brought humiliation. >> the words of william howard taft. did william jennings bryan change as a candidate from his first race in 1896 to his third in 1908? what issues dominated? >> the key issue in 1896 was the gold and silver issue and the issue of a class divisions, the regional decisions. in 1900, it was imperialism. the united states was trying to stop the philippines' independence movement from winning a war against the u.s. occupation of the islands. 1908, there were several issues. bryan tried to make powers of the trust and the corporations the issue. but taft was seen as progress at the time. he had been secretary of war under teddy roosevelt. in many ways, he was similar to george h.w. bush, running as the hand-picked successor to

ronald reagan. similarly, people who liked roosevelt tended to think, we will be safe with taft. bryan tried to use a lot of the same techniques. he went out to talk to hundreds of thousands of people, but it was not very successful. the country was populous again. times were very good. taft was popular because he was the handpicked successor to a popular president, teddy roosevelt. bryan couldn't get any traction.

>> welcome to the conversation, marie. >> how did william jennings bryan come to live in miami, florida? >> in fact, boca raton, florida. >> mary had contracted crippling arthritis and could not live in the winter climate of nebraska any longer. miami was beginning to be a place for older people to go that could afford to. also, he had strong supporters in the south. so they had gone to to miami and stayed at friends' houses before. >> and you tell a story about

how he tried to help bring other things to the area, including a venetian pool, it is still there today. >> after he'd given up all hope to become president, he began to make money, giving speeches for land promoters. this is not one of his more honorable ventures, perhaps, but after all, he needed to make money and he did. >> then we moved in 1912 and a democrat finally wins the white house, but it is not william jennings bryan. >> it is woodrow wilson. the democrats struggled for some time and bryan had led much of the struggle against the republican party. they were able to cut through many of the issues that they

have brought forward and develop their agenda as a progressive party. bryan and the democrats had a difficult time reaching that broad middle class and convincing voters that they could bring progressive change, not radical change, but progressive change. wilson was able to do that. he was a professor at princeton. he had been governor of new jersey. he was a very moderate reformer but a progressive reformer. he was able to succeed where bryan was not. >> the only reason woodrow wilson won was because the republican party split. taft proved not to be a progressive successor to teddy roosevelt. roosevelt tried to wrestle the nomination away from taft, and then becomes the nominee of the

new progressive party. if republicans had stayed united, we will not know what happened but it was possible that woodrow wilson would not have won the election. >> joe joins us from phoenix. good evening and welcome to the program. >> a great show and think you. i want to ask something different. i wondered if that people could speak to his foreign-policy and what he thought about the spanish-american war or the european colonialism. what would the gentleman think how he would handle, for example, afghanistan and iraq and the invasions?

what was his mindset back then in terms of how the major colonial powers were going into other countries and controlling them and such? what is your theory about all that? and in general, his foreign policy. >> thank you for the call. he was our 43rd secretary of state. >> he served in the spanish- american war, but once the war ended, he opposed the occupation of the philippines. he was an anti-imperialist at a time when there was a very large and pro-imperialist contingency in the united states. he traveled around the world the whole year with his family,

being financed by william randolph hearst, who he wrote articles for. he went around the world and went to indonesia, then controlled by the dutch, and at each stop he denounced the european powers that controlled those countries. in principle he was opposed to rich countries funding for countries. that does not mean that he was opposed to all wars. he was opposed to what he saw as an unjust war. as secretary of state, he resigned 1915 because he thought that the united states was about to enter world war i. the lusitania had been torpedoed by a german u-boat. the united states did not get into the war at that time, but he resigned because he was so opposed to the war. he thought it was an insane war that the united states should not be a part of.

>> what was his relationship like with woodrow wilson during the campaign in 1912 and in his tenure as secretary of state? >> he comes around to supporting wilson in the convention in baltimore, when he supports and helps put wilson over the top at that time when you need 67% of delegate votes to win. he and wilson never were really close. the two did not really trust each other. wilson was not impressed by him. he despised bryan's intelligence and interest in the world. the two were not close. bryan became secretary of state because it was a political appointment. it was not unusual for the

leading figure in the party not the nominee to be nominated secretary of state by an incoming president. one of the reasons bryan was unhappy because he did not get the responsibilities that he wanted. one thing that he did do which shows his views about war and peace, he put together peace treaties with european powers so that they would not go to war with one another. he gave each of them a little bronze plowshare with a line from isaiah, beat your swords into plowshares, and again, the treaties did not stop world war i, but it was a humanitarian face to the world, one way of actually acting in more

humanitarian ways. >> larry joins us from delaware. >> thank you for listening to me. i do have a religious question about his religion. first, let me say that his efforts to level the playing field was an effort to defeat democracy. what are his fundamental christian belief, and what was the impact on the election results? >> we should point out that the bible is open to the book of ezekiel at his desk, directly below where we are at -- we are in the parlor. but what about the role of

religion in his life and his wife's life? >> one of the reason about bryan that is very important, he never really separated religion and politics. he call it applied christianity, the social gospel. if you are a christian, you go out and save the world and help the poor and help workers, you want to level the playing field, as the caller mentioned. so his politics and religion was not separate. most were evangelical protestants at the time, but others were not so enthusiastic because he was such a crusader and he supported prohibition in 1910. he was a big supporter of became the 18th amendment to the constitution. it was a very divisive issue in american life.

he came to prohibition because he wanted to purify the american body politic. after 1910, not many trusted him because he was a prohibitionist. >> sometimes when he was on the campaign trail, sometimes he could eat as many as six meals a day. he could off six chickens at one sitting. >> if you're just getting in, this is our series where we look at 14 candidates for the presidency. all 14 lost, but in some way they shaped american politics, and in many cases, resonate today with the issues that they put forward. we come to you from his home in lincoln, nebraska -- fairview, which is part of the medical center here in the state

capital. our phone lines are open. this is an exterior view of what the home looks like. you can see the bryanlgh medical center. it does offer tours for those who travel through lincoln, nebraska. from palm springs, california, go ahead, please. >> this is nadine from desert springs, california. i am not a mormon, this is my hobby and i researched my family. i have 6 200 names in the bible, and i like to know about buying the book or the speeches or what you have and how much it is and where they send the

money. >> before you get an answer to that question, who is in this photograph and what is your connection with william jennings bryan for your family research? >> as far as i know, he is in a car in this picture, like the kodak picture? and he is in the car with what looks like a single seater with the top down. and i always thought that the other man was no one whose name i cannot remember, who did not believe in religion. >> clarence darrow? >> and i am almost 95 years old so i cannot remember his name. but i have this, and he is in my family. i have 6200 names that i have researched, on my computer. i researched them and make sure that they are my relatives. >> i want to let you stay on the line.

we will try to get a phone number to get you connected with him directly. she brings up another part of his life, dayton, tennessee, the scopes monkey trial and clarence darrow. >> i was just going to tell nadine that we've put all of his speeches from 1896 online on our digital project. if you like to use your computer to look at the speeches, there are hundreds of them. every speech he gave in that 1896 presidential campaign is online on the "roads in the making -- modern america" website. >> all material from the series is available on-line, 14 weeks looking at presidential contenders.

michael kazin. the scopes monkey trial. >> william jennings bryan is known to a lot of americans because he was the prosecutor in the trial in tennessee in 1925, which was prosecuting a teacher, john scopes, who was teaching the theory of evolution in high school in dayton, tennessee. what is interesting about this is that this issue is very much alive, with large number of americans believing that the bible, the book of genesis is the truth, is how the earth was formed. bryan believed that the too. one of the things he did not like about the theory of evolution was social darwinism. the survival of the fittest,

that might makes right, and he put out a series of lectures about evolution before the scopes trial which was entitled "brother versus brute." he did not understand the science very well, but he believed wrongly that the way the science was being applied by some people who have done so well in society, those who are doing well were those who should do well, who were biologically inclined to come out on top. this is one of the things he disliked about the theory. but he was a fundamentalist and he believed that what the bible said was true. he did not like something that would counteract that. >> iconic photograph of clarence darrow and william jennings bryan in tennessee. how did they come together for this historic moment in american history? >> bryan was asked by the

prosecution to help with the trial. they knew that if bryan helped them, this would draw a lot of attention to the case. once clarence darrow, this great defense lawyer, a labor candidate like eugene debs and many of the figures, and when he heard that bryan, a former friend, was going to work for the prosecution, he was the defense for scopes. you might remember "inherit the wind," starring spencer tracy and frederic march. scopes never went to jail. he agreed to be the defendant because he knew that a trial would take place someplace in

tennessee. he wanted to help bring people to dayton. >> it was broadcast nationwide on radio. >> one of the things that is so remarkable about this trial, not only that it was broadcast on the radio and tens of thousands of americans listened to it, but it was also a court room. and for bryan to defend his christianity and creationism in the court room, it was the context of the court room and cross-examination that made it difficult for bryan to say what he really meant and what he was trying to convey about the importance of creation in his thinking, and about the central darwinist logic as he saw it, which was affecting american society, as michael pointed out.

it was a very difficult context in which to make that argument. bryan spends his life as a man out of context. in 1896, the context was perfect for bryan to make a cross of gold speech. but dayton was very challenging for bryan. >> let's go to mark in arlington, texas. >> the gold standard seems to have made a comeback. we're having debates about whether it should be brought back, and others will come out arguing against the federal reserve and for the government to print its own currency. those people almost always seem to quote william jennings bryan to support their argument.

