we have to verify every single thing that they are doing. host: we have another tweet. guest: china has taken a different approach to nuclear weapons than we took during the cold war. we have had a stable deterrence relationship. it was a very quiet and in some cases terrifying number of weapons. -- very high and in some cases terrifying number of weapons. they said what are they care about is what is called to the secure second strike capability. if somebody strikes them, and they want to have their nuclear weapons protected so they can do

and assured response strike. this is their way of saying okay, we don't need to have a first strike capability. it will be sufficient to deter we canher side oif threaten retaliation. it is something we are concerned about guest. we started to sit down with the chinese and the other nuclear weapons states and talked about strategic doctrine, stability, talked about a verification and transparency. it is the beginning of a way to talk to them about these issues. host: next call. caller: not to cause a diplomatic incident, but just to gauge the level of cooperation and enthusiasm to get these new starts -- how is the russians'

attitude to the entire program? are they willing participants? have we had to give economic incentives? do they i understand the position of mutual assured destruction. has that mutual assured destruction mindset soaked into china, iran, knowing that if you do anything -- i think we have at china on a long leash right now and if they are given as much freedom to do what they wanted if they do things that are on toward -- are untoward and not towards the realm of normal diplomacy -- i am not a doom and gloom er. not that we are going to dominate the world, but that we act in the world's best interest. just the attitude of the russians towards the program in general. how are the smaller countries

that produce nuclear weapons understanding that, maybe? host: contextually questions for us. guest: very good. the context is that we have been at this for a long time. we have been working with the russians and others for 40 years on arms reduction, and it has been a huge success. they consider it to be in the national security interests. no party comes to the negotiating table unless they believed it to be in the national security interests. it is completely reciprocal. we better understand what is going on in their nuclear arsenal. it is the predictability that leads to stability and better security. this has been a policy that has been pursued by democratic and republican presidents alike, starting with president johnson and president nixon back in the .ate 60's and early 1970's

it has proved its value and getting the number of nuclear weapons down. it has really been a steady progress, and the point all along has been to ensure that we can trust but verify. we can watch what the russians are doing, and we can really understand that we don't have a some kind of a threat that can pop up in surprise us. that is the kind of relationship we need to the to to develop with the chinese, remember that they have a much smaller nuclear arsenal than our spirit in gems of the balance, they cannot take us by surprise. host: we have about 10 minutes left in our conversation.

she was involved in the cooperation of the new start treaty. we started out the program with what seems to be fraying relationship with pakistan. most recently highlighted by this new report on the 26 pakistani troops and how they were killed on the border. with that as background, here is thaa tweet about pakistan. what are your concerns what are your concerns about those nuclear states? guest: we have been very concerned about nuclear stability overall in south asia, because india and pakistan have a small nuclear arsenals. ,hey have tested in the 1990's

and we have been very concerned in watching what has happened since. you are talking about thousands of miles between aus. they are within seconds of being able to strike each other if they is so choose to with nuclear weapons. we have been pressing very hard to try to improve the overall relationship in south asia, working with each of them individually. i worked closely with both countries on the conference on disarmament where we are working on out cut off trade negotiation. we will work in every way we can to bring them to the table and let them have an opportunity to talk about their concerns. i believe is by getting those concerns out on the table,

talking them through, we can begin to develop more stability in south asia. we can get them to tackle these problems. host: michael, independent. you are on. caller: my question is, considering the judaic agenda conto control the world with an iron rod, and israeli politicians bragging that israel controls the united states government, is that a good idea? considering that in zohar -- there is a searchable zohar online, and it talks about the destruction of the 70 idolatrous nations. it seems that america is serving judaicxtension of ithe

agenda. host: stop you right there did you think the united states is serving israel's agenda as opposed to its own? guest: no country comes to the table in the policy. without its national security it as its concern to to. we are concerned about our national security but also those of our partners and allies at around rolf, and israel is one of our close partners. -- partners and allies around the world, and israel is one of our close partners. host: back to russia, and russia's concern over the missile shield program. guest: now, that is very interesting. the viewer is referring to is

that the obama administration took on the third site in europe. maybe the viewer has not realize that in fact we have launched what is called the european phase-adaptive approach, a 4- phases program to respond to threats in an adoptive white. -- adaptive way. we were concerned that it was too flexible, that it would not adopt to threats in eurasia. as threats develop in iran, long-range missiles could respond in a flexible way the approaches in deployment right now. today our agreement with romania on ballistic missile defense has just entered into force.

there is a lot going on. we are working also with poland, turkey, with other countries around the region. by the way, we are working with russia. i don't think russia is laughing at us on this. they have been expressing some concern about what we're doing in europe. we have been trying to convince them that they should be trying to cooperate in building in structuring that phased adaptive approach. be very happy, if you are interested, and have a look at our web site on the state department side. avc.gov. it has very good information on what is going on in this area. host: richard, republican, you are on. caller: the caller asked before about inspecting the israeli nuclear sites. nobody ever talks about that he

asked you the question as ron paul said, iran is not a suicidal patient. they never attack anybody. but we overthrew them and put in the shah of iran. the foreign policy of ron paul would be better than these new world order shills trying to start world war iii. guest: we have been very concerned about iran's agenda, and the iaea report last month to talk about grave concerns in the international community that iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. that is something we want to continue to keep a very close eye on. i actually agree with dennis ross that the game is not out yet we have the opportunity to work with iran. if you look at on its history, the reason i feel this way is

because of strong sanctions regime in south africa years ago did produce a change in south africa and a change in the government did they do have a nuclear weapons program, which we were able to dismantle in cooperation with the south african government gues we have . we have some empirical evidence that these approaches to work. host: this tweet takes the conversation in a different direction. my question for you based on that is how has the president of hackers, state-sponsored or rogue, change your business? guest: i have been concerned about the types of threats that have emerged from the cyber. , but i am also interested in the opportunities that might

emerge. we verify and expect every way we can. we should use the cyber revolution an inflammation revolution to improve our ability to monitor what is going on around the world. we clearly have to keep our eye on the threats, keep our eye on the problems, and be very alert. the last thing we want is to have somebody hack their way into our nuclear arsenal. on the other hand, we can to develop good opportunities to use these technologies for good purposes. host: minnesota. marie is calling us, a democrat g. caller: there is one thing i'm concerned about, the way these united states, against these countries that cannot defend themselves. we killed over 100,000 iraqis.

we lost almost 6000 of our own army people. i'm wondering if there is any way we can control our power, too. thank you very much. guest: that is a very good question. it gets to the essence of what we try to do at the negotiating table. rather than have to engage daughters and sons in military action to try to negotiate a reasonable deal that help both parties to feel that their security is well-preserved. my focus is on weapons of mass destruction. but i think your point is a good one is very important, and it is important to think about it this christmas season, that it is good to think about ways

to work out the negotiating table. we should place the balance on trying to find reasonable answers that serve our national security and to do it at the negotiating table. host: the christmas theme is picked up by this twitter person. guest: [laughter] host: do you think of yourself as in the war game or the prevention of war game? guest: i definitely think of myself as prevention of war to . the treaty was a good moment of bipartisanship in the senate, how positive people felt about what was doing a good step. and in the past year, seeing the treaty being amended in such a positive way, businesslike and pragmatic, but getting the job done in terms of getting our inspectors to look at russian missiles and bombers and submarines.

i think that of the new start treaty as a big christmas present to the nation and i hope for the opportunity for many more. host: we should leave it there, but we have one more call it good closing thought. dilbert, independent. caller: i have three things i would like to suggest. host: ok. almost out of time. caller: israel has 300, and they are keeping a rat from protecting themselves. -- keeping iran from protecting themselves. i hope that iran can get at least the same amount of nuclear weapons that israel has. israel is guiding the process, and i think it's horrible. guest: i will make a comment about that. the reason we are so concerned about iran getting nuclear weapons is we feel it would be

destabilizing for the whole region -- for saudi arabia, our friends and partners throughout the middle east, and even farther afield. iraq, india, and pakistan. iran gets nuclear weapons, we are concerned about a major destabilization that could affect our partners and would be worse for the world overall. it is better to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons no matter what and to look at other ways to deal with serious security problems that you pointed to. host: that will be the last word. thank you for being here, and happy holidays to you. our final segment this morning is "america by the numbers." we will look at what has happened with child care at the defense department.

>> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, c-span looks at the people who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact on politics. tonight, charles evans hughes, chief justice of the united states, followed by al smith and wendell willkie. next week, the series continues, starting with thomas dewey. "the contenders," every night at 10:00 eastern on c-span.

this weekend, three days of american history tv on c-span3. saturday, visit the congressional cemetery. 8:00, actors and history university of colorado at boulder professor of american prosperity in the 1950's and 1960. saturday evening, meet the white house chefs dating back to the carter administration. and highlights at c-span's coverage of the 70th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor. experience american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> i am still arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. i am one of the 1%. >> would you be willing to donate to the department? >> individually? now. i am a philanthropic active. >> i have the donation page.

you can donate to the government. >> that is not going to help anybody. >> you don't want to donate to the government? >> you are being silly. >> i am a video journalist. i would say that what we're doing is it like citizen journalism, which is basically when an individual who doesn't have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event that doesn't have a background in journalism. >> video journalist michelle fields shares her experiences with the news site the daily caller, sunday night on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: on friday mornings the past several months we have been doing a series called "america

by the numbers," agencies in the government and telling you more about the focus. today our focus is on child care in the census bureau. linda lavin is the census bureau family demographer -- lynda laughlin is the census bureau family demographer. kevin miller is a senior research associate at a think tank called the institute for women's policy research, and he brings policy discussions to our look at the numbers. thanks to both of you for being here. why is the census bureau interested in child care? guest: we are interested in child care for a number of reasons. it sheds light on where children are spending their time during the day, when the parents are not able to look after them. we have information to inform academics as well as foreign policy makers about how the best care for america's children. host: what are the largest

federal programs that affect shot to decisions? guest: the child care development block grant is around $5 billion or $6 billion a year at this point. host: it gets distributed to the 50 states? guest: yes, and they have to match funding but it provides assistance to low-income mothers and fathers paying for child care. host: how has that been affected by the budget debate? guest: during the stimulus, the funding went up some. now that the funding is gone, the numbers are decreasing and there is less money available again. host: our first sled is a summary that the numbers below will demonstrate more clearly. here are the overall findings. in 2010, 12.2 million children under age 5 or in some type of child care arrangement.

those are the statistics we are going to learn more about. we have our phone alliance set up in little differently. we, as we always do in these statistical segments, invite you with personal experience in your life dealing with state or federal agencies, and your views on the federal policy aspects, add that to the discussion this morning. this slide here -- what are we trying to say with the child care decision process? guest: talking about child care is actually a pretty complicated outcome to measure. we have to take into consideration a lot of different factors that families have to look at before they make a shot their decision. it is -- before they make a

child care decision. we get some of that major ones that with the census we were able to look at. when families are making decisions about child care, and if dates after think about the cost of the care and if it is something they can afford. quality of care, what kinds of programs are offered, what kinds of educational benefits offered to families. we know a lot about women who used child care where it and work, but we also know women who are not working are using a child care, and the hours of work, it affects the type of care that families use. lastly, the characteristics of the child. the age of the child, if the child has special needs. host: at your think tank i am sure you'll spend a lot of time assigning these characteristics.

-- massaging these characteristics. in terms of care, what has the trend been? guest: there is a trend towards improving the quality of care. there is a trend towards equality-rating and improvement system, qris, typically supported by state governments or privately run, with the goal is to inform parents about how good at the family child care centers are,. host: let's look at these charts quickly. what does this say? guest: it demonstrates that women have been fairly active in the labor market. women who typically at older children are more likely to be working than at younker. we can see for both age groups

that the majority of women are in the workplace. jal to replace an important role for working mothers. in 1985, 70% of women 6 to 17 werwith the children 6 to 17 were in the workforce. host: let's move on to the next one. percentage of children w three to six enrolled in nursery school. guest: what we're discussing john r., most people assume is -- about is wouldn't we are discussing child care, most people assume it is about working parents. for this, it looks particularly and mr. school enrollment. this is the percentage of children ages 3 to 6 enrolled in nursery school. the thing that i find really interesting is that from 1987 to 2009, we see an increase for both groups of mothers.

both groups of mothers are enrolling children in nursery school programs. it is higher for women who are unemployed. we're seeing growth of about 15%. this helps us shed more light on not only understanding shall care for working families, but how it is being used for families that cannot have both parents in the work force or the mother's in the workforce. host: 87 is the beginning span for 2009, for non-employed moms. is this because there are more nursers was? -- more nursery schools? guest: there must be to accommodate the children to read it is the norm to want them to be school-ready. there is a push of pre-k programs around the country. host: here is a map that tells

the story. the darkest red states are the ones with the highest concentration in child care facilities per 1000. you can see the big shift in 1987 to today, where virtually every state is represented with some level of child care facilities. but there is a lot of concentration now with 1000. guest: the highest ratios tend to be in the midwest and the central states. it is also known for the areas where labor force participation is higher. job providers -- child care providers. in the south, the participation is typically lower. it has definitely grown over the last 20 years. host: these are demand it- driven? there is not something else

going on with midwestern concentration? you think about working parents in the east coast -- guest: we are not sure if it is all demand, but labor force participation is one explanation. another is the ability to pay for care. in some areas it might be more affordable. some of what is driven by what families can afford and also by the household the demographics that the families live in. in some states, particularly in the south and northeast, there might be more multigenerational households. host: children under the age of four, and preschoolers, between the ages of five and 40 -- and a grade schoolers, as the markers look at them, between the ages of 5 and 14. hello, brandon. caller: i would like to know of

your opinion of things with federal and local funding going into these issues, and also, what department look into these issues? is it the department of education? host: thank you. kevin miller, which department oversees the block grant we talked about? guest: i would be happy to talk about that. health and human services, i believe. the charter is not considered a part of the department of education, as a rule. it is housed elsewhere in the government. host: where did the state's centralized their policy on child care? guest: that is an excellent question. there are 51 different ways to do child care in this country. if people want to influence the process, it is good to look at what the state policies are, and if there are state at the kids were working on changing those. host: is there a central resource for that?

guest: there are a number of organizations people can look at. in terms of the variety of care, naccrra has a lot of information. host: do they help people who might be looking for grants and loans with child care and it kin -- in finding out what resources are available? guest: yes, i believe they could help with that. host: kentucky, you are on. caller: good morning. i am what is called a town care eligibility specialist for kentucky. i see both aspects of this. my question, or what i really want to know -- i don't know if it is the state or the federal government who determines the people on welfare and how they get day care systems. it is harder with me being a case worker and giving out these

benefits. is there a way that that can be better monitored? does the federal government decide that, hey, people who receive welfare can get x amount of tday care, but i see people who are not able to get benefits if they need it? guest: the answer is, again, there are 51 different ways to handle a child care and welfare in the united states. a lot of this is determined under state level. you can look at state agencies and organizations. more broadly, the answer is that it is just incredibly complicated in terms of which individuals and families receive public assistance and which don't. host: this tweet plays into our next couple of slides. let's take a look at this particular chart, which looks

at the present at preschoolers cared for by their fathers and how that has changed from 1985 to the present. guest: is important to stress what we are talking about health-care that we're not just talking about the bricks and mortar building. these figures look at the role of fathers, and historically, fathers have played an important role as child-care providers. these graphs and others look at the role played by child care providers for employed mothers in particular. host: it has not changed all that much. guest: this is a primary child care arrangements, and later we can talk about how the fathers' employment characteristics can in fact th -- can impact if he is available for children.

this jump in 1991 to 20%, and we have seen it stabilize around 18% in 2010. host: here comes grandma ruth and great aunt janie. guest: this has fluctuated a little bit, but it's a pretty consistent between the 24% to 25% mark. grandparents are playing an important role in helping parents care for their children while they are in school, going to work, or for other needs parents may need. host: adults with long-term care, some states allow plans relative to qualify for the benefits. with regard to child care, or any of the grants or loans available for families? guest: that is a good question. i am not 100% certain. there is a lot of talk about

improving the quality of care that children receive in family settings from grandparents and other relatives. there's a lot of talk and programs around providing first aid training or child development training to help grandparents and other relatives provide a higher standard of care and to help children be more school-ready like they would be in pre-k classes. host: john is next, watching us in a long island. hello, john, argued there? all right, let's move on to newton, massachusetts. working parents. caller: my concern is that i am a working parent, and i was informed that i could get out to help with my child care costs. i called for the appointment, and the first thing they ask me is if i am receiving welfare benefits. i don't qualify if i am not receiving welfare, and as a

working parent, the way this is closed. how is someone who gets welfare that is home all day doing nothing gets a fold voucher, and a worker like myself is not even qualify -- does not even qualify? according to their guidelines, i am over income. host: what have you done for child care? guest: right now i am not working. host: if you could get help, he would work? guest: i cannot afford child care on my salary, but according to the guidelines, i am over income. host: some of your statistics really bear out her story. guest: thank you so much for calling in. it is why john kerry is so important -- why child care is so important.