so he seemed to be making a comeback. are there any ways in which his cross of gold speech is relevant to the america we live in today? >> and less good to the 1912 campaign, because even rick perry has been critical of ben bernanke. >> the gold and silver standard, the legacy of that debate was among other things, the federal reserve system. it was going to get off the gold standard eventually. what bryan and those supporting him really wanted was a more flexible situation. they were happy that have prices go up, just as the fed does today. of course we get in economic trouble like we are now, and

people look for the gold standard, for example. but i think, as a historian, in many ways one of the reasons we have been able to avoid serious economic downturns between the great depression and now is because we have a central money supply and the fed has been able to take charge when necessary. >> one of the big issues that bryan was trying to confront with a silver issue and the gold standard was the great contraction of the american economy. he lived through a similar contraction in the american economy. it is not surprising that some of these issues are coming forward where they are right now.

the difference is that bryan's efforts to broaden the money- supply were mainly aimed at trying to rescue a class of americans who were struggling deeply with their financial well-being in their situation. i do not see that playing out today in the same way when the gold standard is being brought up. the gold standard is being brought up. >> representing georgetown university and the university of nebraska. he is also the author of "the iron way." >> it seems rather ironic that many of the parallels from william jennings bryan's day and today is just amazing. again we are arguing soft money versus hard money. and we do see the class warfare

argument, except this time the argument is coming from the rich against the poor as opposed to the poor against the rich. the irony in my mind is just amazing. >> who would like to take that point? >> it is interesting to look back at that time. for bryan to make that argument, also about the income tax, and about the monopoly power that he saw all around and the corruption and politics, and the trust, all of those things together, he was accused by the republicans of practicing a form of demagoguery or of class warfare, of opening the door to class warfare, by even mentioning these things and bringing them up. bryan was trying to lead americans, for what he saw, to

see that the moneyed class was not looking out for their interests. but he had to frame it for a way that it did not become class warfare. americans did not want class warfare. they had seen a series of strikes in the last 20 years that looked an awful lot like class warfare or something that they feared from europe, communist organizations and conflicts. that fear of class warfare is very vital to the period of the 1890 bryan is campaigning. the strike of 1877, for example, with the militia and the federal government bringing out gatling guns and mowing down american workers who are striking, that did not sit well with the american people. bryan was walking a thin line trying to raise the issue but

not being accused of class warfare. >> he moved here as an adult where he ran for congress for two terms, and became the democratic presidential nominee in 1896. he moved here, and bob puschendorf is down below. how did they use the home after 1902 when they first moved here? >> an interesting combination of issues. the second floor, right above where you're sitting, was the family bedrooms and sleeping chambers. the first floor was meant primarily for entertaining. you can see the wide open spaces where they would entertain their friends. and the lower level was more of a family area. including the dining room and of course the office which we have seen earlier. >> as you research the uses of the home, and the visitors, who

would have been here? >> there were a number of prominent guests, woodrow wilson being one of them. but a number of social acquaintances as well as political figures have been visitors to the house. >> we talked about the name fairview, because it gave you a sense of the nebraska landscape. now it is the home of the bryan medical center. >> they said it was one of the most beautiful vistas of farm country he had ever seen. you could see the land east of lincoln and they chose their homesite in 1901. >> what is his legacy here in lincoln, nebraska? >> he is one of the most famous sons. he is widely recognized by nebraskans and nationwide. we're proud that we've generated people of his stature,

even though he did not win the presidency. it was an important aspect in nebraska's political life to have such character. >> i think he brings the democratic party into nebraska's history. there were democrats here before william jennings bryan campaign, but he elevates the democratic party and its stature here in nebraska. obviously he is a major figure in nebraska's history, but a local legacy is this home and hospital. >> john joins us from san francisco as we look at the life and political career of william jennings bryan. >> bryan defended the ku klux

klan in 1924. did he also privately embrace the practice of lynching in the south? >> he did not defend the klan in 1924. there was a democratic convention in new york city, and it was about whether to denounce the klan by name and not. he believed that the democrats should win over the klan rather than denounce them. but he certainly had supporters in the klan, but it is not fair to say that he was a supporter of klan, and he was a racist. we consider him that now. but he denounced lynching. he was a white supremacist. but i want it clarified that his racial views are not as simple as to say that he was a klansman or he was in favor of

lynching people without trial. he supported the views of most white southerners, and most white northerners as well of the time, that european americans were superior to other people. in that sense, he was certainly not a modern thinker. >> he is certainly a democratic political figure in the sense, from that period, in that he broadly believes in white supremacy. he is appealing to votes in the democratic south on those grounds as well. >> he was a democrat with a small d as well as a large d. but the majority of the people

in the country were white and he was mostly concerned with their welfare, it is fair to say. he did not know many black people in 1896, there was a group of what we call -- some african-americans in omaha that supported him. he had them over to visit. but politically, he wanted to stay as far from that issue as he could. the 1980 -- the 1908 campaign, and the boys -- w.e.b. du bois wanted to support him against william howard taft, but bryan would not acknowledge him because he was afraid he would lose part of the south. >> this series has been fascinating and your guests are very interesting. this topic is great. i had heard it one time that

"the wizard of oz," it was an allegorical novel where william jennings bryan was depicted as the wizard. >> had either of you heard that? >> that is one of the great mysteries of american history. i've given lectures about this. it is a wonderful way to teach students about the election of 1896. different figures in the first oz novel corresponding to people in that campaign. but if you look at baum's biography, it does not bear out. to him, the artifice of the design of the department store window was one way he thought american society developed.

to him, "the wizard of oz" was a symbol of commercial art. baum would have been surprised by that allegorical meaning that people found in the first story, even though it is an entertaining way to look at it. >> let me throw another parallel on the table. karl rove talked about the mckinley campaign and how he tried to take some of the lessons from that campaign to george w. bush in 2000. >> one of the things in that campaign, it established the republican party and presidential elections, and most congressional elections as well as the majority party. there is no majority party from 1868 until 1896. but karl rove wanted to do was produce a new republican majority based on what he would

have seen as the most forward- looking for the business community and also a pretty heterogeneous group of middle- class american voters. he wanted to do that by including a large group. mckinley tried to appeal to european immigrants at the time, a very large expanding group in the population. he was able to in 1896 and 1900 to win over german voters who have been democrats before, but they mostly became republicans for various reasons. mark hanna, the rosario of mckinley's career, produced this new republican majority. it did not happen and george w. bush was not as successful a president as william mckinley.

>> we come from lincoln, nebraska and where william jennings bryan served two terms in the state house of house of representatives. frank joins us from salem, illinois. the home town -- the birthplace of william jennings bryan. >> yes, we have most places open to the public, if you call in advance. [laughter] how much influence did he have in getting his brother nominated in 1924 to be the vice-presidential candidate? >> that is a sidelight that many people did not know about. the governor of nebraska then, on him for giving his first name.

charles bryan, the brother of william jennings bryan, he was coming out of a tumultuous convention in 1944. it was notable because of his name, and at that time william jennings bryan was a very divisive figure in the party. partly because of the klan debate and partly for other reasons. but the bryan name was still something that democrats hoped would help them win a lot of rural votes, especially in the midwest, who they thought would go to an independent candidate for president. charles bryan in 1924, his nomination was an attempt by the democrats to keep some of the progressive farm vote on this side. for the most part it did not succeed.

>> a caller from pennsylvania, as we look more at the study of william jennings bryan. >> gentlemen, very interesting talk. william jennings bryan was a fundamentalist and a progressive. i believe states like kansas and nebraska, which have large fundamentalist populations, were also during his day very progressive. today they are extremely conservative. what happened? what caused this change? >> will thomas? >> that is a great question. the progressivism that bryan espoused had a great deal to do with the economic conditions of his day. the prosperity they came forward in american life changed that in the 20th century in ways that bryan could not have predicted.

in terms of today's conservatism, bryan also foreshadowed some of that in his faith, but it was based around the social gospel movement of an applied christianity, helping those in the cities, helping those in need, in that branch of christian thought and experience did not grow in the same way as the fundamentalist movement. another thing to think about is both liberalism and conservatism has changed their postures toward active christianity in public life.

liberals generally, especially white liberals, got soured on public philanthropy and became more identified with a more pluralistic, secular kind of religious landscape. whereas conservatives, particularly evangelicals, became identified with christian right in the 1970's. abortion and gay marriage and those kinds of issues. >> michael kazin and will thomas, and chris, you have been so patient. >> think you for taking my call. bryan was a populist in both ways, in economics and social issues. socialism, it meant conservatism.

it seems that there is no outlet for that between the two major parties today. but i was thinking that there is actually a big constituency for that, if there was an outlet for it. i wanted to get your take on it. >> every politician today, whatever their theological position, they have to appear to be a religious person whether they go to church or not. in that sense, everyone who has the chance to become president is a religious person. and so far, a christian.

but i think though that most people on the liberal side of politics mistrust people who talk too much about their religion in politics. and most of the conservative side want that religious talk to be focused primarily, i think, on issues of personal piety, personal responsibility, abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells, and so forth. the kind of social christianity that many christian democrats in europe sets forth. i do not see that really as a real possibility in the near future. one figure, martin luther king jr. was very left-wing in

economics, but he was an evangelical minister at the same time. we have a national holiday for someone who did try to put together a very conservative sense of biblical truth and also the very left-wing belief about economic issues. >> and the connection between william jennings bryan and arbor day, what is it? >> it goes to nebraska again. it was a way to bring more business to this part of the state.

>> from washington, good evening. >> my question was about the australian ballot, or the secret ballot of 1896, 1900, 1908. did bryan never talk about the need for secret ballots? i've read anecdotally where employers make sure that wrote in mckinley and things like that. >> it was not a major issue. like the potential corruption of companies that would bring in voters to vote for elections, or would require voters to vote in a certain way and these

accusations are made especially in nebraska of one railroad. it brought them into lincoln and told them which way to vote. that kind of activity led to politicians like bryan and others to object to calls for the kind of secret ballot that would allow individuals to vote for who they wanted without the pressure of corporate interests in the election. >> our next caller from reno, nevada. >> [unintelligible] >> are you with us? we would try one more time. we're getting some feedback. let's go to nancy joining us

from another town important to william jennings bryan, dayton, tennessee. >> i am from dayton, tennessee. home of the scopes trial. i am not old enough to remember it. but i know several people that were there and it was carnival- like, and the table where it all started in, as i understand it, started as let's do something exciting or unusual, let's do this. so that is how it got started. and the older people have told me that dayton has grown into a booming little town.

it has a play on the anniversary of the trial, and it is a very interesting place for people to come from all over the united states to see. i just wanted to say that we were known as the monkey town for a long time but now we are known as home of the scopes trial. i did not know william jennings bryan, but i did meet clarence darrow at a tea held for him by the women of dayton. we're glad that it happened there, and as i was told, it was kind of started for chattanooga, and chattanooga did not want it, so they decided to bring it to dayton.

it has brought much economy to the city of dayton. >> thank you for calling in sharing your firsthand account to that famous trial. >> talk about tourism, there is a very good museum in the basement of the court house in dayton, tennessee, about the trial and discussion of it around the world, or you can also visit the courtroom itself. i sat in the judge's chair. but the famous cross examination, darrow cross- examining bryan, it was actually held on the lawn outside. 2000 people were probably in attendance listening to and watching the cross-examination. we do not have that kind of trial today. but it was, as he said, a carnival and it did help the economy of dayton a good deal because it needed it at the time.

>> talk about the prohibition of the income-tax and the popular election of the u.s. senators. >> bryan's legacy -- and michael kazin handles this beautifully in his book, the legacy is damaged by the end of the scopes trial and in particular h.l. mencken's obituary of bryan. it depicts him as a bumbling back-country misguided figure in 1924 and 1925. his legacy is tarnished, really, at the end of his career by this. in michael's book, he recovers his legacy beautifully. all the reforms that he championed, women's rights in particular, the right to vote. it was an active issue in the

1870's and 1880s, and 1890's. bryan was at the forefront of it, and other issues that you mention in which he was deeply involved from the beginning. >> one of the things it is important that in many ways without bryan, you did not get wilson or roosevelt. he was a major figure into remaking the democratic party into the one that we got today. he forges for the first time in 1908 a great relationship between organized labor and the democratic party, for the most part which has remained over the last century between that movement and that party. he was not the only figure who did this, but he was a key figure in the 1890's in making the democratic party into the

party that you think of today. dealing with the strongest of working people, people were down on their luck. that is a very important legacy that he does deserve credit for. >> had he been elected president, what kind of president would he had been? >> a very good one, actually. his skill was as an agitator and someone who could put forward ideas, rally people to support those ideas. he would probably not have been a good administrator. as president, he would have been a very divisive figure, and very difficult for him to work directly with the opposition party in congress. >> mark joins us from dallas. >> in the 1800's, did joseph blackburn run against william jennings bryan for the

nomination and did he tie with him? >> blackburn got a few of those of most rallied around bryan. it was not really a close contest. that was unusual because conventions back in that day were contentious affairs. by the time they would get there, they would know who the nomination will go to. >> in 1984, mario cuomo delivers a speech that propels him to the national stage. and then barack obama delivers a speech that propels him to the presidency, some people said.

>> obama in that sense is certainly a parallel. he was better known in 1896 to americans than obama was in 2004. which might seem surprising, given all the media that we have. but he had gone over the country. lyndon johnson put the democratic party into support of civil rights, which they never had been before. >> what about today, other parallels to other modern politicians? >> i think obama's speech in that way is similar. it vaulted him into national prominence. bryan had already achieved much of that, but the sense of party

unity that both of them brought to the speeches and the kind of sincerity and speaking across the broad range of public and speaking outside of their party as well, both of them are able to do that in those settings. they are different in other ways but there is a similarity. >> william thomas is the chair of the history department of the university of nebraska in lincoln. michael kazin teaches history at georgetown university. >> i started researching my book around 1986, and it was published in 2006. >> we thank you for your perspective on the life and career of william jennings bryan. our thanks to the staff here at the william jennings bryan home and to the staff and the administration at the bryanlgh medical center which makes up the campus that we are out, part of the bryan home, often called fairview.

we will hear more of the words of william jennings bryan and you can check it out of line at c-span.org. in the words of william jennings bryan, what made an ideal republic? >> behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with inalienable rights, that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. behold a republic in which civil and religious liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury.

a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign but which no one cares to wear a crown. >> tomorrow night, ketch another episode of the contenders when we look back at eugene debs. that is that 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up on c-span, today's negotiations on capitol hill over an extension of the payroll tax cut. new gingrich made a campaign appearance in new hampshire. later, the lighting of a national menorah outside the white house. tomorrow on "washington journal ." matt koch, barry lynn, and robert kaplan on wall street's

relationship with washington. >> this holiday weekend, it is three days of booktv. here are the prime-time programs. conner a query on the failed coup that led to the resignation of mikhail gorbachev. charles mann reeves as the america's one year after the arrival of christopher columbus. sir weidman, news editor for publishers marketplace, on the best sellers of 2011. and tom brokaw monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern. the full book schedule is online. >> the house of representatives held a brief pro-forma session today in which democrats tried to get a vote on a bill to extend the payroll tax cut that passed the senate. here is that pro-forma session.

] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 21, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable michael g. fitzpatrick to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend michael wilker, lutheran church of the reformation, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, you give us light in the darkness. we praise you for the galaxies, stars, planets, and moon that shine in the night. we bless you for las and candles that ill lieu min our communities. we thank youor the fires that warm our homes and energize our work. we repent for the ways we pollute the beauty of the

night, t ways we extinguish the light of companionship, the ways we fail to share your warmth. enlighten our darkness. be the d spring for those suffering from addiction and illness. be the bright morning star for those who are grieving. be the sun of justice for those living under oppression and in poverty. be the cleansing fire for those who survive violence and warfare. traveling send us with your light to share with friends and strangers. welcoming light our gatherings with your love. searching for justice and peace , light our way. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from

maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday -- >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, we would like to ask unanimous consent that we bring up the bill to extend the tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the floor, mr. speaker. you're walking out. you're walking away just as so many republicans have walked away frommidd class taxpayers. the unemployed. and very frankly as well from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens. we regret, mr. speaker, that you have walked off the

platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country. and that is the continuationf the middle class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those that risk of losing them, and the continuation of access to doctors for all those 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for their health. and i am pleased to yield to my friend, mr. van hollen. >> the cameras were turned off at this point. c-span has no control over them. steny hoyer and chris van hollen continue to speak on the house floor for another 20 minutes. shortly afterward, they spoke with reporters.

>> good morning. mr. ben holland and i just participated on the floor of the house and saw to seek recognition so we could ask unanimous consent to place on the floor and to pass legislation which would give certainty and insurance to seniors, to the unemployed, and to 160 million americans who are at risk of losing their tax cut on january 1. the ability to have that certainty, to have that confidence, not just at this holiday time, but in january and february, while we take action to try to come to an agreement on the one-year extension that we want. unfortunately, as has happened so often common the acting speaker, the republican presiding officer, walked out.

he walked out, would not render recognition, and would not allow mr. and holland and i to make that unanimous consent request and move forward. this is unfortunate. the speaker has indicated that he is ready to go to conference. the irony is that he appointed five conferees, all of whom at one point or another have said that they are opposed to a one- year extension of the middle- class tax cut. in fact, had made comments similar to the speakers that the middle-class tax cut is a gimmick. well, the middle class does not believe that. the working men and women of this country do not believe that. they do not believe it is a gimmick to reject having the wealthiest in america pay some additional, small increment so that this bill could pass in the senate months ago.