with -- we need to look at how these are administered and who they are reaching. as to whether or not people who are on welfare -- the temporary assistance to needy families, the program that replace welfare after welfare reform during the clinton era, most states require some type of work activity. they do need child care as well. and they also have trouble paying for it, as you can imagine. host: that was the philosophical predicate, getting people off of the welfare rolls and back to work. child care was a component of that. guest: the goal ultimately is getting people off of public supports and able to support

themselves and families. child care is a vital component of that. when people have children and need care, the children are able to go to school and possibly after that as well. many families simply cannot afford it without assistance. host: the percentage of preschoolers cared for by organized care. guest: organized care would include day care centers, new seed school, head start -- nursery schools, head start. the general theme is that it fluctuated over time, but for the past five or six years, it stabilized around 24% of preschoolers. host: i wonder what happened in the early 1990's that it went up so high. guest: in the early 1990's we had a stronger economy. more families were working, so more enrollment in a nursery school programs. host: care by family day care.

what is that? guest: 8 is where the provider provides child care in a setting that is not the child's setting. it is two or more unrelated children. sometimes it run out of someone's home. host: the trend here is downgrad. guest: we have seen it down quite a lot women who might run a day care home are now doing different types of jobs. ids required to be licensed? guest -- r these required to be licensed? guest: it varies by state. guest: there are levels of licensure and accreditation that these harms can achieve. again, it varies from state to state. there are a lot of questions around, to costs, the time, the

actual money for the centers or homes to reach accreditation. host: a tweet -- next telephone call is from daytona beach, florida. hello, ron. welcome to the conversation. caller: i am calling because i was involved with the center in daytona beach, florida. what we have done is we have extended the hours for our center until midnight. a lot of the parents are telling us how difficult it is for them to get assistance to have their children in a center after it the judicial power of 5:00 closing in most areas. i'm wondering, is there a way that finding could be extended

to the parents who are in hospitals, law enforcement, it made the firefighter = -- be firefighters, working at these shifts and are finding it difficult to get funding for the very few sectors that are open past the judicial hours? guest: well, one possibility is that the employees themselves can step up to the plate on this. they can provide care in the work is setting. a number of hospitals maintain child-care centers on premises because of the need for off- hours care, care outside 9:00- 5:00. police departments and fire departments can do the same. one of the things with child care is that it is expensive. it is expensive for working families, is expensive or families with good jobs even. it is difficult for communities, employers, to create a child

care center. tweet, whichs a leads us into our next set of statistics. with that, let's look at this from the census bureau. the percentage of preschoolers in multiple child care arrangements by employers that is. people are seeking all sorts of means to care for their children. guest: families have a patchwork of arrangements to meet their needs. we discussed primary child care arrangements, but often, there are multiple child care arrangements. not shown directly here, but 29% of preschoolers are in multiple types of arrangements. down here, -- if we look at

statistics show here, preschoolers in grandparent care, 56% of them are in some other type or print and as well. grandparents are serving as one arrangement, and the child may be in another one to fill the gap. for children that are in organized care and family day care, a slightly smaller percentage reports and other arrangements. it could be because child care centers and day care homes could be on a contractual basis there for a certain amount of hours. the center dictates the hours, the of arrangements that families can use. host: working parent by the name of bob. welcome. caller: recently our governor tried to make it possible for day care providers to unionize. i wanted to get your opinion on that. i will take it off line. guest: well, there are

conflicting priorities entrance of child care -- in terms of child care. on one hand, we want the workers to have good or conditions, high levels of education, a safe and secure jobs, to have a living wage themselves. of course, having shot care providers that have a living wage and -- having child care providers that have a living wage and good conditions is more expensive to provide. we want them to be in great satan, all we want the people providing them care to be at -- we want them to be in good standing, but we want the people providing them care to be in a good setting. host: a lot of people making that calculation. guest: especially given the

recent recession. the recession hit man a little bit harder. -- hit men in little bit harder hit our survey get showed an increase in the percentage of fathers caring for children. certainly, when we're talking about the elements that go into making child care decisions, cost is something parents away a lot. host: let's take a look at how many hours per week on average people spent -- preschoolers spent in child care. guest: this it sheds light on where children are spending

their day. in general, for any type are ran and -- type of arrangement, is on average 36 hours per week. when we look at by type of arrangements, for employed mothers, the largest amount, the average amount of time their spending and carries 33 hours per week -- they are spending in care is 33 hours per week. for children who are not employed mothers, we are seeing variations in the number of hours they are spending in care per week, with organized terror leading a 25 hours per -- organized care leading at 23 hours per week. host: terry, you are on. caller: my question is, is preschool considered a day care? if so, why?

is there a difference in the definition of preschool and a day care? host: ok, good question. how do you define it? guest: we tracked separately for preschool and at nursery school. we class preschool and nursery school in to organize care. the main difference is the age of the child. children younger than street typically tend to be in nursery school, where arrests -- children younger than three tend to be in nursing school, where children 4 and over 10 to be in preschool. host: i will ask my colleagues on the, to start on the top. they look at racial demographics with child care. guest: as i was mentioning

before, some of the characteristics that we now influence the type of care that families use -- we are looking at organized care. we see equal percentage usage among preschoolers with white, hispanic, black, or asian mothers. preschoolers and hispanic mothers receive the lowest percentage use of organized care. now, we look at it two types of family care in these graphs -- grandparent care and father care. grandparent care, a much higher percentage of use among hispanics, a war rates among whites --, whites l -- lower rates among and whites, blacks, asians. lower rates uof father care amog blacks, pretty equal rate of usage among whites, asian, and

hispanic households. guest: in terms of how policies address these issues, it comes out mostly to income. there are poorer and richer people in all racial groups. host: next up is don in buffalo, new york. caller: good morning. i just have a comment. we have strayed so far from the traditional one working parent in this country. now it is about a parent, mother and father, working one, two, three jobs, just to pay for somebody else to raise their children. that is my comment. host: don, what do you think has driven that change in society --

we won't know. guest: almost everyone has to work. it is rare for families to have one earner who can support the family at the level of lifestyle people are accustomed to. most families need to have it two earners to pay the bills. guest: we have also seen that more women are having children later into their careers, having children when it they are older. they already have labor force attachment and have been in the workplace. we have men and women having a certain amount of work experience. host: this tweet from helen, her thoughts on why there may be fewer qualified preschool teachers. you are nodding your head. guest: young people have college

loan problems if they had to take out loans to get through college. early education salaries are below what kindergarten and primary school teachers make. people with high credentials, bachelors are officers -- it is hard for people with high credentials, bachelors or assess his degrees, to pay back loans. host: poverty status. guest: people have been calling in about the cost of care and how it affects families. we see that the dark line is families above the poverty line , the light line is families below the poverty line. we see that for families with preschoolers, families below the poverty line, 35% are in grandparent care. if we look at organized terror,

we see the opposite. for children of families and households above poverty, 35%, or organized thcaer. -- care. this highlights the ability-to- pay issue. host: new york city, you are on. welcome to the conversation. caller: i am calling because i was listening to the lady who said she was making too much money and she does not understand how welfare workers send kids to day care and stay home all day. i am a woman, i am married, i have a husband, he is a vet, and kidm having another right now. i am not welfare. they don't let you stay home. they make you work.

host: can we jump ahead, because you have something about the costs. i will take a call. next telephone call is from omaha. melinda, would you turn down the volume on your tv and then go ahead with your question? melinda, you there? all right, we are going to move on, sorry, to joseph, a working grandparent. caller: i am listening to this, and all of these people have all of these charts and graphs and they know the problems that working parents are going through. i and helping my daughter and her new husband -- i have in helping my daughter and her new husband. she has a 10-year-old special needs child and a 3-year-old.

now she is experiencing problems with her health. the insurance on her job is very expensive. she is trapped. she has been trying to get help from a welfare, but they are no help. they say that two parents, she is making too much money, and and they have average salaries -- she is having a very hard time. she needs a specialist for her condition. she is trying to hold onto her job, take care for kids, and just survive. host: what would you like to say to the people who make policy about these things, either at the federal level with the state level? caller: they say they care about children, but you know what? they don't. republicans say there is no class warfare, but there is class warfare going on. my daughter is trying to survive.

she cannot get help for herself. they just dropped her special needs child of up social security disability. she is fighting to get that back. she is trying to hold onto her job. and she is having trouble with her marriage because of all the stress. host: thank you so much. sounds like lots of challenges in that family. you also hear states saying we have less money and we have to make decisions about this. where is the nexus between the available dollars and the family situation, using that money most effectively? guest: there are no easy answers to difficult questions, and that remains true. the problem is that families, like the caller just described, need economic security, which is lacking. they don't have access to affordable health care, they don't have jobs that pay enough for one parent to leave the

workforce and take care of the kids. there are a lot of things to support, like child care, food stamps. host: looking at how much of families spend on child care is our next set of statistics. guest: the child care costs consistently go up. on average, at the average amount paid by families for children under the age of 15, the average amount is $138 per week, over $7,000 a year. host: that number as an average, a small town america, cheaper than it is in new york city. guest: and more expensive for younger children than for older children. this illustrates the difference in cost for younger children of versus older children. if you are under the age of 5,

the average amount paid per week is $171, almost $9,000 a year. for families with children ages 5 to 14, $121 on average per week, just over $6,000 a year. host: 8 takes the form of after- school care? guest: it could be after-school care, other school programs. host: this is important. guest: we talked a lot about the average prices paid for child care. it is important to see what percentage of income is spent on child care. we know that for families in poverty and versus families not in poverty, there is little difference in the average amount they are spending. when you look at the total percentage of their income spent on child care, there is a huge

difference between families below poverty and above property. for families in poverty, 40% of their monthly income is being spent on child care expenses. host: this is repetitive, but just so people understand, if you are receiving what we commonly call welfare, must you be looking for work or actively working? guest: yes. exact requirements vary from state to state. some require you to be in job training or college, which, in my opinion, is excellent, because it allows them to get better jobs later to support their family. host: sugar heights, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is i am a family child a supervisor, and i have to say, i am so pleased to see these people on tv talking about child care. in the state of ohio, we had

something called universal preschool. it is a pilot program. a lot of our working parents are eligible for a 32% a scholarship. that does help the working parents. but is so expensive to care for children -- the food, expenses. it is quite expensive to do quality care, and i am an accredited provider. i want to tell the parents that are this thing that parents in ohio, and they have to work, and i have parents who are working and going to school working on degrees. i just wanted to make that comment. also, to -- host: i am going to jump in because we're running out of time. what is the last thought you want people to be thinking about in terms of our discussion this morning? guest: i would like people to be aware of the important role child care supports play for working families. a lack of economic security -- child care can be a part of

that. host: point of view of the statistician. guest: when we look at contemporary ifamilies, we look at working families. it is important to collect data on what types of arrangements families are using for work hours and non-work hours. host: thanks to both of you for being here p. best wishes to you for the holidays. those of you celebrating christmas this weekend, all of us at c-span would like to wish you a very unhappy holiday. we will be here all through of the week and we hope you can spend a little bit of your time with us. we take you to the house of representatives. it is a pro forma session, but what is expected is the unanimous consent for this tax cut holiday extension to

proceed for two months. everybody will watch to see if that is agreed to or if someone objects, and if they object, that would force a house vote. the speaker said he would consider calling the house back into session next week for that vote if it does not pass today. we will watch that along with you. thanks for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, ref represented patrick raffel, st. peter's catholic church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. oh, god, who arranges all things according to a wonderful design, graciously receive the prayers we pour out to you for our country. that through the wisdom of its leaders and the integrity of its citizens, harmony and justice may be assured. as we pause in these coming days of celebration and rest to be with our families and friends, prepare our hearts to welcome a new year that is filled with your guidance and grace.

heavenly father, in this joyful season, be most especially with our military and all who serve our country, especially those separated from family and friends. and may they and their loved ones know the gratitude and eseem we have for them and for their service. we ask this all in your most holy name. amen. the speaker: 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 today by the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. emerson. miss emson: will all those in the gallery please join in. 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: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i ask unanimous consent that the committees of referral be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3765 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3765, a bill to extend the payroll tax holiday, unemployment compensation, medicare physician payment, provide for the consideration of the keystone x.l. pipeline, and for other purposes. the speaker: is there objection to the bill? >> mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: reserving the right to object, and i will not object. the speaker: the gentleman's recognized. mr. hoyer: i know that the american people are pleased that we have come together to agree on this extension to give certainty and peace of mind to the 160 million americans who are concerned about losing their tax cut, the 48 million

seniors who were concerned about their medicare, and the 2.3 million people who are unemployed and seeking work who were fearful of losing their benefits. i thank the speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from missouri. i withdraw my objection. the speaker: without objection, the bill is engrossed, read for a third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chairman lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to section 1238-b-3 of the floyd d. spence national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2001, 22 u.s.c. 7002, amended by the division p of the consolidated appropriations resolution 2003, 22 u.s.c. 6901, i am pleased to

reappoint the following individuals to the united states-china economic and security review commission. miss carolyn bartholomew of washington, d.c. mr. jeffrey l. fielder of great falls, virginia. thank you for your attention to these appointments. signed, sincerely, nancy pelosi, house democratic leader. the speaker: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bills were signed by the speaker on wednesday, december 21, 2011. the clerk: h.r. 515, to re-authorize the belarus democracy act of 2004. h.r. 1059, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the judicial conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes. h.r. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the

department of energy to proscribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. h.r. 1801, to amend title 49 united states code to provide for expedited security screenings for members of the armed forces. h.r. 2055, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. h.r. 2056, to instruct the inspector general of the federal deposit insurance corporation to study the impact of insured depository institution failures, and for other purposes. the speaker: the chair appoints the following additional conferees on h.r. 3630, the

clerk will read. the clerk: the honorable sander levin of michigan. the honor halfaire becerra chris van hollen of maryland. the honorable allyson schwartz of pennsylvania, the honorable henry waxman of california. poik pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, december 27, >> as part of the tax cut

agreement, senate majority leader harry reid named conferees to hachette a year- long extension and he talked about that and was long with -- was wrong with the legislation in a briefing with reporters a short time ago. >> i am certain that most of you would rather be anyplace than here. i am glad you're here today. i will be relatively brief. the conferees i am going to appoint will be max baucus chairman of the finance committee, ben cardin, a member of the finance committee, no one in the senate has been more protective of federal employees then senator carden and when we

were doing the negotiations, one of the places that people were looking to do some real difficult things for federal employees, ben will be fair but not punitive. nevada has had an unemployment very high for a long time. a state that has been hit really hard by unemployment has also been rhode island. no one in the senate has been more protective of the unemployed than jack grade. the fourth will be bob casey. he is chairman of the joint economic committee and this is his bill. , the payroll tax holiday extension is bob casey's legislation. i have talked to each of them and they will work expeditiously to come up with a long-term arrangement on the payroll tax,

unemployment of course, and the doc fix. i have great confidence in them and i also want to say that most everything we do around here is based on trust. that is how we get things done. i want everyone to understand how much i appreciate mitch mcconnell sticking by the arrangement, the agreement we made. i have told that personally and i say that to all of you. when we come back next month, we will have important things to do. i have already talked about the payroll tax package. have to do that and we can pay for it in many different ways. we have to be somewhat invented. during the past few days i have had many calls from my congressmember's about ideas they have that would protect the people that need the extra few bucks each month but also save money in the long run unemployment, we have to figure out a way to extend that period

this is the first time that we have paid for unemployment tax extension which i do not favor but a significant number of my own caucus did so that is something we had to do and we'll continue to fight for the long- term unemployed. i would hope that we can do something final to get rid of this sgr, this doc fix so doctors to take care of senior citizens did not have to worry every few months that they are going to get paid the following month. those are some of the things we certainly have to do. a couple of other things that are paramount in my mind --the fa reauthorization -- we have to get this done. we have a short-term extension. this involves the employment of a couple of hundred thousand new people. we have made many offers in the

house and we have to get this done and forget about all the extraneous stuff and deal with faa. the same applies to the very good bill that was reported out of the environment and public works committee. it is very conservative, quite progressive and they have come up with an arrangement to extend this for two years. i would hope that my colleagues did not play any games with this bill. it is important. the short-term extension save the jobs of more than 1 million people doing our highway extraction and the two-year extension will save even more jobs. those are more things we have to do. i hope this congress has had a very good learning experience especially those who are newer to this body. everything we do around here does not have to wind up in a

fight. that is not the way things need to be. people wonder why the approval rating of congress is so low. i don't wonder. it seems everything we have done this last year has been a knock down drag out fight. there is no reason to do that. if there were a message received from this last thing we have been through, i would hope that new members of the house especially would understand that legislation is the art of compromise. it is consensus building, not trying to push your way through and issues that you don't have the support of the american people. i repeat what i said earlier -- this institution relies on trust and goodwill to get work done. the american people need this institution to work effectively. we have the enormous challenges facing our great country. i indicated earlier but it is certainly true, we have a new

year coming very quickly. the working families we have helped for a couple of months is not enough. they have sent this to washington to find ways to make their life a little bit easier and give them the tools they need to try to get ahead. they did not send us here to wage a partisan battles or settle ideological scores. i say to my colleagues, it is new year's -- let's put those gains aside and make it our top priority. our top party is not for political advantage but to get things done. if we are able to get things done, there is lots of credit to go around to everybody. conversely, if we don't get things done, there is criticism that spills off on everyone. let's show the american people that despite our differences we can tackle the big challenges that stand before us. the stakes are too high to do

anything else. do you have any questions? yes? >> looking forward to 2012, there are 21 democratic seats in the senate up for election. how is this tax cut extension communicated to the voters in those seats up for election? >> that has been pretty well done by you all for the last 21 days. >> how does this set you up for what will be a battle in february when you talk about extending this payroll tax or a full year? how does it set you up for the negotiations over the top bush cuts next year? >> the first thing we will do instead of worrying about the bush tax cuts being extended, i have gone over some of the things that are on my mind. one thing we want to do is get our appropriations bill done -- >> we are going live to statuary

hall from remarks from republican leaders on the tax agreement reached this morning. >> -- democratic leaders on the tax agreement reached this morning. >> the tax situation has been reviled and we're pleased this agreement. i talked to leader nancy pelosi and has avoided conferees. senator harry reid is doing the same. lookingoing -- we're for to extending the tax cuts and making sure the unemployed are not put at risk by falling off the rolls and we are very pleased that 48 million seniors will have the confidence that their medicare will continue to compensate their doctors so there you will be available for them. this is a good day for the american people. the american people's voice was heard. their concerns were heard and we have responded.