i regret that the republicans who say they are here to work we do we are on the floor to do our work. and they walked out. now want to yield to mr. van holland, the ranking member of the above budget committee. >> thank you, mr. hoyer. i think all of you saw the presiding officer brought the house of representatives into session immediately gavel the 2) for giving us an opportunity to ask for unanimous consent to take a bill which is identical to the senate bipartisan compromise bill to extend the payroll tax cut. the speaker of the house and the republican leadership were awol on the floor of the house today. i did not see any of them. as we were speaking, he -- we can enter into a unanimous consent agreement to take up the republican compromise bill,

the identical house version is right here, and if we can vote on this today, we would get the same bipartisan results that they receive in the senate, the other day. by the end of today, we could have a bill on the president's desk that would make sure that 160 million americans receive a tax cut, a continuation of the tax cut beginning january 1. we can make sure that millions of americans who are out there looking for job but cannot find one have unemployment insurance, and we can make sure that millions of americans will still be assured that their doctors will be paid. these are medicare patients. that will make sure if their doctors will be available because they will be receiving payment under the medicare system, full payment. so it is real tragedy that the house republican leadership did not show up today on the floor

of the house of representatives, because had they been there, they could have entered into this unanimous consent agreement that mr. hoyer mention. we could have gotten this bill passed, and by the end of the day it could be on the president's desk. that may be somewhere in the capital, but they are not on the floor of the house of representatives, which is where the people's house transact its business. so we will be here every day, waiting for them to come to the floor of the house to actually take up this legislation, so we can get it done. [unintelligible] they were here every single day, talking on the floor. why aren't your democrats here doing the same thing? >> your premise that are democrats would not be here if there was business to do is wrong. the fact of the matter, we repair to ask that the house take up a unanimous consent request.

they walked out on us. they were not on the floor, and the acting speaker, who was on the floor walked out. more importantly than that, they walked out yesterday's when we were all here. they walked out on 89 senators, 39 republicans. senator brown, senator mccain, the wall street journal, senator snowe, senator lugar, one of the senior republican members, have all said pass this bill. do what we do all the time, what families do all the time, when you cannot get an agreement on something you know you need to get an agreement on, but you want to continue in place the existing situation, you make a short-term agreement. say we will do this for a little while. that is what the senate did.

they could not reach agreement. the house republican leadership knows they cannot get agreement, so they walked out yesterday, with all of us here, ready to do our work, without giving us the opportunity to vote on the senate product that had overwhelming bipartisan support. >> there have been situations where we had pro-forma sessions before. [unintelligible] i have been here a long time and i have never seen anybody ever get recognized during this period did you genuinely think they would recognize you? >> i cannot remember a time -- i have been here a long time myself. i cannot remember a time when 160 million americans were adversely affected by the actions that we took guest today, where 160 million americans are uncertain as to whether or not their tax cut is

going to continue on january 1. 48 million seniors were going to be lacking confidence that their doctors will be available to them because they are not going to be compensated properly, as everybody agrees they should be, and that 3 million americans are concerned about losing their unemployment insurance and how they are going to support themselves and their families. i cannot remember a similar situation. the republicans have taken hostage those 160 million people. they have taken hostage those 48 million people, and they have taken hostage those 3 million people, so that it would be done their way or the highway. in my heart of hearts, and my experience in the past, and my understanding -- you have heard me read the list of how many times they have walked away. the answer to question is, i was not surprised that they

walked away from resolving this issue on behalf of the american people. >> it is the end of the year and we are back in crisis mode. you have said this has been a congress that go from crisis to crisis. do you think that is the case? >> i am glad you asked that question. one of the most difficult votes any of us have cast was when president bush was president and we had a deeply falling economy and a financial crisis. president bush came to the democratic leadership of the house and senate and said we had a crisis, and we are going to go into a deep depression if you do not act. two-thirds of president bush's party, just as they did yesterday, walked out on america. democrats stood with president bush because we thought the country was in crisis, and we

acted. as a result of that action, in my opinion, we avoided a depression. unfortunately, we still had a deep recession, which we are still suffering from. we are still pulling ourselves out of that. the fact of the matter is that we have been their time and time again, and acted in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that this government and this country remain stable and successful. the other point is, they were not divided in the senate. they were not divided. you had 80% of the republican senators' support this payroll tax cut. the real question is, why is it that the house republicans are so divided from the senate republicans and the senate democrats and house and democrats with the president of the united states in terms of getting something done. that is the question facing house of representatives. the answer is pretty clear from

the last couple of days. you have an extreme right-wing element in the house of representatives that has hijacked the process, and that is why they refuse to even bring up a bipartisan senate bill for an up or down vote. they were afraid they would get the same bipartisan result in the house as they got in the senate. they are afraid of bipartisanship. the reason is because they have this very right-wing element. let's also remember that the house republican leadership was opposed to a payroll tax cut. two months, three months, six months, one year. their record is full of statements were they were opposed to it. their action the other day, by refusing to take up the senate compromise bill, in sending this bill off to die, was in fact intended to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish from the

beginning, which was to have no payroll tax cut. the reason destroyer and i went to the fore today is to give them another opportunity to do that. it is absolutely the case that the speaker of the house and republican leadership could have come down to the floor today. they could have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to take up this bill, which is identical to the senate compromise bill, and we could have gotten this done today, and the american people could go to sleep tonight knowing that come january purse, they would have a payroll tax cut. unemployed americans looking for jobs would know they could still put food on the table, and doctors would be assured that they would continue to be paid for the medicare patients they see. >> let me just add to what mr. van holland said. >> there is a bipartisan agreement that was voted on overwhelmingly republicans and democrats in the senate.

in fact, it was the republican leadership in the senate -- let's remember the republican leadership in the senate blocked -- blocked the vote, house republican bill in the senate. >> let me add to your question, and then i want to say something about the conferees. not only is there an agreement by the overwhelming majority in the ninth state senate, the american public overwhelmingly agrees. poll after poll shows that they think we ought to get this done. it is not simply that the tea party control conference over here disagrees with the united states senate. they are not representing the views of the american people. i pointed out to you, the conferees that had been appointed by speaker boehner have all opposed at one point in time or another, the extension of the payroll tax cut. this is a device, a gimmick, a political fray, if you will, to pretend support for something

they have historically, over the last year, opposed. >> you were saying democrats [unintelligible] with all respect, this is a dog and pony show we have all attended for the last hour. [unintelligible] >> with all respect, i think the premise of a dog and pony show, this is democracy. we are saying we believe, very importantly, we ought to pass what the senate sent to this house. let me answer the question. >> [unintelligible] all of it seems like game playing.

>> we are not playing a game. we are prepared to have this bill come back and pass its and send it to the president, and we can do it today. that is not a game. none of the 160 million people who are going to lose that tax cut think it is a game. none of the folks on unemployment who are relying on that unemployment to feed themselves, help support their families, think this is a game. this is not a game. why are you all here? what are we -- we went to the floor to speak to the american people. unfortunately, the speaker walked off. not speaker boehner, the speaker pro tem, walked off the

floor. they shut off the cameras. they wanted to shut us down. we are here on very serious business, no games. that is what senator mccain was talking about. that is what senator brown is talking about. that is what senator olympia snowe is talking about. that is what senator lugar is talking about. they are talking about, get this work done. unfortunately, i can name 12 instances that i have on a list here where the republicans have walked away from solving serious problems. this is not a game. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner gathered with a group of republicans chosen to negotiate with the senate on payroll tax cut legislation. senate majority leader harry reid has so far failed to appoint his own negotiators.

reporter's question to house republicans about the impasse. >> good morning, everyone. the house voted to reject the senate bill and asked for a conference with the senate or could resolve the differences between the two houses. i appointed the eight men and women sitting here to negotiate. we are here and ready to go to work. we hope they will come to the table and resolve these differences. it is important to note that the president, bipartisan leaders in the house and the senate have all asked for the same thing over the course of the last several months. let's extend the payroll tax credit for a year. we are asking to get the senate members to work with us so we

can do what everybody wants to do, extend the payroll tax credit for the next year. >> as the speaker said, we are here in washington working today because we want to make sure that the middle-class and working families of this country have the certainty that their taxes will not go up for the entirety of next year. that is the house position. that is the only issue with which we differ with the senate, and we are asking for the senate majority leader to appoint conferees to come join us to try to finish the work for the american people before the end of the year. if you think about it, people are sitting there across america scratching their heads, wondering what washington is doing. by the very fact that the president call it's probably a mile away from here, we are

sitting here. the differences between us are not very great. all of us want to make sure that people have tax relief certainty for the year. we can do this. we have time. let's get to work. >> we just want to ask the conferees to join us at a table like this so we can give working, middle-class americans the tax relief they need and deserve for the next four years. the deal with the unemployment issue as well, and take care of physicians who are about to receive a cut in reimbursement rates for medicare. we don't need to kick this around for two months and then come back to the same place and have the same argument. we would like to get together, move forward with lasting

certainty for the marketplace, the workers, the physicians, and for the country. >> when families and businesses have difficulties, what they do is get back to basics. nothing could be more basic in washington than a conference committee where the house and senate differ on at a piece of legislation. as a physician, i can tell you that no medical practice, no hospital works into month blocked. that plan surgical procedures out a month in advance, and unless there is a longer extension to the payroll tax temporary holiday as well as the unemployment benefits, as well as positioned payments, patients will not be able to see their doctors. we've got to get back to work. >> and there is enough time to get this thing done. that is for sure. coming from a state that has 38

months of double-digit unemployment, fiscal more than just extending unemployment benefits, it is about jobs. the keystone position in both bills, 20,000 direct jobs right away, more than 100,000 indirect jobs as part of that. take a look at spectrum. it is bipartisan on both sides of capitol hill. the last thing that is so important is we look at making sure that physicians are compensated for treating medicare eligible individuals. it is a good package. there is enough time to get it done between now and the first of the year. >> i am honored to have been asked to be on this conference as a conferee. as a nurse, i am concerned as well about the doctors. i know how important it is that our physicians have that certainty, but also i were seniors, that they continue to

get good medicare benefits. as a mom, i care about those single moms out there who are going to be dependent on this tax exemption. we cannot take money out of their pocket right now, especially at the holidays. >> obviously these meetings are too important to address this in a couple of months. the idea of a conference committee is a jeffersonian principle. we need to develop longer-term solutions so we help these people who are depending on these important programs. >> i am a doctor and the daughter of elderly parents who

depend on their medicare benefits. i was on the radio this morning with someone in the hudson valley and it was pointed out to me that it would be very difficult to manage payroll would just a two-month payroll tax holiday extension. he said to keep fighting, this is why you are there. he said to keep fighting. this is why you were there. we are determined to do the right thing. this is about common-sense. this is about doing what is right. no one thinks two months is better than a year. >> kevin brady at texas. i think the american public is tired as business of the usual. they shortchange the american public. they passed a measly two month expedition -- extension. republicans are committed to a cut to make sure that happens.

do your job first. what possibly are you doing today to ensure the tax cut is in place? >> of latvia is my children for the holidays. the american people deserve that this is bad. we need the senate to come back into session and sit down with us. this is what we're going to do. this is what our colleagues are here. we will stand strong. >> you'll take a couple of questions. can you talk about the importance of this committee?

we are ready to work. this is to extend the payroll tax cut. >> what that republicans had failed on your thighs? >> we have to chambers of the congress. they offered us the bill. it is what the president asked for. the senate offered as a two month bill. >> is it tougher for you? are you worried about going

back? >> we offer lower taxes without this. we will continue being a part of lower taxes. the fact is we can make all of these differences. we will give people a real christmas present. >> [inaudible] >> it to be bad -- it will be like that of both parties were here. >> are you open to the idea of doing a one-year extension if you have a year to vote? >> we are here. we are doing the work. >> a wonder if any of you are doing it? >> we are here.

>> i do not think it is in the best interests. we have ample time to get this done. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] withn a phone call bu house speaker jonhn boehner, they encourage this. hello, everybody. good afternoon. thanks for coming to the white house. before i get started, i would

like to read to you something i am still looking for -- here we go -- a readout of the president's calls with speaker of the house john boehner and majority leader harry reid. today the president made separate phone calls to speaker boehner and leader reid. in his call to speaker boehner, the president reiterated the need and his commitment to work with congress to extend the payroll tax cut for the entire year. and the fact that the short- term bipartisan compromise passed by almost the entire senate is the only option to ensure that middle-class families are not hit with a tax hike in 10 days and gives both sides the time needed to work out a full-year solution. the president urged the speaker to take up the bipartisan compromise passed in the senate with overwhelming democratic and republican support that would prevent 160 million working americans from being hit with a holiday tax hike on january 1st. the president also spoke with leader reid and again applauded him for the work he conducted with minority leader mcconnell to achieve a successful bipartisan compromise that passed overwhelmingly in the senate on saturday, and senator reid reaffirmed his commitment to secure a bipartisan, year-

long tax cut after the house passes the two-month extension. the president urged the speaker to allow a vote on the one compromise that democrats and republicans passed together -- urged the speaker? did you mean the senator? >> yes, the president urged the speaker -- returning to the speaker here -- to allow a vote on the one compromise that democrats and republicans passed together to give the american people the assurance they need during this holiday season that they will not see a significant tax hike in just 10 days. those calls took place within the last half hour. >> did he get an answer from either one? >> that's the extent of the readout i have for you.

>> jay, given the calls, is the white house more confident at this point that some sort of compromise could get through to prevent this tax hike from -- >> the compromise exists. it is embodied in the senate bill that was supported by 90 percent of the united states senate, republicans and democrats alike. states senate, republicans and democrats alike. it is available even now for the house to vote on. unfortunately, thus far, the house leadership has refused to allow the hous of representatives to vote on that measure, which has overwhelmingly -- overwhelming bipartisan support. we urge the house leadership, speaker boehner, to reconsider that position, to allow the senate bill to come up, to allow the house of representativeso vote on it, because we are confident that it would pass with both democratic and republican support.

i know you all are aware, because many of you have been reporting on it, on the growing chorus of republicans who are calling on speaker boehner and the house leadership to dohe right thing and to pass this bipartisan compromise so that ericans don't have their taxes go up in 10 hours -- 10 days and 11 hours. that's the result of failing to act -- taxes go up. the bipartisan compromise exists; it was worked out by the senate democratic leader and the senate republican leader in a process that was agreed upon with the speaker of the house that produced a result that the speaker of the house told his own membership that he supported and that he recommended they support. they should just g it done, and then we can all -- the senate, the house, the administration -- work on extending the payroll tax cut for the entire year, a commitment this president has made from the beginning when he was the first to put on the table, through the american jobs act, a payroll tax cut

extension for 2012. but we have to get this two- month extension done or else taxes will go up on the american people. and it really is not that difficult. the house has the ability to call up the senate legislation, pass it and move on, and taxes will noto up. the average american family will not have to worry about how to makends meet with $1,000 less next year. so we urge them to do that. that's what the president urged the speaker to do justoments ago. >> would the white house and congressnal democrats be willing to give some sort of ironclad commitment to pass a full year's tax extension by a certain date early in 2012 i

exchange for passing thitwo- month extension? >> the president is committed to a one-year tax cut. that's what he's been pushing both here in washington and around the country since september as part of the american jobs act, and then when it was separateout from the american jobs act. senate democrats, house democrats are all committed to doing that. republican leaders of both houses say they are committed to doing that. it can be done, so it would require finishing the work that senators mcconnell and reid started as they tried to reach a year-long agreement. they made good progress, but work needed to be done, which is why they then mov to the two-month extension to ensure that americans didn't have their taxes go up. that is the sensible thing to do -- pass the two-month extension, return to work on the year-long extension, or else explain to the american people -- 160 million of them -- why congress would not listen to

them, wouot listen -- why the house republicans would not listen to their senate colleagues, would not listen to republican elder statesmen and stateswomen all around the country and the city telling them to do the right thing here. it's bad for the country and it's bad for the economy and it's bad for the americaneople not to pass this bill. so we feel vy strongly about it, as you can tell. >> does the president expect to hear back from speaker boehner on whether this might be an option? >> look, i think it's pretty clear -- again, not because i say it but many others are also saying it -- that the ball is in the house's court. there is a compromise available, an avenue out of this blind alley, if you will, that they've driven themselves into, and it is the senate bill. vote on it, pass it, and we can

move on to discussing and figuring out a solution for the year-long extension. >> i know what's going to happen and i agree with the editorial this morning in the wall street journal -- probably the best thing to do at th point is just get this behind us and move on, urging the house republican ldership to change course and endorse a compromise reached in the senate that got the support of 90 percent of those members, democrats and senators alike. it is harming the republican party. it is harminthe view, if it's possible anymore, of the american people about congress. so do the right thing. pass the payroll tax cut. make sure americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st. yes, alister. >> jay, just staying with this theme, so specifically what is the president offering the speaker in return for sort of reversing himself on this?

>> you misunderstand here. there is not -- this is not a game of poker, high-stakes poker, as one republican congressman deemed it. we're talking about 160 million americans and their paychecks. there's no political quid pro quo here. there was a bipartisan compromise reached with overwhelming support from republicans and democrats in the sena, at the direction of the republican leader in the house, that initially garnered the support of the republican leader in the house. historys review some here. the president and democrats initiay supported, put forward the american jobs act, which was paid for entirely, including the payroll tax cut extension and expansion, and the pay-fors in that bill were what the president very firmly believed that if he could have his way entirely was the way it should be done.

when republicans blocked that and the senate democrats crafted a separate payroll tax cut extension with ui extension and some other measures, and tried to move it and have it paid for by asking the 300,000 wealthiest americans, millionaires and billionaires, to pay a little extra, republicans blocked that. so we compromised. the president, the senate compromised. and the deal that was passed, the compromise thawasassed by the senate by a vote of 89- 10, did not have the pay-fors that the democrats wanted, did not have the pay-fors that the president initially submitted, but they had a compromised set of provisions that paid for it that won the agreement of 89 senators, including 39 republicans. that is the essence of compromise. the bill even included an extraneous political victory that republicans insisted on.