i also want to congratulate president obama who showed great leadership in this effort and articulated to the american people what was at issue here in the congress of the united states. i am pleased that we have come together to make this agreement. this is a good christmas present, a good kwanzaa present, a good hanukkah present for america and we will go forward for -- from his point of understanding our work is not yet done and we intend to do it in a constructive, bipartisan fashion i will now yield to mr. javier becerra, the vice chairman of our caucus. >> thank you, mr. whip. i know i speak for each and every member of the democratic caucus when i say that this will

be a much better christmas, much better holiday season, for all americans but certainly 160 million working americans, 48 million seniors, and 2.5 million americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. i know that most people were concentrating on other things and what the congress was doing but in this case, we can't tell those folks that they can continue to focus on buying those last-minute presence because we did our work and now we can move forward. a big cheer to a guy named barack obama, the president of the united states, because he started this campaign a long time ago to really press on the urgency and need and help middle-class working americans. it took months to try to make clear how important this issue was. we're moving forward and we want to say to each american who

helped with their stories, with their commitment to help push this across the finish line, thank you very much for letting us and 2011 on a good note. with that, let me yield to the ranking member of the ways and means committee, senator levin. >> thank you. this is really a victory for the american people. i really want to thank all of the people who spoke up. we received over 400 stories from the unemployed telling us how hard they work, looking for work, how difficult it was,. what,. now we can go and deal with the larger issues that relate to a full one-year extension. i also want to say to the president, you spoke very clearly. you said enough was enough and what we did today was to come here and say enough was enough.

we are now ready to move on. now to the very distinguished ranking member of the budget committee, chris van hollen. >> thank you, sandy. i want to thank the american people are calling on congress to do the right thing. it is time to get to work to make sure that we extend the payroll tax cut for the full year that the president called for. i wish the country a very happy holiday, merry christmas, happy new year but time for congress to get right back to work. with that, i want to introduce the dean of the congressional delegation who is here with us, john de gaulle. >> -- congratulations to you. merry christmas to the american people. this is a small when but it is a big one. as i look behind me, i see the

statue of will rogers. what has happened today in the last few days would be something that would give him some wonderful opportunities for some rather funny but acerbic comments about the congress of the united states. this is something which i am hoping is a sign of good things to come. i hope we can expect that my republican colleagues will learn to work together in a bipartisan fashion in the best tradition of the house of representatives. i am hoping that they will also learn to follow their leader, mr. boehner, who established the beginnings of some good working relationships and i am hopeful this will lead to the congress now proceeding to deal with the nation's business in a proper way in which we have the necessary and proper respect and

cooperation and bipartisanship. congratulations to all, merry christmas to all, and at this time, a very good night. >> thank you very much. we're also joined by steve cohen. did you want to say a few words? >> i appreciate the opportunity with all this leadership, i feel like tiny tim. it is a special time. i did not stay here for this purpose. i stayed here to watch the university of memphis played georgetown last night by sore a more experienced team beat a younger team. hopefully my team will improve and hopefully the tea party will learn from that so we will not be in march madness, a comeback. they will learn from their mistakes and get better. that was a game and this is real life and this was a great day for america. >> thank you very much and i want to say in closing that we had much work to do. there is no more important job which faces the congress of the united states and growing our

economy and creating the jobs that people meet which frankly bras to this -- brought us to this point. we'll come back from our break in january focused on doing that and we hope that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way so that the economy will have the certainty and the success that we want it to have. are there any questions? >> mr. dingell? what are you looking for two or the next two months? will you address the millionaire surtax? and also the pipeline? >> now was not the time to get into the specifics of the negotiations. as chris van hollen was very clear about yesterday when he

said there are differences between the two parties which is why this extension was necessary we will obviously have to deal with those details. the conference committee will be convened i believe after the holidays and will be working on those issues. >> their republican colleagues are talking about reforms to unemployment insurance and things like urine tests and shortening the duration of unemployment benefits. >> again, there'll be time to get to the specifics. those specifics and the others that mr. van hollen mentioned yesterday are differences between the two parties and i will have to be addressed. this agreement we have reached today gives us the opportunity to do that which was the intention of the senate and why we were so supportive of adopting the senate bill and why i am pleased we did that. >> can i briefly comment? you mentioned many of these issues are within the ways and

means committee. we will sit down at a conference table to try to work out differences. those differences have been expressed before they are some bigger ones that need to be worked out. >> the three of you were appointed as conferees. when will you be starting negotiations? >> right away. >> senator harry reid and leader nancy pelosi have indicated they are prepared to move forward immediately following the holidays which means the first week in january. >> you have been here an awful long time, >> i don't like the way you say that. [laughter] >> i have been here a productive period of time. [laughter] i hope dingell said that

the tea party and the members will follow john boehner. rarely have we heard such a firestorm like this. your said it was critical of what was going on and factions within the republican party. what is your observation on what that means for what is ahead in the new year for the republicans? >> i will end with this -- as we have had a good day -- 160 million people are confident they will get their tax cut, the first paycheck in january. 48 million seniors are confident they will be able to see their doctors and 2.2 million americans are pleased they will not lose their unemployment insurance. there will be time to talk about the other matters as we go forward i think the american people's voice was heard very loudly. they want us to work together in

a productive, positive, constructive way. i am hopeful that we will do that. thank you very much. have a great holiday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house democratic leaders reflecting this morning on reaching agreement on the tax cut extension and looking forward to the new year. the measure was passed by voice vote this morning and the house chamber was pretty much empty on this friday before christmas. it will be back the first week of january. we're going to get your phone calls on the tax-cut agreement in a moment the numbers are on your screen. we welcome those listening on cspan radio. before we get your calls, joining this is goldfarb from

roll call. the house has agreed to accept the tax cut extensions. can you track of this has developed over the week? guest: at the beginning of the week, house republicans were pretty confident or energized saying that we are here to work and the senate has left for vacation. they thought they had some political argument there. as the days progressed, more senate republicans were urging them to just pass the bill. they were the only ones in the capital. "the wall street journal" editorial board fired a salvo to them and they realize they would have to get in and pass the senate bill. >> what led to the republicans about-face? hostguest: they had no other choice because taxes would

effectively go up on january 1. christmas was coming and that sort of forces action because many people just want to go off for the holidays and they don't want to be blamed for potential tax increase or people losing unemployment benefits are for the holidays. >> the house agreed by unanimous consent to the bill with some two weeks. what are the tweaks? >> it is one very small tweaked which is that house republicans were concerned about the affect of the law on businesses that do their own payroll. some businesses said it would professionals would complain that during a two-month tax cut would be hard for their computer system. this week makes it so that they can basically assume that this will be a year-long extension which most people think will happen. >> -- agreement on this has been difficult for both parties.

how does this reflect on speaker john bender and senate majority leader harry reid? guest: speaker john boehner has been under particular scrutiny the last few days. the criticism is that he is not able to control house republicans. he himself perhaps that was the best thing to pass the senate bill but his rank-and-file in his caucus revolted and he understood that he had to go along with their wishes. there has been a lot of criticism all year about his ability to control his caucus. on the other hand, he has said he wants to run an open congress and have people express their views. >> harry reid appointed conferees. how soon should we expect an agreement to be reached on the one-year extension? how about the other items in the bill? guest: harry reid said this

morning that he wants people to start talking informally on this conference committee next week. a real push may be to get this done relatively quickly. on the other hand, finding a way to pay for it, the one fourth year extension -- the one-year extension at doc fix adds up to about $200 billion and will prove difficult to reach an agreement on. although they will start early, it may take more than a week or so to actually reach an agreement. it is not just the payroll tax cut. unemployment benefits and best preventing payment cuts to doctors is involved. >> sam goldfarb, thanks for joining us. enjoy the holidays.

to your phone calls now on the tax-cut agreement and what it took to reach agreement. the numbers are on your screen. the first call is on the independent line from west virginia. host: go ahead. caller: i don't think we should have had a tax cut. it is not even a tax. it is a reduction for social security. if they take out of the sources security fund, it will never be put back in it will never be paid for. everybody i talk to iran said it will cost thousands and thousands of dollars for the companies to redo their equipment. when they change it again, in a month or two, it will cost thousands and thousands more for them to change it back. i don't know what they are

accomplishing. they will probably lay people off just to implement this thing. everybody i talked to says it is probably the dumbest thing they ever heard to have a two-month extension. host: thank you for your call. on the republican line, from new york. caller: i had emailed fox news and other channels for the last weekend at half since we were presented with another government shut down, the third one. my thing is that obama should be impeached. why should we pay his campaign 2012. he has run up to $11 trillion since he has been in office. it is not the democrats, it is not the republicans, it is not congress. but it is barack obama who stole

from bush to pay his campaign 2009 and now he is dealing with us to pay his campaign 2012 while he goes to ireland to claim he is irish, to france to claim he is french and this christmas card in the white house with lady gaga -- am i hear? host: next, gary in kentucky on the democrats' line. caller: i am a little confused about what they passed. i am one of the longtime unemployed. was this agreement reached by hacking some of the weeks of unemployment? host: how did you come to that

understanding? caller: i saw it when senator harry reid was being interviewed. there was a reporter in the crowd that said something about 20 weeks being taken off the long-term unemployment. i was confused about that. i thought the extension was everything would be extended for two months. host: one of our other callers might know about that. oxford, ohio, independent line. caller: i have voted independent almost all my life until clinton could not be reelected. we need to get all these old goats out of office. we need congress and the senate and house to remove anybody from more than three or four terms because they are set in their ways and they are only making money off the backs of the working people. i believe this tax cut thing is

nothing but a sham and i think harry reid and john boehner should be out of there. thank you. host: john is in play bird, new york, democrats lied. caller: why isn't anyone talking about it being a social security tax that will be reduced. you cannot get a straight answer out of a politician about it being deducted from a man's wages that when he goes to retire, he will have those years as reduced to years in his social security. a working man that works with his hands and back only has about 40-50,000 hours of work in his working life. if you reduce them, he will not see it for 10, 15, 20 years and

then they will spring this on him. he will not even know why. his social security will be reduced because the money is not being paid in. this is a dumb way to give a tax break. you're talking about an extra $1,000 if a man makes over $50,000. most of us don't make that. we are lucky to clear $30,000 per year. i put in 40 years and i have only got like 39,000 hours in bed and i were construction. i am disabled because it wore me out. my block a shot and i have a four back operations. i cannot redo them years. i am stuck with what i had and now you will reduce it? host: andrew is in carolina on the republican line. caller: hello, and i on? i watch all the time.

i happened to turn you on when you were interviewing mr. goldfarb. he is a reporter, right? host: yes, he is. ofler: you'll do a great job showing all the sides and everything. mr. goldfarb, when u.s. and the question about how all this unfold this past monday or whenever, it just danced around the issue he did not want to answer that question within a depth. he really did not answer the question. that is what we have a problem with is the media. they tell their story whether it is a lie or not. they don't want to tell you that

real story. the senate sent back a bill that was changed as to how they pay for it and the house republicans did not like it. they have an equal branch of government to reject it. the republicans were right to ask for conferees. that is the general order of the way it has always been done for 200 years. this harry reid had skirted around this and don't tell me that christmas and the holidays is a reason for not coming back. in 2009, they would not let any -- when they had a supermajority of the democratic party, they would not call a recess and come back because they were for the health care would not pass and they stayed there night after night and finally passed this

monstrosity health care bill on christmas eve if anybody remembers. host: thank you for calling in. president obama has said that as soon as the payroll tax cut extension deal is signed or is passed, it would be brought to his desk and he would sign it right away. also the president has to deal with the $1 trillion on the bus spending bill. parts of the government could be shut down if he does not take care of that today. we're taking your phone calls on the payroll tax cut extension accordi. we will go to california next on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, i am calling from california. good morning to you. i'm a 74-year-old black woman. i work with high-risk individuals, high risk kids. i'm kind of nervous today because i have seen a lot of

people in the last week who are worried if they were going to get their unemployment check or if they would eat for christmas. kids 13 and 14 years old don't know whether they would eat or have a place to stay. we are living in the 21st century and i can remember as a kid coming up in nashville, tenn. the pain and suffering and had to go through. i would not direct that pain to everyone because i love everybody. i'm a black, 74-year-old woman who loves everybody. whether they are black, blue, purple, gray or what ever and we need to stop what we are doing just because president obama is in the office. that man has helped and helped and the caller before the last one said something in regards that someone stole bush's money. that is not true. life is very short in need to get together.

i am thankful to get to the people all races to help them move forward, to keep them focused and stop them from doing whatever they are doing so they could have a productive life. we need to stop this. we need to pray. we need to get down our knees and pray and that is all i have to say. i am happy to be 74-years old and the people who are playing games out there like the tea party, they need to go somewhere and get on their knees and ask god to help. have a happy holiday season. thank you very much. host: stephen indianapolis on the independent line. caller: i want to remind everybody merry christmas. we are a republic. people need to look up the word republic. we're also democratic state. we are a democracy. when you talk about the tea party and the different things, you need to look at people who will follow our constitution.

that is the bottom line. the constitution is there to deliver the power of the government. the government is out of control and people cannot see that. we're just not paying attention. merry christmas. host: conferees have been named to negotiate a tax cut extensions. harry reid named democratic conferees to the panel including senator cardin and bob casey. on the house side sader levin, -- sander levin and others were named to negotiate over the tax cut negotiations. syracuse, n.y., on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i see all the negotiations over the payroll tax as they met when

four republicans and hopefully a net when for the country. we need the keystone pipeline. that will provide a lot of valuable jobs to people who are unemployed in this country. because of president obama's moratorium on offshore drilling, the gulf states lost many jobs which they needed. hopefully this way most of the unemployed will get jobs and they will pay taxes and increase the tax base. thank you for taking my call and have a merry christmas. host: flint, mich., independent line. caller: i noticed what they're talking about seemed like progressive policy is and i noticed the guy who was talking to harry reid little while ago talking about the radical tea party. people that are talking about constitutionality and going back

to founding principles, how can that be radical? the progressive policies by progressive democrats and progressive republicans, what is the actual true definition of progressive ta? it is a politically correct word to deceive the people on communist-marxism, socialism. many people say progressive policies are this or that. we should be going back to our constitutional policies. i want to hear what is the true definition, wha they see or perceive progress ofism really is. is a politically correct way to deceive the people by using that word. it involves socialism, marxism,

and communism. merry christmas to all and happy new year. host: our last call and thank- you for all who have called in today. i want to recognize and thank sam goldfarb with the congressional quarterly roll call group. we received a tweet from the white house. he says the countdown clock in the briefing room will be off shortly. if you missed any of the events surrounding the payroll tax cut extension, you can see them on line at c-span.org. you'll also find previous briefings, floor speeches, and the latest documents there available any time at c- span.org. with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, the "the contenders" looks back

of 14 men who ran for president but lost but had a long term affect on the politics of the united states. "the contenders, every night at 10:00 eastern on c-span. this holiday weekend, is three days of book-tv. here are the prime-time programs.

though full book-tv schedule is online @ book-tv.org. >> michelle bachmann is here i understand. she is thinking about running for president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, michelle, this is how it starts. [laughter] >> it is so amazing to be in washington, d.c. with all this history and is amazing buildings and yet here we are at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside was amazing. what are you wearing? what does it matter i am going into a delton. >> with more than 9 million views of president obama and seth myers, cspan video from the white as correspondents dinner. you can watch them at

youtube/cspsan. >> mitt romeny is on a three day bus tour. he started in bethlehem, new hampshire. this is just under one hour.