>> let me try something else, but staying with the the. the cr runs out on friday. when will the president sign the omnibus bill? >> when it gets here. >> what happens if it hasn't got here by -- >> it will get here. i'm sure -- i'm not sure if it's physically here yet, but when it arrives there's a process in that august institution that takes time in terms of producing the bill for him to sign, but he will sign it when it gets here. >> all right. and on syria, what do additional steps to pressure the assad regime mean? what are you talking about there specifically? >> the fact is -- of the matter is that we have throughout this process worked both unilaterally and collectively to crease pressure and isolation on the assad regime. what you've seen is a continuation of horrific acts of violence, needless violence,

against the syrian people. and it's clear that every metric shs the situation is moving against assad. defections of the military are on the rise. diplomats have begun leaving their posts and coming out in support of the syrian opposition. the opposition is more unified and more inclusive. the regime has been cut off by the arab league, by its traditional allies and neighbors like turkey, and the regime is under increasing financial duress due to international sanctions and weak domestic economic policies. it is only a matter time before this regime comes to an end. only feais hding it together, and governing that is based on fear is always doomed to fail. >> are you talking about sanctions or what? >> i don't have details to provide to you about additional measures we will take, but we will continue to pressure, working with our international partners, the assad regime. and the writing is on the wall. thisolation increases.

and more and more members of the international community of nations are joining the call for syria to stop this atrocious behavior. yes, jessica. >> clearly the president will stay in town to sign the omnibus, but now he said it's up to the speaker to take -- make the next move. so what is the president's next move? will he go join his family in hawaii? >> i don't have any scheduling updates to give you. we are obviously in a pretty fluid situation. but the president made clear in his call to speaker boehner earlietoday, as i made clear in the readout, that the action that must be taken is the house needs to take up the senate bill that was supported by an overwhelming percentage of publicans and democrats in the senate and ss it to make

sure that taxes don't go up. >> which is to say he has no intention of negotiating -- >> the negotiating has happened already. it is not -- as i just explained, it is not at all the case that this is simply the president saying, here's what i want and do it; this w a compromise worked out by the republican leader in the senate with the democratic leader in the senate, with the approval -- in fact, even the instigation -- of the speaker of the house. >> so the wall street journal today opined that the president has won this battle politically -- to paraphrase, not quote them. but if the payroll tax cut is not extended, the economy -- most economists are saying we will suffer. so how concerned is the white house that it doesn't get extended and the nation's economy will take a big hit? >> we are very concerned of two

things, the micro and the macro, if you will -- the macroeconomic effect on growth that not extending this tax cut, not extending unemployment insurance would have; outside independent economists, not the ones who seem to disagree with basic economic fact, say that it could have a negative of up to 0.5 percent of gdp. we firmly believe that in the end, because there is such, now, overwhelming support for the payroll tax cut and extending it for a year, that this will get done. we believe that eventually the house leadership, house republicans, will understand that this is not about giving president obama a victory; this is about exercising their authority on behalf and at the demand of the american people, a bipartisan consensus of the

american people as represented by the enormous bipartisan vote in the senate. it's the right thing to do. and at the microeconomic level, we're worried about individual families who need that extra money, an average of $40 a paycheck. as you know on tuesday, the white house called on americans to add their voice to the conversation here in washington about why we need to extend the payroll tax cut. if congress fails, if the house fails to act, the typical family making $50,000 a year will have about $40 less to spend or save with each paycheck. that adds up to about a thousand bucks for the year. the response has been extraordinary. over 17,000 submissions i think is the last information i got. someone contacting us from connecticut says, "i can buy lunch from the cafeteria for almost a whole month for my twins. i can buy food or pay for gas. i can save it for my daughter's

prescriptions -- prescription deductibles. to some people $40 is nothing, but $40 is big money for us." in west virginia someone wrote in saying, "after everything that comes out, including my mortgage, my take-home pay is $150 every two weeks. so minus $40 would be $110. i can barely get by now. that 40 bucks is my gas for my car to get to work. taking $40 away from my pay would just about put me under." this matters. this is real, real stuff. this is not about high-stakes poker or political brinkmanship. it's about 160 million americans and their families and the impact that failure to act would have on them. and the voices are growing louder from average americans, from republicans in congress and the senate -- even in the house now -- from respected commentators within the conservative arena.

the house needs to act. they're not behaving in the interests of the country. we want to do this together with them. we want to work with the congress, with republicans and democrats alike. that is how we achieved the compromise in the senate that was authored -- co-authored by senator mcconnell. it's time to get this done for the american people. hey, mr. knoller. nice to have you in the front row. how are you? >> well, thanks. don't tell norah. is the white house at odds with speaker boehner when he said earlier today that rather than do a two-month bill now, there's plenty of time left in the year for the senate to come back, choose negotiators and work out a year-long extension of theayroll tax cut bill? >> we disagree with that proposition because we need the insurance -- we need to make

sure that taxes do not go up on january 1st, and that insurance is the compromise two-month extension that was voted on by -- 89-10 -- by republicans and democrats alike in the senate. are absolutely committed to working with congress for a year-long extension. e president was out there, certainly without any republican support in the beginning here in the fall pushing this. republicans have gone from opposing it to tepid support to now insisting that it would cause -- we'd rather have taxes go up on the american people on january 1st than create the uncertainty of a two-month extension. let's take you back to that, for some of us, distant period in the summer when republicans were insisting that, as part of the deficit, or rather the debt ceiling negotiations, that we

return to raising the debt ceiling every few months; and in fact that we would return to it by the d of the year. you want to talk about an uncertainty that would be created for the economy? the threat of default? you remember what it was like in august. so their concern about the uncertainty of passing this two-month extension seems hollow to my ears. >> on another subject before -- >> yes, sorry, mark, go ahead. >> -- we let you go, is there any white house comment about eight american soldiers charged in the death of a fellow soldier in afghanistan? >> i apologize, mark, i haven't got anything for you on that. but i catake the question and get back to you. >> thanks. >> yes. >> thank you, jay. there were reports that there were three, i believe, iranian -- or, sorry, five iranian engineers that were captured in syria working on a power plant. with the statement that you issued earlier today, yo said that you're condemning, i guess, the syrian regime and you are calling for action, i

guess, bend the -- people in the region to bend against the regime, but are you calling for stronger action? i mean, this is -- or have you been speaking to your allies in the region to take stronger action against syria? because things are -- i mean, especially with the iranians now in the country, i mean, it seems that things are ramping up there. >> well, i would simply say that, from the start of this process, with regards to syria, we have ratcheted up pressure on syria. you have seen the united states working with our partners, working with our allies, participate in an effort that has increased international isolation of syria. and so the steps we have taken have been all in one direction, if you will, which is to put pressure on syria to make clear that assad has lost his legitimacy to rule and to further isolate his regime as we call on him to cease the

violence ando begin a democratic transition in that country. we will contin to take those steps to pressure the regime to stop its crackdown. i think as we've seen in terms of the -- by the reporting and by the international condemnation of what's happening in that country, the world is watching. and increasingly, assad's legitimacy is -- has been lost around the world. and that process will continue. >> are you aware of these reports of the iranian engineers? >> i do, but i don't have anything -- i mean, i've seen the reports, but i don't have anything specific for u on that. >> and there have not been discussions with people in the region for increased action? >> again, i don't know -- i don't have any response on that. let's go ed and then -- >> thanks, jay.

yesterday you were graciously answering my question about the president on 60 minutes saying that maybe -- >> you want to know if the invitation for christmas still stands? >> well, i was going to let that pass. but have you had a chance to talk to the president? >> no updates on scheduling. >> ok. in all seriousness, i did ask you yesterday -- i didn't want to belabor it after the president came out. he came out while you were talking about -- there's been a lot talked about this week, with the president telling cbs that if you stack up his accomplishments in the first couple of years it's the fourth best in history. he said only lincoln and a couple others were ahead of it. so can you talk a little bit about how he compares to -- >> sure, i mean, this has obviously been of great interest in the conservative blogosphere, but the fact of the matter is, he has -- he was making a point about the volume and substance of the legislative accomplishments, and the foreign policy accomplishments, in his nearly three years in power. he was not making an assertion of -- that only historians will

make about the success or -- this was not a comparison of success to other presidencies except in the significance and substance and size of the legislative accomplishments, whether it's health care reform, which was an effort that took 100 years to accompsh; or the recovery act, which was an enormous response to an historic economic crisis; the bailout of the automobile industry, the saving of the american automobile industry against great political opposition; and on the reign policy front, continuing to take the fight successfully to al qaeda, embodd most notably in the successful mission to remove osama bin laden from the battlefield; the successful efforts that we led to bring the international community behind the effort of the libyan

opposition to remove moammar qaddafi from power. i could go on, and believe me, i will, as time permits. but it was within the context of the substan and volume of what has happened in the face of enormous challenges in these past nearly three years. >> can i just follow up on another subject, which is there had been commentary a couple weeks ago but now it's sort of died down because of the payroll tax cut fight -- but that the president might make some recess appointments. and there are a lot of people in both parties wondering, does he reserve that right? i mean, we don't know when they're going to actually recess, i suppose, as we continue -- this drags out. but is there a possibility that richard cordray could be named by recess appointment? are there people in the nlrb? what's your sense about that possibility? >> well, i don't have any announcements to make or speculation to engage in on that front. i mean, we're not relinquishing

any rights here. that's certainly the case. i would note that it is unfortunate that although we had some significant nominations succeed, many, many others unnecessarily have been blocked. the effect of that, whether it's on ambassadorial nominations or judicial nominations, is very damaging, and it is a constant problem and a growing problem where random senators put holds on nominations that a absolutely uncontroversial. and that practice should stop. and i think this president will continue to nominate highly qualified people for important positions around our government and our foreign service and onto the bench. you mentioned richard cordray, and this is a perfect example of an abomination in terms of

senate behavior. he is widely respected, has broad bipartisan support across the country. he is exactly the right person for the job to be the consumer watchdog, the overseer of this agency that is in place to ensure that average americans don't get taken advantage of by financial institutions, that they have an advocate for them here in washington. republicans blocked that because they want to water down wall street reforms, reforms that were put in place to help prevent the kind of financial crisis that almost tipped the global economy into a depression. seems like a bad idea. yes. i'm sorry, i did say -- david, go ahead. yes, sir. >> yesterday, the president said he needed the speaker to do something. the speaker said, "i need the president to do something." my assumption would be the speaker expected something more than a phone call.