>> could to see you. how're you this morning? good to see you, thank you. good to see you. good to me you this morning. how're you, sir? >> i followed do so we are both late. >> we are not that light. do you know the senator?

is the red color tradition? >> it is christmas. >> me see this christmas died. -- this christmas tie. >> most important thing to me as protection of life. >> wonderful. how're you this morning? good to meet you. thanks for stopping by this morning. when will the snow,? >> i don't know. there's nothing on my roof, no santa claus. >> if we get ice, he will slip slide on the road. roof. let me say hi to some young people nice to meet you. this is my wife, ann.

where did you go to college? >> st. joseph's in maine. >> good to meet you. you are helping pay for this? what are you studying? >> accounting. >> there is a good reason for good accountants. you'll get a job coming out. how about you? >> adult education. >> that is tougher. can you go into other parts of teaching? >> yes. >> sounds good, good luck to you both. are you at the same school? same age? >> i majored year. >> i amazing year. >> good luck. good to see you guys.

this is my wife. good morning. how're you this morning? >> i'm fine, thanks. >> [inaudible] good to meet you both. how are you? what is your name? >> bill downey. last time i heard you speak was in cambridge, massachusetts. i was standing with my back to the room. it was a long time ago >> that was probably 1994. what brought you to know hampshire? >> we retired.

>> why here? >> we built a cabin of beer almost 50 years ago. -- we built a cabin appear almost 50 years ago. . up here almost 50 years ago. we used to live in massachusetts and we voted for you there. we moved up here and voted for you last time if you are good, we will vote for you here. >> thank you. what type of business? >> we are in arts and crafts and antiques. we charge a little bit of rent. 10% commission.

all the prices are staying low so people can buy more. >> interesting. iran space within your facility? >> -- you rent space within your facility? >> we spent over $100,000 in renovation of our space. >> that is interesting. where is it? >> it is right across the river. we looked for the best space we could find out where we ended up. >> risk-taking, entrepreneurship, it is all good. good to see you. you know this young lady.

she has been around. when is the snow coming? >> maybe an inch or two for christmas. >> our you this morning? i hope the coffee is a keg. okay. it looks like there are donuts and muffins. good morning. will we get some snow out there? >> santa will get here somewhere. >> you two are together. >> we are running around. >> don't get out. how are you? >> terrific. >> are you two together? how many years?

>> about 12 years. >> will you stick with them? >> yes. >> it is too late to move now. >> i will do my best. thank you. how're you this morning? >> i have not seen you since the littleton diner. >> how're you? >> me my son. >> how are you? >> i am in pensacola, they have a naval base down there. i am studying history back to what will you do with that? i will probably teach high- school. i would like to get it to grad school eventually. >> i was just with a group of

high-school students in math in new york or they have a group called a master's teachers program. they have a foundation that pays each of them an extra $15,000 per year because they want to track the brightest. profession itng is a private. foundation. good to see you. >>are the launderettes piling u? -- are the loans piling up? >> not really. >> good morning, everyone. i have a very important announcement to make. governor romney, this is an important announcement for un mrs. romney in council district

number 1 with all the authority i have, i have declared it mitt and ann romney day in district number 1. [applause] there are more dignitaries walking around here. there are those of us to serve this northern district, i could not start to introduce everybody. i will introduce united states senator kelly ayotte. good morning senators. [applause] >> good morning. thank you. >> it is always a tough act to follow, but it is wonderful to be here this morning with all of you. i am really honored to be here to support mitt and ann romney. i want to tell you why i am here and why i feel strongly about this. this is such an important

election for our country in 2012. i do not think i need to tell anyone in this room that we are at a juncture in the history of our country. we can go down two paths. we can go down a path that we see happening in europe with a debt and economic stagnation and bankruptcy. or we can go down a path that this country is founded on. that is opportunity and prosperity and freedom and fiscal responsibility. mitt romney is somebody that has the experience in the private sector, and turning it around the olympics, as a governor, he knows we need to create an environment that the private sector can create jobs and opportunities for all the

young people i see in this room. i am a mother of a four year old and a seven-year old. he is somebody that knows how to balance the budget. i have spent one year of being in washington i am on the senate budget committee. it has been 950 days in the senate since we passed a budget. there is no presidential leadership to lead us forward. to come forward with a responsible budget and fiscal blueprint for this country. mitt romney knows how to do that. he has done it and he will do it for our country and lead us forward. finally and so important to me is that we have a president that is going to unite as and not divide us. -- unite us. that is what mitt romney will do with the leadership skills that he has. when you think about the private

sector experience, working with members of both parties to get things done for this country, mitt romney is the one in this field who have those skills. most importantly, he is the one in my view that can beat this president and make sure that we turn our country around and lead us forward. one of the privileges over the last day of riding around on a bus with them, but a wonderful family and the people. you think about the character and integrity that this family has. we would be proud to call mitt romney our next president and ann romney our first lady. i am honored to be here to support him. i will work as hard as i can. i have all of you to support him and talk to your friends and family because we need a lot of help. -- i ask all of you.

it would not be an easy election as we go forward to the election and take on the general election. when you think about what the stakes are for our children and our grandchildren and all of us in this room, nothing could matter more. i appreciate with being with all of you today. it is my honor to introduce former gov. sununu, former head of the republican party. just a wonderful public servant in our state. [applause] >> thank you, senator. i have to admit something. i am sitting up there and i am straining in my head trying to remember who was counselor and his district before re burton and i cannot remember. -- ray burton. you have to understand that is a thompson that came up with the answer. [laughter] i know enough to come into this district as a governor who had

to deal with the council in the past. i have to start off the process by giving homage to the counselor. raymond, it is good to see you. it is great to see you and it is great to see you have made an extremely wise decision in choosing to support governor romney for president. i thank you personally for that. the senator said a very important election. i should be home doing nothing now, but i cannot. i am scared to death what is happening to this country. i am scared to death as a party, we may not understand how important it is to nominate somebody that can not only run a good race but to win. -- but win. winning in this race is

absolutely important. i am thrilled to see you here. as i have been doing lately, i will give you a homer kicks project assignment. -- a homework assignment. you really have to go home and talk to some people about coming out on january 10 and make sure the cast a vote for mitt romney. the country needs this. we need to make a change. we cannot make a mistake of voting wrong in our own a primary and nominating candidates. we need somebody who can take this country -- we cannot make the mistake in our own primary of nominating the wrong the candidates. you do not make things work with smart quips. you make things work by knowing how to make decisions. there is about 19 days left. see if you cannot go out and

make a couple of commitments from people that might not have gone and voted on the 10th and asking them to do what they need to do to save this country and in this process. thank you for being here. am i doing an introduction? am i going to hand the microphone --oh. as you notice. john, come up here. john and i share the same fashion consultant. >> we are about the same size. >> i can tell you, there is nobody that fights for the north country stronger and harder and more effectively than john mcallister. -- john gallis. senator dallas, why do you not tell us why you have done this morning and committing himself

to supporting mitt romney. >> thank you very much, governor. [applause] nice to be here with you today. it is always a pleasure to be here with counselor burton. i did not think i could attract such a crowd either. [laughter] i have about five pages of remarks prepared. it will probably go on until noon time. actually, i have been considering for some time to public support for president of the united states. after months of the evaluation of all of the candidates we have running for president this year, i have narrowed down my choice. my endorsement goes to governor mitt romney. governor romney offers what the country needs in these trying times. my constituents are most concerned about the condition of the economy and jobs.

the north country of new hampshire has been devastated by the current economy. the lack of leadership in washington. governor romney's back out from the business world as well as his tenure as a physically -- his background -- conservative governor is what we need to get this great country back on track. my decision is also weighed on the person who is best suited to beat barack obama and with the general election. that person in my estimation undoubtedly is governor mitt romney. it is my pleasure, a young guy from new hampshire, to be here today to introduce you to the next president of the united states, mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you, senator. i appreciate that endorsement.

it has been a long time coming and it is coming at just the right time. counselor burton, he told me when the time comes he will take me to the north country. we have done this twice already. we will keep on the trial today and we appreciate your help through the process. -- on the trail today. isn't that something to have the famous governor sununu on my team. he makes things happen -- he makes things happen. i appreciate each of their support. i will speak clearly this morning. this young man is 93. he said he did not bring his hearing aid. he needs to be close to the speaker. i will speak clearly. my problem is i also speak quickly. i speak fast. people think i speak too fast. it will be worse this morning. when i got on the boss might --

bus -- find a wife was kind enough to ask if i needed cereal. would you like some toast and i put honey on it. would you like something to drink and i used chocolate milk. i am kind of high on sugar this morning. that may speed things up a bit. i fell in love with a young woman when i was in high school. that is kind of unusual. she was 15 at the time. when i looked across this room we were in at a friend's house and i saw her and give her a ride home and we have been going steady ever since. i want her to say hello this morning. my sweetheart of 42 years, ann romney. [applause] >> good morning. good morning. unbelievable. he looks great. i want to look that good at 93. i want to be around at 93. thank you for coming, this is early and it is christmas. it is great you are willing to come out and meet us and say hello.

we appreciate that. i'm here because -- i am on the bus. wherever the bus goes, i go. it is great to be here. the fact i have known mitt this long. we were high school sweethearts and we fell in love when we were young. i have seen him in all situations, and that has really given me the best plans for all of you to understand something you might not see in debates or anything else. that is the character of the man. i appreciate the fact that he has been a wonderful husband and father to my children. we have had great blessings of having 16 grandchildren. if you could skip having kids and just a grand kids, i would recommend it. i do not know if that is possible, but it is great.

i'm so grateful for mitt. some of the stories i would like to tell but i will not in detail is how he stood by me in my darkest hours when i was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and how i can depend on him. he will always be there for me. we have a real partnership and we are in this together. i was the one who actually gave him a lot of encouragement to think about running a second time. some of you might recognize it is a difficult thing we are going through right now. it is hard to run for the president of the united states. i knew one thing for sure, i never wanted to do it again. i felt that way pretty strongly after the last time. so strongly i had a recorded. -- i had it recorded. however, at this time seeing what is going on with the country, i was the first want to say that i was sorry about saying that. he reminded me that i said that after each pregnancy and he did not pay much attention to it. i think it is important that he run.

it is not that there aren't other good people out there. it is that i know the skills that he has is unusual. he has done things in private business and government and the olympics. if you combine all of those things and they have all been a turnaround situation. if there is an emergency or you need something fact, i know who to turn to. -- or need something fixed. i appreciate you being here. maybe you can ask mitt romney some tough questions. >> thank you, sweetheart. [applause] thank you. the senator said it well. we are at a juncture in america's history right now as to what kind of nation we will be. we have been going down a road of larger government, a more troubled economy, unclear to why it is in many people's minds that the recession has dragged on and on. we are now 25 million people in

this country that are out of work or just stopped looking for work or can only find part- time work. we have a number of college folks here today that will be coming out of college or ph.d. programs and hope to be able to find a job and wonder if they will be able to do so. that was not a question for 10 years ago. -- five or 10 years ago. you came out of college with a degree and you knew you would have a job. it is very different today. people wonder why that is. i happen to believe it is because over the past several years and during the period of his president, we have taken a course that has made america weaker economically. made it harder to create jobs and for enterprises to grow and thrive. we have a young entrepreneur a couple here. well, i say young -- to me you are young. they have opened a substantial business and taking a rest. -- taking a risk. there are fewer people willing

to do that today. we have insisted on the government that tries to guide the private sector like it is trying to guide our lives. i think you see a president who believes we should be more like you're up with an entitlement society. -- more like europe. a society where government takes from some and give to others interest to make everybody the same. the only people who do well and that kind of society are the people who work for government. that is welfare society and in today's society is something that is growing in this country and making us more like europe and less like america. i believe in something of mccollum opportunity society where people based upon their education and their hard work and their risk-taking are able to earn rewards and by virtue of doing so they implored the rest of us and let the entire nation's prosperity and allow us to defend ourselves. it was that vision that the founders brought to america

with the crafted the declaration of independence. they said the creator and out us with unalienable rights among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that last phrase we may not think about much but i think it is an important one. this would be a nation where we could pursue happiness and the way we choose. -- in the way we choose. where we live, what profession we see, what job we get, how many kids we have, the freedoms we have, our ability to speak our mind. these abilities to pursue happiness as we wish define our nation and brought people all over the world -- pioneers, innovators, to this country. it is in our dna. the spirit of pioneering this would have allowed our economy to outperform the economies of europe from which many of us sprung.

it has outperformed the most populous nations of asia. we are an opportunity nation. over the last several years, in particular under the leadership of president obama, government increasingly takes away our freedoms and the capacity of the beer can system and our -- of the american system -- enterprises to grow and thrive. this is a choice we are going to have to have. do we believe in a bigger government taking more from us and limiting what we achieved or do we believe in free enterprise and freedom and opportunity and a merit based society. do we vilify and demonize those who have been most successful or will we celebrate the success of all americans? these are the choices i think america will have to face. i spent my life in the private sector the first 25 years of my career. i know how the private sector

works. i want to use those lessons to help washington and to make sure we once again restore the greatness that is i had the -- the greatness that is american -- occasion to use those skills in state government. you remember i had the opportunity in four years. i found the same skills could be adjusted and applied in a way that allowed us to do a better job managing our state. we balance the budget every four years. states do that. businesses do that. we learn how to live within a budget. washington does not do that. i went to bring the skull to washington. -- skill. when you are in business you have to get along with your customers, your suppliers, the regulators, the bankers, the investors, you have to work with each of these groups to have different interests and make sure you have a combination of the different interests.

in washington we need somebody who will be able to get a long with people across the aisle. -- to get along. in my state of massachusetts there are a few democrats. my legislature was 85% democrat. and yet, i found a way to work with leaders among the democratic party and finding some common ground. neither side had to violate their principles. instead, we found some places where we could agree and work together to try to make things better for our state. that is desperately needed in washington. be called a leadership. -- we call that leadership. leadership is the capacity to bring others to a common solution. to have a vision and the capacity to understand others need to build trust and have them know you are a person of character. to be able to follow and find solutions to our challenges. i but like to help the senator. -- i would like to help the

senator. she is a terrific person and a great leader for the people of new hampshire. i want to go in washington and work with her to help america. i want to do a lot of things. balance our budget, make america the most attractive place again for entrepreneur is and innovators. that is part of the mission i will have in washington. with that introduction, i will turn to you have you ask some questions. i will turn to you. this is the entrepreneur. -- this is the north country. is that a northern european name? >> i will not try to spell it. >> loiacono. >> is that northern european? >> sicilian.