he was looking for something from the president as far as negotiations; you say there's nothing to negotiate. the speaker is in a corner, he's boxed in a corner. is the preside going to do nothing to help the speaker get out of that corner? >> the president isoing everything he can to help the american people. the speaker is very capable of helping himself by calling a vote on the senate compromise, a compromise that received the support of 80 percent of the republican senators and even a greater percentage of democratic senators. there is a bipartisan compromise available to him as a lifesaver, if you will. >> but politically he's in a box. is there anything the president can do? >> well, i mean, honestly, the important thing here is not who's up and who's down politically because, as i talked about yesterday, we are beginning to see some positive signs in the economy. we are a long way from full economic recovery, but the last thing we need to do is fail to pass a payroll tax cut extension which would have a

gative impact on the kind of ecomic growth that we have been seeing and need to continue to see. it's just wrong at every level to prevent this from passing. >> on north korea, there were some indications coming out of china that maybe there's some power-sharing agreement. can you update us on the situation in north korea? have you had any kind of communications through intermediaries or the north korean government itself? >> all i can say is that closely. kim jong-il had designated kim jong-un as his official successor, and at this time we have no indication that that has changed. we hope that the new north korean leadership will take the steps necessary to support peace, prosperity and a better future for the north korean people, including through acting on its commitments to denuclearization. as i stressed i think the day before last, we are in a period of transition. rth korea is in a period of

national mourning. we're monitoring events closely. we hope that the new leadership will support peace and prosperity and a better fute for its people, and that it will abide by its commitments on denuclearization. >> and no communication from the north korean government or intermediaries? >> no, not that i'm aware of. kristen. >> thanks, jay. on tuesday, the administration called on the american people to weigh in, to lend their voices to this. realistically speaking, do you think that that's going to help break this impasse? and if so, why? i know you just read some testimonials. >> well, i do think it wl because as i've said now for a while, even prior to this current situation, we are optimistic or at least hopeful that congress will act on some of these common-sense, mastream measures to help grow the economy, help the american people and improve our

employment situation,ot because we're for them -- that's probably a negative in the eyes of the highly politicized and partisan house of representatives republican party, but because their constituents are demanding it. and i, of course, don't have a ton of data here, but i suspect that the voices that we're hearing from -- by people who are responding to the #40dollars that we started yesterday, that they are representative of folks around the country in the districts of house republicans, as well as democrats in the states all over the country for whom $40 a

paycheck is a big deal, that it means the difference -- for someone from north carolina, it's the -- "that $40 buys my gas for a week to drive to work, or it buys my groceries for a week. it's hard enough making ends meet and $40 is a lot of money to me." in texas: "that is almost one week of groceries for me or how much it costs to fill my gas tank for one and a half weeks or medical co-pays at the specialist office. which one am i to go without? this is going to hurt. please don't let this happen." look, i think that the thousands of responses we've had so far are representative of the hundreds of thousands and millions of responses you would get if you were -- and if the members of the house of representatives we to survey their own constituents. for most people, $1,000 out of their paycheck next year is an enormous hit, and in this economy, we cannot let that happen.

yes. >> and on afghanistan quickly -- >> sorry. >> -- a senior military commander suggested that troops might need to, in fact, stay -- american forces might need to, in fact, stay beyond 2014. can you respond to that? and is that a possibility -- >> well, i appreciate the question. thank you, kristen. as established in lisbon at nato and as made clear through the president's afghanistan policy, one, we are in the procs of drawing down the surge. and by the end of 2014, we will have tned over full security lead to afghan forces. we have made clear all along that much as in iraq when we turned over full security lead to the iraqi forces that would be part of a process that may include troops in support. and make no mistake -- and i

have an announcement to make, which is that we have met the commitment to reduce by the end of this year our forces by 10,000 in afghanistan, as we begin to reduce the surge forces, as the president committed to do. and we will continue that process, and when the surge forces are out between that end date, which i guess is september of next year, through the end of 2014, there will be a continued reduction in u.s. forces as we turn over more and more of the country to afghan security lead. that has been clearly spelled out from lisbon on so that -- and is entirely consistent with what general allen said. >> and so just to put a point on it, the command was wrong -- was not -- >> no, i said it's entirely consistent with what general allen said, that the process of turning over entirely the

security lead to the afghans is the result of a gradual reduction of forces and a building up of afghan security forces. we have said from the beginning that there could be u.s. forces in afghanistan beyond the end of 2014 in a support role just as they were after august 2010 in a support role in iraq. from that point forward in iraq, we have drawn down now to zero in accordance with our agreement with the iraqi government. so that is entirely consistent. yes. >> back on the payroll tax cut for a second, a follow-up to david's question. put yourself in the speaker's shoes -- are you suggesting that he cobble together maybe a house majority of willing democrats and whatever republicans he might be able to get to go along, even if it goes against the majority of his own caucus in the house? >> am i suggesting that for the

sake of 160 million people he should allow this vote to happen and allow his house republicans to vote their conscience, wch would result, because of overwhelming democrat support, in the passage of the senate bill? yes. >> that's one way he could do it. >> absolutely. that's the reason why they didn't vote on it the other day, because it would have passed. and that's the shame of all this. there are, i'm confident, more than enough houseepublicans who want to bring this to an end, who want to ensure that americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st and certainly don't want to explain to their constituents why they took a vote so that their taxes would go up. and if it came to the floor of the house, it would pass. it would have near unanimous support from democratic members, and i am confident that the 30-odd republicans it would require to pass this measure would vote yes, at least.

and then we can move on to the next thing that we all agree on, which is that we have to get this payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extended for the full year. yes. >> might that not spark a revolt within his own caucus? >> the president has an enormous aunt of responsibilities. every president does. he cannot be responsible for the internal politics of the other party in one house of congress. he is simply focused on doing what is best for the american people, and working with republicans, as well as democrats, to achieve what's best for the american people. and that's what the bipartisan compromise reached in the senate represents. ninety percent of the united states senate on a subantive issue, an important issue like this, is quite an accomplishment. senators mcconnell and reid deserve a lot of credit for the work they did on achieving the two-month extension and on the

progress they made towards a full-year extension. and so the house should act on that. it doesn't happen that often when we have this kind of bipartisan consensus on an important issue. we should act on it. yes, sir. >> i'm just trying to get a little bit better sense of what happens next. as you said, the ball is in the house's court. did the president set any time -- did he and boehner set any time to talk again? or is this the time, the time that's behind here on this clock? >> there is nothing more i can read out to you from the conversation with the speaker of the house. the president was very clear, and i provided you the essence of what he said to the speaker. there is an available solution: the house should pass the two- month extension to ensure that americans' taxes don't go up. the president, as he has repeatedly, affirmed his commitment to a one-year extension. he, after all, started this

conversation and has been pushing for a full-year extension since september -- and there is a way to get there. and this president and democrats have been clearly willing to compromise, to accept that they could not get republican support for what we believe and theyelieve was the right thing to do, which was ask the 300,000 wealthiest americans, millionaires and billionaires all, to pay a little bit more so that 160 million americans got a tax cut. but since the republicans oppose that almost unanimously, senate democrats, with this president's full support, were le to work out a compromise with senate republicans, that cluded pay-fors that we found acceptable and that made sense as a policyatter, that did not violate the president's principles in terms of doing damage to the economy or harming the very people you're trying to help with the payroll tax cut extension or with unemployment insurance. >> so why did he decide to call

boehner? when you were asked yesterday if he was going to be calling boehneyolaughed it off. >> no, i didn't laugh it off. i simply said that there was an available action here that the house shld pass the senate bill. the president speaks with speaker boehner periodically. he called him to urge him to do the right thing here, which is bring up the senate bill in the house, which is something he can still do, contrary to some tweets i've seen out there. they absolutely can take up the senate bill and pass it. it will be signed by this president, gladly. margaret, and then -- i'm sorry, then i -- margaret, then in the back, and then i'll jump around -- laura. settle in, folks. >> i'm going to, like, take a stab at this, but i feel like it may not work. (laughter.) so i feel like we're all caught in the middle of basically a game where i'm

wondering -- areou guys just sort of making the house republicans twist in the wind a little bit more, and then this is going to get worked out? it just seems, if the president was really done wi it wouldn't he just be on a plane to hawaii right now? >> i don't have any scheduling updates to give you. the president just got off the phone within the last hour now with the speaker of the house, urging him to do the right thing, to take up the senate bill. this is not about, like -- look, there's a clear avenue here. we're shining a light on the path out of this cul-de-sac that they've driven themselves into, and it is to vote on a bill that -- we're not asking them to vote on a bill that only democrats supported, we're asking them to vote "yes" on a bill that 82 percent or something, or 80 percent of senate republicans supported. >> doesn't the house -- >> it seems not that much of an ask. >> does't the house's way out of it now effectively do that with just sort of a little bit more so that their members can vote for it? and i mean, in the end, if what you really want is just a