>> it takes a hand. you have to move your hand to see the word. >> my wife and i are involved in this election as we have been in most elections. we have watched all but one of the debates. i will offer a suggestion. it has nothing to do with the debates. none of us have gone through life having made a decision and always stuck through it the rest of our lives. some decisions absolutely. we have moved, changed spouses, we have changed businesses, college majors, what i am trying to say is that i do not want a president or a leader who is inflexible. i do not want somebody who has made a decision on something may be 10 years ago and despite any new information, he will stick to that decision. you have been painted by some

of your opposition both from the democrats and your fellow primary seekers as having flip- flop on some issues. i would not run away from that. i would say, yes, i have. new information has come and i have was an up or what ever. -- i have wisened up. i do not want somebody who is just going to be full speed ahead toward the torpedoes no matter what. things change. you look at history and one that we are friends with this country and the next day we are not. -- one day. that is just something from somebody who has observed and watched. i do not think it is such a terrible thing to change your opinion on something. i think it would be useful to

where it as a badge of courage. >> thank you. having had the experience of living in the private sector i have found that more than once i have been wrong. in the private sector if you do not recognize you are wrong and you keep sticking to a position you have before you have all the data you get in your experience, the call you stubborn. -- they call you stubborn. with time he would be likely to lose your job over the course of my lifetime, some of my views have changed. not as many as my opponents would suggest. one of those was on the issue of life and that was one where i thought i would have -- or i thought i had the answer when i was running for senate and then when i became governor. i was given a piece of legislation that would have created new life for the purpose of experimenting on it and then destroying it. this was an embryonic stem cell research.

i could not sign a bill that would take life. i recognized that was a very different course than i had expected. i wrote an editorial in the boston globe describing why i made that decision and why was pro-life. -- and why i waws pro-life. i have been convinced of that ever since. thank you. >> i would like to ask a question. i have three ladies that are in their 80's that i am friends with. they are still in their own homes. the price of heating and taxes is a struggle. they have outlived their husbands. their interest rates have gone down. they all talk about buying a home with the 3% and 4%, but what can be done when you go to washington hopefully to help those people who have counted four years for that extra income each month and especially now with the world, it is

hitting all three of them hard. -- with the oil. >> it is really tough right now. you are fighting throughout this country that it is harder and harder on middle income families. seniors and middle income families that are just getting started, you are finding people by the virtue of the unemployment level and the cost of oil and food and people have all gone up. it is having a harder time. the best thing i can do is get the economy going again. the growth of the economy as such so people are going back to work, paying taxes, buying more things which will ultimately mean interest rates are not held onto virtually zero. we recognize that by holding interest rates as low as they are some of the people who are helping to refinance the financial-services sector that has been in such trouble our seniors who are seeing lower interest rates coming in month

to month by virtue of low rates on cds and other investments. the best thing i can do is get the economy going. we can go back and look at the inflator is used for social security. i know there has been no adjustment in the last two or three years in part because the cpi has not shown any movement. people are really struggling. it breaks my heart to see so many folks in this country really having a hard time. part of that is because of an economy that is just in the doldrums and continues to be in the doldrums. it will continue to be liked germans have been in for a long time and japan has been for decades. we will be like this for a long time if we continue to act like europe. if we believe that the government can manage the economy better than free people pursuing their dreams. i want to get back to the point where america is once again the

best place in the world for entrepreneurs and for inventors and businesses small and large to have -- when the head of coca-cola, talk about an american brand. when coca-cola's chief executive says america is less attractive from a business standpoint than china, a better environment there, that means the dollars are going over there. investment is happening there rather than here. i want to bring them back years our people create jobs here and build businesses here. that lives of our economy and -- onomy -- will ecn help all of those who invest in our economy whether it is with bonds or stocks or whether it is with cds. if the economy is strong and vibrant, the returns to all of us is vibrant the economy in trouble means a lot of middle income families in trouble.

>> what you would do specifically for the environment that is better for entrepreneurs in the land of opportunity you talked about earlier. >> i will call the seven major things that create an investment family and business family, job family environment that allows jobs to start to grow. actually, the seven are a summary of 59 different points i put in a little book. we may have some here. i will not take you through all of those. i am not sure i could take you to all of us. -- all of those. 7 i can do. one is to make sure the tax rates are competitive with tax rates on employers and other countries. right now we are the highest in the world by a lottery be are tied with japan. -- by a lot. relative to europe, their tax rate is about 25% and hours is

35%. we need to get our tax rate down to be competitive with others. regulators and regulations have to recognize that their job is not just to catch the bad guys and keep at things from happening, but also to encourage the sector they are regulating to succeed. -- keep bad things from happening. rather than burdening the private economy they need to encourage it. you know in the north country with the regulators say in and say you cannot camp in national forests, you cannot use -- the land has been set aside for snowmobiling and so forth, the regulators think they are making things better but they hurt the economy. tourism and use of your national resources is something that is essential. regulators have to understand that is part of their job. nafta is keeping bad things from happeningit is encouraging the economy and the private sector.

not just keeping bad things from happening. you have to have trade policies that opened up new markets for our goods and allow us to sell products where right now they are not going because of high tariffs. number two, you have to make sure that the cheaters -- china has been a cheater too often -- the cheaters are held accountable. we have to take advantage of our energy resources. we have a lot of energy in this country. oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, renewable power sources. we have to take advantage of them instead of regulators trying to keep them from providing the resources we need. i was the head of a large chemical company, he said we just announced a $20 billion facility in saudi arabia. he said we would rather build in pennsylvania, but we could not count on the regulators to texas -- let us get access to the natural gas. so we had to go to saudi arabia.

we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs because of that decision. it is like the keystone pipeline decision. let's get our own energy in this country and that will help create jobs. you have to get the role of lot to get the environment right. -- the rule of law. what do i mean by that? we have something today called the crony capitalism or the president takes care of his friends. obamacare for instance. the unions are given waivers. they do not have to worry about that burden because they are his friends. boeing is told they cannot build a factory in south carolina employing people because south carolina is not a union state. and this is an example of people applauded their friends to position of power. indifference to positions of power with and give paybacks to

the people who helped them out. we have to go back to the rule of law. we have to have institutions that create human capital. capitalism is about human capital. it is about education, immigration policies that bring in the best and brightest of other places that help the rest of us. so human capital. if you want to businesses and small and large to make the risky decision of investing in america, they cannot be worried that we are going to hit a wall like greece or italy or spain. or ireland or iceland. they have to say american will be stable long-term and the currency will be worth something. we have to quit spending more than we taken. -- take in. we cannot keep going year after year barring an extra $1 trillion. i remember what president obama was highly critical of bush for deficits that were as high as $450 billion. and right he was to be critical.

his have reached three times that it down. -- that amount. by the end of his first four years and hopefully his only four years, he will have put together as much public debt as all the prior presidents combined. almost. it is really extraordinary. those are the seven things that i would do and act upon immediately to make america an attractive place for entrepreneurs big and small so they have a desire to hire more people. that way people coming out of programs across the country, whether they will go into teaching - where do you go with statistics? what kind of job? >> may be a professor at the university. >> may be government leadership and responsibility. i want to make sure people with those skills have good jobs and incomes. we have wages that rise in

america. over the last 10 years -- over the last four years, let me get the numbers right. the last four years the median income has dropped by 10%. this is a tough time. thank you. that is a long answer to a simple question. >> i want to know what your views are on bureaucracy in washington. a lot of the big departments, epa, health and human services, there regulations and telling everyone what to do. is there a way to cut that out and eliminated or cut it back? >> that is a darn good question. one of the challenges with too many regulators and bureaucrats is the create too many bureaucracies that become struggling for our lives and our economies. -- strangling. when i went into the state of massachusetts, i looked at our department of health and human

services. we have 15 different agencies within the department. i said, can we not combine them? we got them into three different groups and that allowed us to have fewer lawyers, if your public relations or press secretaries. -- fewer. we were able to take out some of the overhead. he had some agencies like transportation and the environmental agency, the were always at each other's throats and arguing with each other. i said to we put them together? i put one person in charge of the three to make them work together and become more effective. we look back over my record in massachusetts for four years, and we did something i do not think many states can claim. if you look at all the agencies that report to the governor, all the departments whether it is the state police or folks and health and human services, part number of employees went down during my tenure.

i look at washington and believe we should do three big things. one is to eliminate some programs. stop them altogether. it is not wise to keep borrowing money from china to pay for things we do not have to have. i will cut some programs out, even some i like. i will be calling on the american people to say we are willing to sacrifice the end of this program or that program because america cannot to going the way that it is. number two, i will take some programs like medicaid which is the health care program for the poor and send it back to the states. i think new hampshire can do a better job caring for the health care needs better than washington can. i would send said some things back to the states. that means those bureaucrats will also go. for the remaining portion of government, we will cut the payroll by 10% through attrition. we will link the pay of

government workers with the pay that exists in the private sector. [applause] yeah. i do not think people who are working as public servants should make a heck of a lot more than people who are paying their way. one more thing that i will mention in that regard, those who work in public sector unions, i do not think it is -- fair -- fear for their bosses to take dos out of their wages and it then for the boss to be able to decide which candidate or party to give it to a people want to contribute to candidates they should be free to do so. i do not think union bosses should be able to take hundreds of millions of dollars from union members and give it to who they want to give it to. that is what i will do to take on the bureaucracy in washington. you can be assured of this. if i become president of the united states, the people who work in government will be a smaller number than they are today. i am not discounting our troops.

president clinton talked about shrinking the military. i am not looking to shrink the military. i would actually like to add personnel to the military so the burden is not as great on them as it has been the past couple of years. he told me i have to run. we are moving on down the road. come join us, we will take some questions there as well. i want to say thank you for your willingness to spend some time. i look forward to seeing you out there on january 10. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i appreciate your comments.

>> stop fighting. >> you're right. give me your first name. >> brad. >> b-r-a-d. >> that is a good picture, brad. that looks good. oh, you are going to give me a shirt. look at that. "live free or die." ♪ >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> thank you. very kind. good to see you. >> three times i think i will

vote for you. >> that is a rule. to weigh so much -- thank you so much. you're kind. do you have a pen? you bet. >> thank you, sir. >> can i borrow that to sign this? that is for me. >> great, thank you. sure. >> thank you so much, governor.

>> thank you. good to see you. >> shall i saw that for yign th? i would be happy to. from berlin. oh, i see. i would be happy to sign that. >> they can bring that for show and tell. that is great. >> great, thank you. wow, look at that. what a crazy family. great, thank you. thank you. good to see you. take care of the son. >> can i get a picture?

>> you can do it. >> that work? >> capitol hill police. >> good to see you. >> i will be on board and helping out. >> thank you. good to see you. >> very kind. thank you. very, very kind. >> from where? .> born in travers' city i voted for your dad. >> that is military country. that is a beautiful place. >> that is where we have roots. >> good to see you.

great. thank you. >> good luck. >> thank you. good to see you again. ood luck. take care. ok, ray. are you?w is that your camera? who is taking the picture? now we got it. come on, you guys. >> there we go. >> thank you, guys. good to see you. >> i am in middle school. >> good luck to you.

>> thank you. >> thank you for the publicity. >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail. >> the vast majority as far as money is concerned are operated by the state government.

somehow the federal government thinks they have a role to play. >> phase those out. treat everyone the same. wind, solar, whenever it may be. the government does not need to be in the business of picking winners and losers. >> we with the term commander in chief meant. an explainer in chief or a campaigner in chief. >> read the latest comments. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> michele bachmann is here, i understand, and she's thinking about running for president. i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, this is how it starts.

[laughter] >> it is so amazing to be in washington, d.c., all these amazing buildings, and yet here we are at the hilton. the red carpet outside was amazing. who are you wearing? it doesn't matter. i'm going inside the hilton. >> coverage of the white house correspondents' dinner among the most viewed political videos. watch them on our youtube channel. >> we have more from the road to the white house later today with newt gingrich. he is hosting a town hall meeting today with voters in south carolina. it live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern here on c-span. the house and senate beginning

the holiday break after saddling the debate over the two months payroll tax extension. the house agree to the senate vote. the senate agree to some minor changes in the bill and named those who will be in the conference committee to negotiate the extension. there will instruct the president to announce a decision on the keystone pipeline within the next couple of months. president obama is set to make a statement in about 30 minutes and we're planning live coverage here on c-span. the senate session was sure to this morning. just a couple of minutes is as long as it took. harry reid held a briefing talking about the meeting.

>> i am certain that most of you would rather be anyplace but here. i will be brief. the conferees i'm going to appoint -- max baucus, ben cardin -- no one in the senate has been more protective of federal employees than senator ardin. one of the places the people were looking to do some difficult things to federal employees -- i know that ben will be fair but not punitive. nevada has had unemployment very high for a long time. but the state has been hit very hord by unemployment is ryla

de island. the fourth concrete will be bob casey -- fourth conferee will be bob casey. this is his bill, the payroll tax holiday extension, his legislation. i have talked to each of them and they will work expeditiously to come up with it long term arrangement on the payroll tax, on unemployment, and on the doc fix. i have great confidence in them. i want to say that most everything we do around here is based on trust. that's how we get things done. a one ever will -- i want everyone to know how much i appreciate mitch mcconnell sticking to the arrangement that

we made. when we come back next month, we have a lot of important things to do. i've talked about the payroll tax package. we can pay for it in many different ways. we have to be somewhat inventive and i've had many calls from my caucus members about ideas they have that would protect the people that need the extra few dollars each month but also save money in the long run. unemployment -- women have to figure out a way to extend that. this is the first time we've paid for the unemployment tax extension, which i did not favor. this is something we have to do and we will continue to fight for the long-term unemployed. i would hope we can do something final to get rid of this sgr, this doc fix so

doctors to take care of senior citizens don't have to worry every few months about whether they would get payment. those are some of the things we have to do. some other things that are paramount in my mind. the reauthorization. we have to get this done. with a short-term extension. this involves the employment of a couple of hundred thousand people, a couple hundred thousand. we have made many offers to the house and we have to get this done and forget about all the extraneous stuff and deal with faa. the same applies to the could bill the was reported out of the environment and public works committee. very conservative and quite progressive are boxer has come extend an exch measure to

this for two years. it is import and. the short-term extension saved the jobs of more than a million people during the highway extension. this will create more jobs and not just save jobs. those of some things we have to do. i hope this congress has had a very good learning experience, especially those who are new to this body. everything we do around here does not have to wind up in a fight. that is not the way things need to be. people wonder why the approval rating of congress is so low. it seems everything we have done this last year as minute knocked down drag out fight. there is no reason to do that. if there was a message recede from this last thing we been through, i would hope that new

members of the house will understand that legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, not trying to push your way through on issues that you do not have the support of the american people. a repeat what i said earlier. this institution relies on trust and goodwill to get work done. the american people need this institution to work effectively. we have enormous challenges facing our country. it is true. we have a new year coming very quickly. working families that we of help for a couple of months, that's not enough. they sent us to washington to find ways to make their life easier and to give them the tools they need to try to get ahead. they did not send us here to wage a partisan battles.

it is new years. let's put those games aside and priority.r top to get things done. if we're able to get things done, there is lots of credit to go around to everybody. if we do not get things done, there is criticism that spills off on everyone. let's show the american people that we can tackle the big challenges that stand before us. the stakes are too high to do anything else. a few questions. >> there are 21 democratic seats in the senate up for election. how was the tax cut extension communicated to voters in those seats that are up for election?

the want to balance the house republicans on taxes -- do you want to balance the house republicans on taxes? how does is set you up for the tough negotiations next year? >> we will not worry about the bush tax cuts being extended. i've gone over some of the things on my mind. one thing we want to do is get the appropriations bill done in a reasonable time. the omnibus bill was difficult this time. as i have indicated, i would hope that this experience will make us better. >> do you expect the conferees to start working now? >> we will get together sometime next week.

the senate democrats will get together. there will be a schedule and we will work together. the conferees will of work to do when we're out of session. >> this bill will reduce the benefits by 20 weeks. >> we have people who have spoken out loudly about cutting this back, but this is something that we could not get done otherwise. we'll come back. that is the reason i have jack reed in this conference. i want someone to understand the point of people who do not have jobs and have not had jobs in a long time. i have not seen anyone more in tune then jack reed. >> what are the concessions that

democrats made? >> i have instructed my telephone calls with mike four setters. there's nothing off the table -- with mike four senators. senate republicans, plural, who think there should be a fair tax on rich people. you have seen the stories. i'm going to make sure that it could be part of what we try to do and we'll see what happens. >> your reporting senator baucus and with congressman upton, will be a number of people who live been through these discussions over pay-for

over the super committee. >> this is different program than the super committee. the reason i went to some land to describe who my conferees are is that i want to make sure everybody understands that this is a new day. i'm disappointed that the conferees that the house have a point -- they have spoken out before being appointed and spoken out against the payroll tax cuts. i spent a lot of time this morning indicating this is a new day and would hope that prior statements saying they do not want to extend it will prevent us from giving something to the american people. >> you had a meeting with john

boehner and mitch mcconnell. was there room for confusion about whether there was a proxy by john boehner to negotiate? could you shed some light? >> i think i'm better off saying that senator mcconnell did what he thought was right for the country. to, everybody -- to wait, everybody -- process, everybody. have a great holiday. merry christmas. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> not too long after that, house democratic leaders made comments about the agreement and the challenge of reaching consensus. after that, we will open the phones for your thoughts's

president obama at 12:15. -- until president obama at 12:15. >> sure. of course. good morning. we are very pleased today that the anxiety and fear of the americans has been resolved. agreement. i talked to leader nancy pelosi and has avoided conferees. senator harry reid is doing the same. we are doing -- we're looking for to extending the tax cuts and making sure the unemployed are not put at risk by falling off the rolls and we are very pleased that 48 million seniors will have the confidence that their medicare will continue to

compensate their doctors so there you will be available for them. this is a good day for the american people. the american people's voice was heard. their concerns were heard and we have responded. i also want to congratulate president obama who showed great leadership in this effort and articulated to the american people what was at issue here in the congress of the united states. i am pleased that we have come together to make this agreement. this is a good christmas present, a good kwanzaa present, a good hanukkah present for america and we will go forward for -- from his point of understanding our work is not yet done and we intend to do it in a constructive, bipartisan fashion i will now yield to mr. javier becerra, the vice chairman of our caucus. >> thank you, mr. whip.

i know i speak for each and every member of the democratic caucus when i say that this will be a much better christmas, much better holiday season, for all americans but certainly 160 million working americans, 48 million seniors, and 2.5 million americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. i know that most people were concentrating on other things and what the congress was doing but in this case, we can't tell those folks that they can continue to focus on buying those last-minute presence because we did our work and now we can move forward. a big cheer to a guy named barack obama, the president of the united states, because he started this campaign a long time ago to really press on the urgency and need and help middle-class working americans. it took months to try to make

clear how important this issue was. we're moving forward and we want to say to each american who helped with their stories, with their commitment to help push this across the finish line, thank you very much for letting us and 2011 on a good note. with that, let me yield to the ranking member of the ways and means committee, senator levin. >> thank you. this is really a victory for the american people. i really want to thank all of the people who spoke up. we received over 400 stories from the unemployed telling us how hard they work, looking for work, how difficult it was,. what,.