resolution, doesn't that resolve that without really undercutting the places where you guys want to -- >> closing what resolve? >> a two-month extension with some language that requires a year-long deal. i mean, isn't that -- it doesn't seem that out of reach. >> well, i don't know what that means. requires a year-long deal on whose terms? i mean, you saw what the house republicans put out yesterday, and clearly demonstrating that this is not a payroll tax cut for them, 's about trying to get some political victories on ideological issues. so they took the willingness that senate democrats demonstrated and this president demonstrated to accept their totally extraneous provision on keysne, and decided that that wasn't enough, they wanted a little more, and they wanted a bunch of other things that simply moved them away from bipartisanship and moved them away fm compromise. so the president is committed to a full-year extension. he has demonstrated his

willingness to agree to pay- fors that are different from the ones he put forward and from the ones that senate democrats put forward. but they have to make sense. they have to make economic sense, and they have to make sense in terms of the impact on average americans out there. so they should pass the two- month, and then we can get to negotiating the year-long. >> on iraq, the vice president made a couple of phone calls yesterday, and i guess i'm just wonderg, is the president -- has the president or has vice president biden spoken with the vice president of iraq? what is -- what was the point of those calls? how does president obama feel about the arrestnd the charges against this vice president? and what, if anything, at this point can the u.s. do about it? are you considering pulling aid? if you're not -- if we're not -- >> well, margaret, let me stop you there. first of all, i think we read out some of the calls that the vice president made. separately, this kind of

political turmoil s been occurring in iraq periodically, as ty have taken steps forward and, occasionally, steps backward, but generally made progress tords politic reconciliation, towards democracy, and away from the use of violence in pursuit of political ends. that has been progress, but it has often been hard won. that will continue. we certainly expect that there will be difficult days ahead in iraq. but the progress has been substantial. what is utterly nonsensical is the suggestion that somehow we should have left troops in there, and that would have had any impact on the political disputes. because maybe folks weren't paying attention, but political disputes have been happening

whe there were 40,000 troops, 80,000 troops, 150,000 troops. the key metric here is that those political disputes have increasingly been resved through negotiation, not through violence, and elections were held, a government was established -- these are all signs of important progress -- all while violence declined significantly. we will continue to have a robust and important relationship with iraq. we wilcontinue to have frequent, i'm sure, discussions with iraqi leaders. and we will continue to weigh in and encourage iraqi leaders to make smart decisions as they continue to move forward with the development of their democracy. i wanted to -- as ng as we're on foreign policy, i just want to be clear on a question that kristen had about afghanistan. i just want to s, on 2014, the president will make his decisions on the size and shape of our post-september 2012 presence, after the reduction of the surge forces, at the

appropriate time in consultation with our afghan and nato partners. any post-2014 presence would of course be at the invitation of the afghan government, and would ensure that we will be able to target terrorists and support a sovereign afghan government so that our enemies cannot outlast us. i just want to be clear about that. but the framework that i discussed at the top was laid out at lisbon. i think i owe you -- yes, lesley. >> can i ask a quick question, following on margaret's question? do you have any reaction to the prime minister's sort of suggestions today that he wants to shed some of the members of the coalition government that he might not sort of get along with? >> look, we have -- i would refer you -- i don't have it in front of me -- to -- we did a readout of the vice president's calls, yes -- to that statent. and we have worked, the vice president has and other members of the president's team have, with iraq on the political process.

it is very important, and has been, and will continue to be, that iraqi leaders pursue a representative government so that everyone's interests are properly represented. and beyond that, i would just refer you to the stament we put out. >> he also said that the u.s. has asked him to free some of the hashimi guards that he had jailed. >> who did? >> he said that the u.s. government had asked him to free some -- >> maliki did? i don't -- i just don't have anything more on that for you today. yes, alexis. >> two quick questions. can i just -- >> alexis and then, yes -- >> john. >> john, of course. okay, alexis, then john. >> two quick questions. i want to clarify: you were reading these moving comments from people who talk about what they can do with $40. the president had originally asked for the 3.1 percent, an expansion. when he's thinking about getting a year extension, and i just want to clarify, he's still talking about sticking

with an extension, not an expansion, considering that they would get 60 bucks a paycheck, correct? >> well, no question, but that was part of -- and i'm glad you mentioned it, alexis -- because that was part of our compromise. >> he's not going to argue for that -- if he gets the two- months insurance, he's not going to then say, okay, look, t's go back to lking about expanding this. >> well, i don't want to predict, but he may say that that would be a good thing to do. but he is absolutely willing to gn a approiately paid-for one-year extension of the payroll tax cut at its current levels. he -- you're absolutely right -- initially supported an expansion of that, and as part of the compromise -- another data point in my presentation on the ways in which the president and senate democrats have compromised in these negotiations, and the way that that compromise has led to a result that garnered a vote of 89-10 in the senate -- i mean, i think that's, again, a demonstration of his

understanding that in a divided government y don't get everything you want. and he was willing -- he is very willing to sign into law this two-month extension that was passed by the senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. and he is very eager to work with congress to continue the progress that senators mcconnell and reid made towards extending it for a fulyear at its current level. he believed, and still believes, of course, that more would be better. but what absolutely must not happen is that nothing is passed by the house and taxes go up. >> so let me ask another question to follow up on ed, real quick. ed's question about the president's sense of history and where he fits into it -- in my previous experience covering the white house, most presidents get that information from somebody who does that analysis for the somebody -- from a historian or a political scientist or a political advisor. can you tell us where that

assessment came from? did the president do it himself? >> the president is a well-read individual, and was prior to coming into office, and reads voraciously in office. so, no. i mean, i think that's -- look, i think that's an assessment that others may have made on the outside simply by the sheer volume of what has been accomplished by this president and by congress in the last three years. and part of the size of the record -- and voters will judge it and historians will judge it in terms of where it fits in terms of american history and its relative success or greatness. talkingot what he was about. he wasalking about -- he came into office, working with congress, facing enormous challenges for this country -- an economy in freefall, the real threat of a global depression, t wars and

enormous challenges elsewhere in foreign affairs -- and he, with congress, took action to deal with them. that's what the times demanded. and congress passed some very big pieces of legislation that did big things -- wall street reform, successfully saving the american automobile industry, the recovery act, health care reform -- and then, of course, as i mentioned, a number of foreign policy successes -- successfully and responsibly ending the war in iraq, beginning the drawdown in afghanistan, taking the fight aggressively to al qaeda, repositioning ourselves -- reorienting ourselves to reassert ourselves as a pacific player and power because of the neglect that the prior administration had towards asia. these are all big things. and you all and your successors

and historians will judge the success of the things that he's done, and voters will have an opportunity obviously to do that in less than a year. but there's no arguing about the volume and the substantial nature of whatas been done. >> can we just ask -- the speaker's office has put out a little readout of the call, and they're saying that speaker boehner appears to be dug in as well, just as the president was on the two-month. speaker boehner is saying, bring the senate back, appoint the conferees, what we've heard before. and the quote from the speaker's office is that the speaker said, "let's get it done today." so where are we? seem to be at the same spot. >> today, congressmen van hollen and hoyer, if i'm not mistaken, attempted to bring up the senate bill in the house and they were gaveled down by republican congressmen.

that opportunity is there. if the speaker wants to get it done today i'm sure we can get it done today. we can pass the two-month extension. >> he said he wants a one-year extension. >> well, he knows, and the president made very clear to him, that the avenue available to him, the speaker of the house, to avoid raising taxes on 160 million americans is to pass the measure that won overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. this sudden insistence on the uncertainty created by a two- month extension is just -- you guys know, you've been covering this. you know it's -- it just doesn't ring true, right? i mean, this was the same leadership that thought it would be a good idea for the global and american economy to have periodic fights and stalemates over -- and brinkmanship -- over defaulting on the full faith and credit of the united states government. talk about uncertainty.

the uncertainty that we have to eliminate is the uncertainty that americans have right now about whether or not their taxes are going to gup on january 1st. there is a bipartisan compromise available to make sure that doesn't happen -- just take it. just take it. follow the advice of numerous republican senators. follow the advice of the wall street editorial page -- words i never thought i'd speak. (laughter.) follow the advice of senators mccain and corker and grassley and others, and pass the bipartisan compromise. make sure that americans don't have their taxes go up on january 1st. ann. >> sce the speaker has now responded to your statement and says that he wants the president to urge senator reid to appoint conferees, isn't this the classic definition of a stalemate or a deadlock? >> well, it's a classic -- there is a stalemate in that the speaker will not act. a bipartisan compromise was negotiated.

and as you know and reported on, it was supported overwhelmingly by republicans in the senate. it was the product of a negotiation that the speaker of the house helped initiate and urged to happen. it was a product that the speaker of the house endorsed through his own colleagu on a conference call, as has been widely reported. it is a product that has the support of republicans in the senate, in the house, outside, in conservative circles. it should just get done. and what is absolutely the wrong way to look at this and would be a disservice to readers and viewers would be to say both sides are tblame; neither side wants to compromise; democrats won't move and republicans won't move. no. that's not the story of what happened here in the senate. democratic leaders, republican leaders got together, worked leaders got together, worked out a compromise that won