-- what it meant. now we can go and deal with the larger issues that relate to a full one-year extension. i also want to say to the president, you spoke very clearly. what we did today was to come here and say enough was enough. we are now ready to move on. now to the very distinguished ranking member of the budget committee, chris van hollen. >> thank you, sandy. i want to thank the american people are calling on congress to do the right thing. it is time to get to work to make sure that we extend the payroll tax cut for the full year that the president called for. i wish the country a very happy holiday, merry christmas, happy new year but time for congress to get right back to work. with that, i want to introduce the dean of the congressional delegation who is here with us, john de gaulle. >> -- congratulations to you. merry christmas to the american people.

this is a small when but it is a big one. as i look behind me, i see the statue of will rogers. what has happened today in the last few days would be something that would give him some wonderful opportunities for some rather funny but acerbic comments about the congress of the united states. this is something which i am hoping is a sign of good things to come. i hope we can expect that my republican colleagues will learn to work together in a bipartisan fashion in the best tradition of the house of representatives. i am hoping that they will also learn to follow their leader, mr. boehner, who established the beginnings of some good working relationships and i am hopeful this will lead to the congress now proceeding to deal

with the nation's business in a proper way in which we have the necessary and proper respect and cooperation and bipartisanship. congratulations to all, merry christmas to all, and at this time, a very good night. >> thank you very much. we're also joined by steve cohen. did you want to say a few words? >> i appreciate the opportunity with all this leadership, i feel like tiny tim. it is a special time. i did not stay here for this purpose. i stayed here to watch the university of memphis played georgetown last night by sore a more experienced team beat a younger team. hopefully my team will improve and hopefully the tea party will learn from that so we will not be in march madness, a comeback. they will learn from their mistakes and get better. that was a game and this is real life and this was a great day for america. >> thank you very much and i want to say in closing that we

had much work to do. there is no more important job which faces the congress of the united states and growing our economy and creating the jobs that people meet which frankly bras to this -- brought us to this point. we'll come back from our break in january focused on doing that and we hope that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way so that the economy will have the certainty and the success that we want it to have. are there any questions? >> mr. dingell? what are you looking for two or the next two months? will you address the millionaire surtax? and also the pipeline? >> now was not the time to get into the specifics of the

negotiations. as chris van hollen was very clear about yesterday when he said there are differences between the two parties which is why this extension was necessary we will obviously have to deal with those details. the conference committee will be convened i believe after the holidays and will be working on those issues. >> their republican colleagues are talking about reforms to unemployment insurance and things like urine tests and shortening the duration of unemployment benefits. >> again, there'll be time to get to the specifics. those specifics and the others that mr. van hollen mentioned yesterday are differences between the two parties and i will have to be addressed. this agreement we have reached today gives us the opportunity to do that which was the intention of the senate and why we were so supportive of

adopting the senate bill and why i am pleased we did that. >> can i briefly comment? you mentioned many of these issues are within the ways and means committee. we will sit down at a conference table to try to work out differences. those differences have been expressed before they are some bigger ones that need to be worked out. >> the three of you were appointed as conferees. when will you be starting negotiations? >> right away. >> senator harry reid and leader nancy pelosi have indicated they are prepared to move forward immediately following the holidays which means the first week in january. >> you have been here an awful long time, >> i don't like the way you say that. [laughter] >> i have been here a productive period of time. [laughter]

>> john dingell said that i hope the tea party and the members will follow john boehner. rarely have we heard such a firestorm like this. your said it was critical of what was going on and factions within the republican party. what is your observation on what that means for what is ahead in the new year for the republicans? >> i will end with this -- as we have had a good day -- 160 million people are confident they will get their tax cut, the first paycheck in january. 48 million seniors are confident they will be able to see their doctors and 2.2 million americans are pleased they will not lose their unemployment insurance. there will be time to talk

about the other matters as we go forward i think the american people's voice was heard very loudly. they want us to work together in a productive, positive, constructive way. i am hopeful that we will do that. thank you very much. have a great holiday. >> good night, guys. >> president obama is coming before the cameras in just a

couple of minutes to talk about the payroll tax deal. is expected at 12:15. we will have it for your live. while we wait, we would like to hear your thoughts on the tax deal. here are the numbers. host: to our first call, where you calling from? >> my name is eric, calling from winters, california. as a life-long republican, this deal had me angry at my party. i am glad they got it passed. what they call in washington -- of poison pills, by calling deal breakers. my father is a the vietnam veteran. he is a highly-skilled

maintenance man. he is not into books and that sort of thing, and for them to put this thing in about the ged or the high school diploma is a deal breaker that made me angry about my party. >> thank you, eric. he was on the republicans line. deborah, in portland, oregon. >> i want to thank the president for his great leadership and for making sure that the american people are taken care of. that is his responsibility. he is doing an excellent job. thank you to democrats for holding tough this time. this is what we want to see out of them. we want to see them take the house back in november. happy holidays, and thank you to a great bunch of people that work hard for us. >> randy, calling from mayfield, new york. he is an independent.

>> representative mentions this like it is such a big deal, we did what the american people want us to do. that is what we want them to do, work. this is something that should have been done. it should have been done already. s. -- as for deborah, you can think idaho for your freedoms there. if it is not the president that has anything to do with it. i do not think the obama -- i think he should spend more time in the white house instead of campaigning. >> more of your thoughts on the payroll tax cut extension. next to carl, calling from ohio on the republicans line. >> that is right. thank you, sir. i would like to say i lost my tax cut a year ago because i am

a public employee, and my retirement was cut 90% with repeals of tax cuts for public employees. i have been losing $500 a year, and they keep telling me that only the rich are losing. i am losing. i have lost for a year. thank you very much, sir. >> onto old town, maine, ronald on the democrats' line. >> yes, this keystone pipeline that republicans are pushing, what happened to exxon bell does? where does that will go, doesn't go overseas? -- does it go overseas? the same thing with the keystone pipeline. it will go to texas and we will not get any of it.

they are shipping out fuels to other countries. for some reason, republicans in these areas are pushing for the keystone pipeline, which is very hazardous to the whole united states because if we get a leak in certain places, and no one can detect where it is going to go. i am sure it will do quite a bit of damage. anywhere -- anyways, this cutback is a bunch of bull. why don't you people get together and help the people? you talk about helping the people. you are helping ourselves. >> on to the independent line. william, in longview, texas. >> hello. yes. the pipeline is a bad idea.

we import saudi oil from saudi arabia for more than $100 a barrel, and we sell our oil to third world countries for one- third of that. the problem is the republican gop wants to keep tapping into social security and medicare, and making us feel like we do not have any jobs out there. we have jobs out there, when there are not any jobs to be had. what the republican gop ought to do is tax the rich to pay for these shortfalls. like john dingell said, there is a small wind, but it was a big win for the rich, and a small wind for the working class people. it has to stop. congress needs to make it a pleasant -- fair playing field,

and tax their rich alongside everybody else, and that is the bottom line. they have been 10 years without taxes. it assisted debt situation, because republicans keep on doing this with their rhetoric. that is all i have to say. >> hire pre share your thoughts. still awaiting president -- we appreciate your thoughts this afternoon. still awaiting president obama. when the annual notices the countdown clock next to the podium -- one thing you'll notice is the countdown clock that was next to the podium is gone. we had a tweet about that this morning that with the payroll tax agreement, the clock would be taken off. if we could get a shot of the podium, you'll see the clock is

no longer there. back to your phone calls. north carolina. independent line. >> how're you doing? >> good. >> i am very proud of what the democrats have done. i have been unemployed for about one year and a half. my unemployment ran out in november. i have been looking for jobs, but every time i go day decline me. -- is a decline be. >> unto justin into prepared -- justin in its prepared >> i am very pleased with how the president stood firm. he did not cave in at this time, and the democrats held firm. this payroll tax thing, it is ridiculous the republican party is fighting for the rich for

their tax cuts, but middle-class and poor families cannot get any tax breaks. that is ridiculous. the president stood firm and did when he had to do, and we are very happy. pennsylvania is very supportive of the president. that is the message i want to give him. we support the president. >> thank you for calling in on the democrats' line. jack, and the republicans lining in florida. >> good morning. i am from florida. i have been a republican for many years, but i am very much against ged testing for people getting a job. i am 83 years old now. i've been injured several times on the job, but i never drew a

day of unemployment. i always led by way. i was raised with alcoholic father, and i never had a chance to finish high school or get a ged, but i made my way by hard work, and i am definitely against this ged in the bill for unemployment. thank you for taking my call. >> thank you for calling in. miami, florida. democrats line. >> hi. i just wanted to said i think the republicans should be paying for all the stuff. they are getting richer, and we are getting poorer. and i just wanted to say hi to obama. >> i appreciate your thoughts. congress has to liberated -- delivered a less-med tax cuts -- last-minute payroll tax cut

extension, allowing for time to figure out how to pay for long- term extensions. we are taking your phone calls on the tax-cut bill. gary in georgia other republicans line. >> yes. merry christmas. earlier, a democrat said i am glad the democrats are taking care of us. it is said where the government -- one people in our country think the government has to take care of us. i wish we would be more honest of what this tax cut is. it is contributions to the social security system. if we're going to cut back the contributions to the system, which is already in danger of going bankrupt, it is like stealing money from your kids so you could go out and have dinner. the pathetic president paraded in front of the american people

with the hard-head -- hard-hit $40 every two week deal. i wish somebody said how come we do not get a one-year deal? two weeks ago he was pounding the podium, and i am sure he must of got an awful anxious because he was not done air force one to get out and get on the golf course, but now he is probably halfway over to enters airforce base. >> thank you for your thoughts. we appreciate all of your calls. the president was expected at 12:15. we understand it has been pushed to 1245. we will have live coverage when the president arrives. until then, a discussion this morning on the political, cultural, and religious aspects of the 2012 campaign from this morning's "washington journal."

host: let me introduce to our first dust to dust. this morning, there is a new gallup poll out on public satisfaction with the way things are going. here is a chart that looks at it. about 15%, it was at a low point in early november, but 15% only say they're satisfied with the way things are going in the united states. as the year-over-year look. this is 1979 through 2009. here is the current number. it took a dip in 2008. we have been trending down since 2000, when 60% of americans were pretty satisfied. then there is the lead

editorial yet "the usa today." "what is there to cheer, let us count the way. here's what this is good about the country. the world is getting more peaceful. the troops are coming home. america is importing less loyal, and crime is dropping. guest: i think some of those things are going right. the social indicators have gotten better for about a decade and a half. a couple of years ago, it was fascinating. right around the early to mid- 1990's, if you look at the indicators, education, crime, welfare, and a series of indicators got better. most of them got much better right around the mid-1990's, and that has continued. while further drops -- welfare

rates drop. crime is roughly at the rates of the mid-1960's. i think there is a lot of good cheer and optimism, but the economy is very weak. very fragile, and i think the public is concerned. they have reasons to be concerned. as far as the editorial of the world been more peaceful, in some places yes, and in some places now. we've seen bad news in iraq. 18 bombings in baghdad in the last 24 hours. that concerns me a lot. iran is racing toward getting nuclear weapons. it is always a mixed bag. these are reluctant judgments. the public makes judgments where things are against what they are used to and what they expected the -- expect. that gallup poll is concerning.

since 1979, this is the second worst year since the carter presidency -- 2008 was the worst year -- until today you had three periods where you had 60% satisfaction. this is a country that is in a funk, and there are a lot of reasons. host: what you believe the public's view of the republicans responsibility is? d.c. an overwhelming pox on all the houses? -- do you see an overwhelming pox on all their houses? guest: there is no question that congress rating is very low. host: 9% right now. guest: brathat is right. i think it hurts the president the most because he is used as the captain of the ship. if people believe he should be

able to control most of the things that are going on. sometimes that is fair, and sometimes that does not, but there is not a republican going against the president, there will be a specific republican, one not from the congress, which will help, presumably. if you go through political metrics, he is clearly the underdog right now. this is a race for the republicans to lose. they may lose it, but they have a lot of advantages going into the election. host: how was this week for republicans and democrats? guest: it was a good week for the president, a debacle for the republican party. host: how do you think they got to where they ended up? guest: it is a good question.

the reason they got it was obvious, the republican party, the house, was viewed as against the middle class tax cut. the reason was they wanted to extend the tax cut for one year, not two months. they felt two months was too short of a period of time. they pushed the legislation sooner in the senate. the house when ford, they were first, and this and we want this tax cut for a year, but the democrats did a very good job of framing the issue of republicans in the house being obstructionists. what really hurt the republicans was that speaker john boehner and mitch mcconnell were at odds. john boehner thought bauhaus' would do the same, and then they opposed it, and now they have caved.

host: was the crux of the argument how this would be paid for? guest: that was the crux of the argument. the way that it was framed was that the republicans were against middle-class tax cuts and for tax cuts for the rich. they succeeded in framing mr. obama as a leader in tax cuts. if you look at the gallup poll ratings on texas, the president is now higher the republicans, which is unusual. host: will go to the phones. welcome your presentation. we will get his take on the republican candidates, and you can in melos as our conversation

progresses. another "usa today" article. more than two 0.5 million voters have left democratic and republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continued to grow. what the implications? guest: the main implication is the person who is one to win the presidency, and a party that is going to win the senate and house is when you have to get independence. they usually decide elections. it happens that this time around independence are one to make up a larger portion of the electorate's, conceivably, but this goes back to what we were talking about earlier. there was a tremendous amount of cynicism and dissatisfaction with the political class in general, the political parties. it is an interesting thing. the public complains about

estimate, and things not getting done, but, of course, that is a product of the public's own views and votes. the president had everything he wanted in that two-year period. you had an epic 2010 midterm election in which republicans won more than 60 house seats. that inevitably lead to stem its. that this is what the public was saying they wanted. now that they have a -- that is what the public was saying they wanted. now the head stem its. -- now they have a stalemate. there's plenty to blame congress about, and too often partisan politics gets in the way the public interest. >> for peter, before he brought his commentary to public media,

he spent a great to of time strategizing on policy. the army talk a lot his background. he was a speechwriter in the reagan administration, and in the bush 41 administration, the office of drug control policy. you followed to empower america, the organization jack kemp was involved incurred in the bush 43 administration, director of speech writing, and later named president of strategic initiatives for president george w. bush. our phone lines are open. among those presidents, which of them influenced your thinking? you are wrong to communicate their policies. guest: if you were around to

communicate their policies. she called -- you were around to communicate their policies. guest: that is a great question. president reagan, i was a young man when he won the presidency. there was a generation of conservatives that became the conservatives because of president reagan. i thought he was a monumental figure, not only a successful president, but a person who embodied conservatism, and believes in a political philosophy. often that does that happen with politicians or presidents. the way he coconducted himself, he was a man of tremendous principal and strength, and was a deeply sympathizing and. -- man. his grown in the imagination of the public.

president bush i was closer to, working in the white house, and he is a man of tremendous personal integrity. probably the at the greatest political courage i ever witnessed in government was president bush during the surge in iraq. it was tremendously unpopular. the war was. the number of people that supported the surgeon 2006 you could fit in a boost, virtually -- surge in 2006, you could fit in a booth, virtually. the president said no way. he essentially showed him the door. the surge succeeded. people for gatt now, but there were -- people for gatt now, but there were political wins against president bush.

bob host: will get some more calls and more discussion about the gop. george, an independent. how long have you been an independent? caller: the last seven years. host: were you a member of the party earlier? caller: i started off as a democrat, and got tired of the corruption. i became a republican, found out through rock experience that it was a closed club, just as capable of being corrupt as the democrats. i have been independent ever since and proud of it. host: why do you stay involved in the political process? you have had bad experiences on both sides? caller: the process is the part where we can pressure for the country to go in the right direction. i was wondering whether your guest would care to talk about the ethics of a nation that has

2 million people being locked up in jail every night, a nation that has about half of its population low-income, or in poverty, a nation where dropout rates and urban high schools are 50% and greater, with a declining lack of social mobility, where we could have the most expensive, and sometimes more profitable health-care system, yet i rankine scale we have number 37 on results it yet on the ranking scale, we of number 37 on -- he get on the ranking scale, we have number 37 in terms of results. how can the average person have the ability to feel their children have a chance even in a competitive economy?

host: let's get a response. guest: that is a good question. in terms of the people in prison, the ethics depends on whether they have committed crimes. if they committed crimes, they should be in prison. one reason crime rates have gone down is because we of been walking up the bad guys. -- locking up the bad guys. the other issue, poverty, poverty is not a record level. it is a great problem, and it has happened under a democratic president. i think all of those are serious problems. there are policies solutions paid what politics is about his people of differing views and policies arguing, debating, and implementing policies, and measuring which ones work and which one do not. we had record welfare rolls in the mid-1990's. the republicans pushed the

welfare reform bill that president clinton signed on the third effort. welfare rolls dropped by 60%, and the condition got better. it was one of the great social achievements of the last half century. also, i want to deal with the larger point that the caller raised, which is cynicism toward political class and the corruption with both parties. corruption is part of the human condition and is not isolated to politicians. i understand your frustration with politicians and the political system. i have my own, there are a lot of good and admirable people in washington and in public life. most people that are lawmakers and involved in politics are involved for the right reasons, which is to have certain views they hope will it advance the human good. it gets mixed into politics and partisan politics because of the motivations are mixed, but i

think not enough people understand that. the last time i will say is the founders themselves set up a political system which puts a premium on stalemate, and stopping things, and not getting legislation through easily. they rightly believe that was the best preventive to tyranny, and we have a system of checks and balances, and the executive and legislative, and judicial branch, and that misgoverning hard and frustrating, but the united states the greatest nation on earth. is not perfect, but it is the reason that does happen. host: call from somerset, pa.. dave is a democrat there. good morning. caller: i have a question about the just-concluded battle over the two-month extension for the

tax cuts for social security. i had trouble finding out just what was behind the positions of the two parties, and i finally after reading the newspapers believes that i understand partly what the two positions were. the question was how to pay for this, and the white house and the democrats wanted to pay for it by allowing freddie mac and fannie mae and up-front mortgage charges, i guess. the republicans wanted to pay for it in what i believe was a good government way, as a way to the bad government way of the white house and democrats. one of the things they wanted to do is freeze federal pay, which is long overdue, because they get about twice as much as

people in the private sector that to comparable worth. people in the private sector are protected, as opposed to many federal employees. i have been there. i've worked in washington twice. could you comment on this, and on the ethics of the press and the white house, frankly, -- one other observation. the west at using the figure is the white house kept using the figure of $50,000 -- the white house kept using the figure of $50,000 a year. what the real figure, when you consider the entire country, it would be about $30,000, so 2% of that would be $600. for the two-month, the savings

would be $100. host: thank you. guest: dave did a good job explaining the chief difference between the two-month extension and the year-long extension had to do with how to pay for it. i think the republicans plan was better, but that is not how it played out to the public at large, and that is why the house republicans caved in terms of the debt itself. i think the 50,000 figure as an average annual income is roughly correct, but i wouldn't go back to the census data. host: picking up on our earlier conversation, this e-mail --

guest: that sounds pretty good. i am a christian, so i am all for forgiveness and for learning, too. the issue is whether one learns and you gain wisdom. it is not simply the experience that teaches people, it is whether you take the right lessons. sometimes you do, and sometimes you do not. host: let's jump into presidential politics by showing you a character at from mitt romney. >> you could never predict what kind of tough positions -- decisions will come in from the president's desk, but if you trust they will do the hard thing, and maybe not a popular thing, and if you really want to know how it person will operate, look at how they live their life. i think that is why it is so important to understand the character of a person. to meet him, it makes a huge difference. they to some voters it does not,

but to me it makes a huge difference. >> i am mitt romney, and i approve this message. host: what is your view of the campaign so far? guest: in is the most professional team assembled in the republican field. of the people that are in, i think his team is the best look, i think he is in a good situation, not a great one. every time there has been a candidate rise to challenge him in the polls, of course we're not have any election jet, with the first and january 3 in iowa, they have been on the hot seat, then got burned, and some in the polls. newt gingrich is the latest. he is looking very, very strong, and now he is lower. romney seems very steady. if you check the polling data over the year, is between 21 and 26% almost the entire time.

he seems to have a strong core base of support, for which no other candidate outside of ron paul seems to have. if i think is a much improved headed from 2008. is quite a good debater. i've been very -- is a much improved candidate from 2008. he is quite a good debater. there are a lot of skeptics among conservatives with him. host: who are the earliest primary voters next -- voters? guest: iowa. if you were in the romney campaign right now, you would not need a victory in iowa to make you happy, but you would need someone like ron paul to win, and the preference would be the newt gingrich would not, so the strongest challenger to mitt romney does not win in iowa.

he goes to new hampshire, and wins, and then there is a war because of proportional representation. it is not water-tight-all. he as the best team. i believe he believes he can win in the long haul. host: to w all news items. "the financial times" -- host: this is all called the new york post -- "de new york post." chris christie is not finished third in with a run for national audience. he is refused republicans pleaded with him to get into the presidential race, but he admitted he might answer the call to be mitt romney's vice presidential running mate.

the fact is if he wants to talk to me about that, we will have a phone conversation, and my wife and i will make the decision about what we want to do with my future. let's go back to calls. erie, pennsylvania. laura, republican. caller: we brought up a couple of issues earlier regarding social ills like poverty, and the guest was saying how much some of that has improved. i think we have addressed -- we are not addressed the fact that most of those social ills are linked to one particular behavior, and that is used engaging in sex when they're not married. that is the number one group trapped in poverty. single-headed households, poverty by far, the group is not married. abstinence education funding

needs to be addressed in the welfare reform bill. i think it has the biggest impact on all of those social ills -- abortion going down. teenagers to not get pregnant, they will not have to make the choice to kill the baby. if they will not have std's, the out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and we need to come to the conclusion that social conservatives what abstinence education because it will address fiscal responsibilities in the future. there will be a lot less money going if we teach our youth how to exercise self control. guest: i agree with a lot of what the caller said. there is no question that the ethical and moral basis of individuals will determine whether we have social

pathologies l or -- or not. three conditions, if you graduate high school, and not have a child until after you are married, your chances are being -- of being in poverty are very low. if she is quite right if you look at single-family families. they're the ones that comprise most of the people in poverty for obvious reasons. abstinence education work should be funded. my former boss bill bennett's wife runs a program that is directed the debt issue, the absence of education. -- at that issue, abstinence and education. it is the right message to send, the moral message, and the compassion and message. if you have a child, and you are not married, odds are you will encounter a lot of difficulty in life, and so will your child.

there's a lot to be said for the institution of marriage host: -- marriage. host: california. caller: happy holidays to you and your guest. when president obama was elected to be present, this was the first time in my entire life that i have never placed a vote. i thought at that moment it was a great day for the country just because you had an african- american been voted into the presidency. i could tell my grandkids that this is a real possibility. what i'm really struck by is here you have a man and his family -- he appears to be a

devoted husband and father, and has all the character traits that one would like to read as a leader, does not have anyone in charge, or in the office, and here we are questioning about him being able to be reelected. what really strikes me and saddens me is you have a man in the face of everything that he has been under, a country that is really been drained of all of its finances, and turmoil, and yet, when a man has to go before the nation to show his birth certificate -- i did not think he has a chance, and that is a reflection on our consciousness. but she called thank you for the call. -- guest:. -- guest: thank you for the call.

i felt it too. slavery and race has been america's terrible sin, and the fact we elected an african- american s president said a lot about us, a lot about him, and it was a good moment and i shared in it. i think you're quite right. he seems to be by all accounts a very good family man, and a devoted father, and that is to his credit. that matters as well. thirdly, on the birth certificate issue, i hated that issue. i thought it was silly and stupid, yeah i think it made sense that donald trump, who i think is somewhat of a buffoon made a lot out of it. having said all those things on behalf of the president, let me just say that by almost every objective standard i think he

has been a failure. if you look it just the economic metrics, the so-called misery index is the worst in 28 years. the credit rating went down for the first time in history paid unemployment is the worst since the great depression. we've had 34 straight months of unemployment 8% or higher, and the president said the stimulus plan was passed it would not go above 8%. federal spending is at the highest level in terms of percentage of gdp since world war two. housing prices are worse than the great depression -- on and on it goes. now, the president's policies are more or less response will depend in on how you disaggregate that, but the fact is if you judge him on his own standards, the things he said his policies would accomplish, he has failed. i could go to the litany on the foreign-policy side.

look, that matters. at the end of the day, people judge it president and his performance in office, and how they believe his policies are doing, and the country is doing. 70% are satisfied -- 17% are satisfied. that is not all president obama's fault, but he should be held accountable. .ost: here is a news article

host: attorneys said they would repeal the decision. let's move onto another candidate, newt gingrich. on december 7 you filed this piece, and it says one of the most damaging words used against politicians -- watch one of his most recent ads. >> is there anything more inspiring than american towns and neighborhoods brightly lit for the holidays? >> we take it as a sign of great optimism. it reminds us of the fire of freedom that burns bright in the america we love, and a flair that the goodness of our nation will be rewarded with peace and brotherhood. >> from our family to yours,

merry christmas, and happy new year. >> i am newt gingrich, and i approved this message. >> what do you think? guest: i think it is in nice and, but i think he is in trouble. in the broader view, newt gingrich has some considerable strength here is an intelligent man with an active mind, and is a good debater. he had good, when he was speaker of the house, but on the downside, the charge of his erratic and chronically on discipline is true. i do not think he is the temperament that i would want in a president. it is interesting. one of the issues that makes a great deal of difference is a lot of the people that work with him and under him or for him over the years do not want him to be president. i put a lot of weight in that. if people were colleagues of yours and were in the foxholes

with you, and make the judgment you are not fit for office, i put a lot of weight in that. i know people who have worked for speaker gingrich, who like him, did not have a personal animus, he was kind to them, but they just feel like he is not stable enough. i do not mean he is mentally incompetent, but i think he is a person that is erratic in what he says and how he governs. his ability to focus on issues and prioritize issues is not real good, and i think that is a problem. i think that is coming through. he is being hit by a barrage of negative ads in iowa, he does not that money there, and as been a target. he is not only cut, the bleeding badly right now. host: in relation to the millions spent on negative ads, here is a "washington post" had -- article.

host: we have five minutes left with peter wehner. michigan, an independent. you are on. caller: good morning, c-span, and good morning america, merry christmas. guest: merry christmas. caller: our forefathers created a system based on what is known as due process is broken is called burqa eva longoria i contacted the department of justice to report a major crime being committed to the american people. i explained to them what has happened and they told me we understand. i said as an american citizen, i have done my job and it is time for you to do yours.

the white house has been hijacked. united states government has been taken over by these hostile elite. it is just not republicans. it is both republicans and democrats. very wealthy people are going against what our forefathers have created when it due process is compromised, that is breaking block. -- breaking the law. >> there are wealthy people who support democrats and republicans. is difficult to tell who best to much power because often they are after different things. there is no question that the wealthy these days and wealth

creators are the target of a lot of hostility starting from the top with president obama. what i find interesting on this issue of the wealthy and the quality which is a key issue and that will be one of the pillars of the obama reelection campaign, if you examine the polling data, you find that the view that america is divided between haves and have-nots is less now than in 2008. today is almost 40/60. the issue of income and the quality and whether we need to fix the equality, fewer people think we need to do it now than in the past. there was an interesting gallup poll in the last couple of weeks that found that when they ask whether the government or big business was the greatest threat to america, an almost record number, 64%, says the government was the threat and roughly 1/4 of the people said big business.

that seemed to counter intuitive sense the political conversation these days is directed against the wealthy. that has never worked as a political strategy. i don't suspect it will work now. what americans care about more is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. host: let's get some ron paul had lines in here -- we don't have time for a comment on that. gettysburg, pa., a democrat, go ahead. >caller: i believe that the social pathology that is affecting the nation and the world is the fast transfer of wealth to the top.

.01% is being taken away from the vast majority of americans. this has been a 35-year plan and it starred with the modern conservative movement, this free market movement of corporate-run government. what is your definition of fascism? >> i will get to that in one second. fascism is a term that goes back to mussolini and has to do in part with a government of oppression towards its people. it is contrary to the founding american principles. in terms of this notion of the 30-year project of a free market, the free market goes back a long for than that. the modern founder of the free market is adam smith.

i agree with you about corporate cronyism i am sure. corporate cronyism is very problematic. it is an enemy of free market capitalism. politicians choose will winners and losers and distort the market place in terms of a vast transfer of wealth. the people are investing and earning money and that is a good thing. when people are money, they start businesses and that creates prosperity. there is a reason that during the reagan years those were tremendously profitable times. there was a 60% satisfaction back then. the top 1% pays about 40% of all taxes and that is probably unfair. the issue is not the rich and poor. the issue is the poor and what is causing poverty and how you get out of we have to focus in

on economic growth and prosperity. it strikes me that for some modern liberals, it is called a reactionary liberals, they are more concerned with penalizing and taxing the rich than they are with prosperity. they believe there is a more full -- a moral purification that happens when you tax the rich. it is out and we analyze things -- those who have profited on fairly -- is how we can penalize things too -- those who have profited fairly -- unfairly. they may bring the european financial system down and that may affect us. host: thank you for being with us and happy holidays to your family. we did not get to it but here are some recent blog posts by our guest.

we'll come back and talk about climate change specifically. >> i would like to. >> you can say "washington journal"ever morning at 7:00 this morning. here are live pictures from the white house briefing room. we are waiting for president obama to make a comment on the payroll tax deal. we will have it when it starts on c-span. while we wait, we'll show you remarks from house democratic leader shortly after they agreed to the tax agreement by unanimous consent this morning. we will show you as much of this as we can until president obama arrives.

>> good morning, we are very pleased today that the anxiety and fear that americans had has been resolved. we are pleased that this agreement. i have talked to leader nancy pelosi and she already has appointed conferees. senator harry reid is doing the same. we're looking forward to assuring in the 01-year extension that everybody said

they wanted. we're looking for to make sure the unemployed are not put at risk by falling off the rolls and we are very pleased that 48 million seniors will have the confidence that their medicare will continue to compensate their doctors said they will be available for them. this is a good day for the american people the american people's voice was heard their concerns were heard and we have responded i also want to congratulate president obama who showed great leadership in this effort. they articulated to the american the people and what was at issue. i am pleased that we have come together to make this agreement.

>> i know i speak for each and every one of the members of the democratic caucus when i say that this will be a much better christmas, much better holiday season for all americans but certainly 160 million working americans. in this case, we can tell those folks that they can continue to

focus on buying those last- minute presence cause we did our work and we can now move forward. a big cheer up to a guy named barack obama, the president of the united states. he started this campaign a long time ago to really press the urgency of middle-class americans and it took months to make clear how important this issue was.

>> can go on and solve the larger issues that relate to a full one-year extension. >> a want to thank the american people for calling on us to do the right thing and we want to make sure we extend a payroll tax cuts for the full year as the president called for.

merry christmas to the american people. this is a small when but it is a big one. as i look behind me, i see the statue of will rogers. what has happened today in the last few days would be something that would give him some wonderful opportunities for some rather funny but acerbic comments about the congress of the united states. this is something which i am hoping is a sign of good things to come. i hope we can expect that my republican colleagues will learn to work together in a bipartisan fashion in the best tradition of the house of representatives. i am hoping that they will also learn to follow their leader, mr. boehner, who established the beginnings of some good working relationships and i am hopeful this will lead to the congress now proceeding to deal with the nation's business in a proper way in which we have the necessary and proper respect and cooperation and bipartisanship. congratulations to all, merry christmas to all, and at this time, a very good night. >> thank you very much. we're also joined by steve cohen. did you want to say a few words? >> i appreciate the opportunity with all this leadership, i feel like tiny tim. it is a special time. i did not stay here for this purpose. i stayed here to watch the university of memphis played georgetown last night by sore a more experienced team beat a younger team.

hopefully my team will improve and hopefully the tea party will learn from that so we will not be in march madness, a comeback. they will learn from their mistakes and get better. that was a game and this is real life and this was a great day for america. >> thank you very much and i want to say in closing that we had much work to do. there is no more important job which faces the congress of the united states and growing our economy and creating the jobs that people meet which frankly bras to this -- brought us to this point. we'll come back from our break in january focused on doing that and we hope that we will be able to do so in a bipartisan way so that the economy will have the certainty and the success that we want it to have. are there any questions? >> mr. dingell?

what are you looking for two or the next two months? will you address the millionaire surtax? and also the pipeline? >> now was not the time to get into the specifics of the negotiations. as chris van hollen was very clear about yesterday when he said there are differences between the two parties which is why this extension was necessary we will obviously have to deal with those details. the conference committee will be convened i believe after the holidays and will be working on those issues. >> their republican colleagues are talking about reforms to unemployment insurance and things like urine tests and shortening the duration of unemployment benefits. toagain, there'll be time get to the specifics.

those specifics and the others that mr. van hollen mentioned yesterday are differences between the two parties and i will have to be addressed. this agreement we have reached today gives us the opportunity to do that which was the intention of the senate and why we were so supportive of adopting the senate bill and why i am pleased we did that. >> can i briefly comment? you mentioned many of these issues are within the ways and means committee. we will sit down at a conference table to try to work out differences. those differences have been expressed before they are some bigger ones that need to be worked out. >> the three of you were appointed as conferees. when will you be starting negotiations? >> right away. >> senator harry reid and leader nancy pelosi have indicated they are prepared to move forward immediately following

the holidays which means the first week in january. >> you have been here an awful long time, >> i don't like the way you say that. [laughter] >> i have been here a productive period of time. [laughter] >> john dingell said that i hope the tea party and the members will follow john boehner. rarely have we heard such a firestorm like this. your said it was critical of what was going on and factions within the republican party. what is your observation on what that means for what is ahead in the new year for the republicans? >> i will end with this -- as we have had a good day -- 160 million people are confident

they will get their tax cut, the first paycheck in january. 48 million seniors are confident they will be able to see their doctors and 2.2 million americans are pleased they will not lose their unemployment insurance. there will be time to talk about the other matters as we go forward i think the american people's voice was heard very loudly. they want us to work together in a productive, positive, constructive way. i am hopeful that we will do that. thank you very much. have a great holiday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> house democratic leaders reflecting this morning on we are waiting for president obama to make a statement on the textile and will have that when it gets under way. nancy pelosi resisted -- released a statement this morning and here is part of what she had to say. "today is a victory for all americans. the security of all americans, the elder stevens and economic health, some wonder 60 americans will continue to receive their payroll tax cut, nearly $40 per

check. i salute the unified house democratic caucus on behalf of the american people. " senate majority leader harry reid spoke after the senate session this morning on the tax deal. and the challenge of reaching consensus. back

>> as part of the tax cut agreement, senate majority leader harry reid named conferees to hachette a year- long extension and he talked about that and was long with -- was wrong with the legislation in a briefing with reporters a short time ago. >> i am certain that most of you would rather be anyplace than here. i am glad you're here today. i will be relatively brief. the conferees i am going to appoint will be max baucus chairman of the finance committee, ben cardin, a member of the finance committee, no one in the senate has been more protective of federal employees then senator carden and when we were doing the negotiations, one of the places that people were looking to do some real difficult things for federal employees, ben will be fair but not punitive. nevada has had an unemployment very high for a long time. a state that has been hit really hard by unemployment has also been rhode island. no one in the senate has been more protective of the unemployed than jack grade. the fourth will be bob casey. he is chairman of the joint economic committee and this is his bill, the payroll tax holiday extension is bob casey's legislation. i have talked to each of them and they will work expeditiously to come up with a long-term arrangement on the payroll tax, unemployment of course, and the doc fix. i have great confidence in them and i also want to say that most everything we do around here is based on trust. that is how we get things done. i want everyone to understand how much i appreciate mitch mcconnell sticking by the arrangement, the agreement we made. i have told that personally and i say that to all of you. when we come back next month, we will have important things to do. i have already talked about the

payroll tax package. have to do that and we can pay for it in many different ways. we have to be somewhat invented. during the past few days i have had many calls from my congressmember's about ideas they have that would protect the people that need the extra few bucks each month but also save money in the long run unemployment, we have to figure out a way to extend that period this is the first time that we have paid for unemployment tax extension which i do not favor but a significant number of my own caucus did so that is something we had to do and we'll continue to fight for the long-term unemployed. i would hope that we can do something final to get rid of this sgr, this doc fix so doctors to take care of senior citizens did not have to worry every few months that they are going to get paid the following month. those are some of the things we certainly have to do. a couple of other things that are paramount in my mind --the fa reauthorization -- we have to get this done.

we have a short-term extension. this involves the employment of a couple of hundred thousand new people. we have made many offers in the house and we have to get this done and forget about all the >> we go live now to president obama and the tax deal. >> we did have one last piece of business to finish copper. i said it was critical for congress not to go home without preventing a tax increase on 160 million working americans and i am pleased to say they got it done. i want to thank all the members of congress for ending the stalemate and making this happen. because of this agreement, every working american will keep their tax cut, about $1,000 for a

typical family. that translates into an extra $40 or so and every pay check. vital unemployment insurance will continue for millions of americans who are looking for work. when congress returns, i urge them to keep working without drama and without delay to reach an agreement that extends this tax cut as well as unemployment insurance through all of 2012. last week, i said they should be a formality and that is still the case. let's make sure that we extend the tax break and unemployment insurance for a full year for families but also for our economy. it is the right thing to do because more money spent by more americans means more business as hiring more workers and that is a boost for everybody and a boost that we very much need right now. finally, i want to take a moment to thank my fellow americans for bringing their voices to this debate.

i met with several here at the white house yesterday. i really think it takes courage to believe that your voice can make a difference. i promise you the american people that your voice has made a difference on this debate whether you tweeted or called or wrote, you're reminded people in this town with this debate and all of our debates should be about. it is about you. it is about your lives, it is about your families, you did not send us to this town to play partisan games and see who is up and who is down. you sent us here to serve and make your lives a little bit better. , to do what's right. unfortunately, that is how this week ended. this is some good news in the nick of time for the holiday spirit i want to be clear though, we have a lot more work to do. this continues to be a make or break moment for the middle class in this country and we will have to roll our sleeves

together, democrats and republicans, to make sure the economy is growing and to make sure that more jobs are created. we have an economy that is showing some positive signs. we have seen many consecutive months of private sector job growth but it is not happening as fast as it needs to. that means that we've got to redouble our efforts working together and it means we have to make sure we are rebuilding an economy where if you work hard that work will be rewarded, the kind of economy where everyone is doing their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules, everybody has a fair chance, and everybody is acting responsibly including those in washington there will be important debates next year, some tough fights i am sure in the years to come but that is the kind of country i am fighting for, one where everybody has a fair chance and everybody is doing their fair share that is the kind of

country i think the american people deserve and the kind of country that american people want. i want to wish everybody a merry christmas, happy holidays, a happy new year to you and your families and that includes everybody here in the press corps. i know you guys have been working hard and your families will be happy to spend more time with you over the next few days. i also want to make sure to send the warmest holiday wishes to all the men and women in uniform for serving overseas. who may not have a chance to see their families this holiday season. we are grateful for everything you do. thank you, guysyoualoha. sir.appy new year, separ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama heading out for his christmas vacation it

will take him to the pearl harbor base in hawaii. he had been scheduled to leave last saturday but he stayed here as the white house and congress worked on the payroll tax cut deal and the unemployment insurance. if you missed any of the events surrounding the payroll tax cut extension deal, you can see that online at c-span.org. you'll also find previous briefings, speeches, and all things related available for you any time at c-span.org. here with the candidates are saying from the campaign trail of the newly designed cspan website for kemper in 2012. >> there are 72 entitlement programs. in washington, d.c.. the vast majority of those as far as money is concerned are operated by the state government. why? they are state functions. yet somehow or another the federal government and several to play in doing something as a

state function. >> phase those out to treat everyone the same periodwind, solar, whatever it may be. the federal government does not have to be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy industry. >> in the constitutional convention, they knew with the term commander in chief meant. they did not say he was an explainer in chief for a campaigner in chief. >> or read the latest from political reporters and link to our partners at c-span.org/ campaign 2012. >> michelle bachmann is here i understand. she is thinking about running for president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada [laughter] yes, michelle, this is how rich -- it starts [laughter] >> it is so amazing to be in

washington, d.c. with all this history and these amazing buildings and yet here we are at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside was amazing. what are you wearing? what does it matter, i am going into a hilton. >> the cspan coverage from the white house correspondents' dinner is ranked among youtube boss most viewed political videos. watch them on line on our youtube channel, youtube.com/ cspan. this holiday weekend is three days of book-tv. here are the prime-time programs.

>> the full schedule is online @ book-tv,org. three speakers with extensive knowledge of north korea tuesday said the chosen successor to kim jong il will have difficulty holding onto power in the long term. kim jong un is his youngest son. north korea's state television announced that news sunday. this is a one hour, 20 minutes event.

>> today's program is jointly sponsored by the korea economic institute, the center for strategic and international studies, and the council on foreign relations. i want to thank all of our partners for working so quickly to put together this forum. we're very honored to be partners with our friends here and talk about the very timely, timely and relevant issue of the korean peninsula after kim jong il's death. my name is abraham kim, and i'm the vice president of the korea economic institute, and i will be the moderator today. with kim jong il's death, it is no exaggeration that this is a momentous event in the periodic great uncertainty for not only north korea, but for the entire region. all of us have many questions. will kim jong il's successor consolidate power over their

regime? this inexperienced leader will try to hold on to power. with this new regime be more reform-minded or hard-line? what does it all mean for south korea, china, japan, and the united states? we have three leading korea experts to help address some of these questions and more today. to my far left is scott snyder, the director of the program on u.s.-korea policy at the council on foreign relations. victor cha, the korea chair at csis, and a professor at georgetown university. and of course, jack pritchard, president of the korea economic institute. today's format is going to be a moderated interview, something we call here the oprah-style of interviewing. unfortunately, i am not as stylish as oprah. and i hope to not make our guests cry during the interview. [laughter] i will kick off with a couple of questions, for our panelists to address some of these important questions. and then we will open up the microphones to all of you. we will have a couple of roaming mics in the audience and get questions from you to address, to ask our panelists today. with that, i am going to kick it off. scott, victor, and jack -- what are the biggest concerns about the death of kim jong il, the young age of his youngest son, kim jong un, and a short period of transition? what is your sense for this transition process? will we see a smooth transition or are you concerned that the next generation of leadership will unravel? why don't we start with you, jack? >> thank you very much. let me start out by saying that some of the estimates that certainly i have been saying and others before the death was that if kim jong il were able to survive some few more years, then the probability of a successful transition would go up, not high, but it would go.

that did not occur. with the death of kim jong il, i stick by my original estimate, and that is, a low probability that kim jong un will survive over time as the leader of north korea. the process, i think what we're going to see is a period of relatively calm, a united north korea, rallying around the flagpole, if you will, and then shortly thereafter, whether a month or two months, i am not sure about that, but we're going to begin to feel, we may not see but we will feel the maneuvering behind the scenes between the military, between the the korean workers' party, with a brother-in-law of kim jong il, to see who is just going to have the most influence. right now it is heavily weighted toward the military, and i tend to believe over time that they will become the dominant force,

either at the forefront or certainly behind pulling the strings of the face of north korea, a chubby 28-year-old. victor? >> i do not disagree at all with ambassador pritchard. i think that before this past weekend, if you have asked every person in this room what would be the most likely scenario for this regime unraveling, i think 99 out of 100 would have said the unexpected death of kim jong il. that is what we have today. so i think things do not look very good. i think it will take time, and that is right, there will be a relative period of calm as the country unifies in preparation

for the funeral and this mourning period. clearly we all inferred a plan for succession which started after 2008, and the plan was essentially to promote this young fellow, surround him with regents, and then effectively allow for at least a decade for this process to happen. kim jong il, when he was being groomed for the party leadership and the leaders have to succeed his father, was groomed for least a decade and half. so that was the plan. it has clearly all been drawn up in the air by the fact that dear leader is now dead.

these sorts of regimes, i do not think, are known to be very flexible. they are quite brittle. and when you have little curve balls thrown at a regime, they can adapt. but this is not a little curve ball. this is about the biggest one that there is.

for that reason, regimes of this nature, they are just not able to adjust. they crack and they cannot even bend, they just crack. we will see signs of a coming weeks and months about whether they can carry this out in anything resembling a smooth passage. >> are you as pessimistic as your panelists? >> i have often thought that in the absence of kim jong il, we do not know if this plan will stick. there may be a high probability that it may not. but i also it is worth exploring the contrarian view a little bit. north korean is a dynastic system, an anachronism in a modern political world. north korea also, there is a collective leadership, and if kim jong un does not succeed, it will also mean the failure of the kim family. and i am not saying that there should not be challenges or there will not be challenges, but i think at this stage, because the plan, at least partly unfolded, and the question is whether not we can see deviation in the implementation of that plan. i think there will be external factors that may influence this, including the question of

whether or not the regime feels that it needs to gain the economic effects necessary to make this transition. >> let's pull the string a little bit and assume they maintain some level of control. some question whether kim jong un -- some say he may be more reform-minded than his father and he may be able to carry out some reforms that his father may not have done during his lifetime. and then there are others who think he is sadistic and very unpredictable. what is your sense of kim jong un as a leader? >> i do not know. [laughter] i think we all do not really know. we know about as much about kim jong un as we did about kim jong il when he took power. i'll fall back on this collective power again. the question, i think that

temperamentally we recognize the dangers of economic reforms to the regime, to their own survival. but at the same time, they have a felt need for cash in order to be able to sustain their survival. so i think the big challenge is whether or not the system is sustainable under circumstances where there is a felt need for cash and are there external sources of cash that will be available in order to sustain the regime. >> and victor, you had mentioned that there are certain signs you're going to be looking out for in terms of whether the regime is going to be unraveling or whether it is sustainable over the long term. what are some of the things that you will be looking for over the next couple of months or

maybe the next couple of years that this regime is sustainable or not? >> a hard question to answer. we will certainly looking for a lot of what you all in the press and other places have with regard to information coming out of north korea. obviously you're looking at any formal gatherings that they have and that there are any changes are shifts in position of people. we will also be looking as if there are any car accidents in north korea with regard to senior officials. [laughter] it is one of these things where we are going to be looking for information and trying to take all of this and that and deduce from something with regard to how the leadership transition is going. are we ever going to see a piece of evidence that is a smoking gun? probably not, but i think that collectively you reach a point

where there is enough -- there are enough signals coming out that we feel it is reaching a tipping point, i think we will all know that when we see that. one of the challenges of trying to decipher information that we heard coming out of north korea that indicate any sort of change, whether on the nuclear issue or on the food situation or on the leadership transition in this case, we get a bit of evidence and we have no idea of knowing whether this is the smoke before the fire or whether it is the smoke after the fire. has the real change has already happened and this is what we are catching the wisps of. it is clear based on the past 48 and 72 hours that we really do not have a good sense at all about what is happening inside the country. so there will be a lot of

guessing there. >> you have had a military career. what should we look for? >> the first thing -- not the first thing but one of the things you want to take a look at here is what we're talking about, a breakdown of control of the regime's ability to direct itself with a unified voice. one of the things that may be critical and may not come first but is the breakdown of social order. if we see, because of harsh winter conditions, less electricity, discontent within the population that we had not seen at different levels, and i am not suggesting that there is a north korea spring in the offing. i think that will be difficult. but there are as we have periodically in the past seen indications of discontent in

localized areas, if that becomes more widespread and there is either a lack of control or a crackdown on that, that certainly would be some of the smoke that we're looking at. one of the other things if i can jump in on a question you asked for scott in terms of reforms or the ability for that to exist out that, we will certainly be looking for economic assistance and elsewhere. if you take a look at this, the things that we want from north korea are military-related, for the most part. we have human rights concerns that are genuine and they will come about, but our priority as we take a look at their nuclear program, our concerns about proliferation, suggests that what we want to extract from north korea has to do with them

giving up some military control. in this case, their nuclear weapons program. my sense is that this is a zero sum game in which you take away that from the military, they will be fighting kicking and screaming. my suggestion is that kim jong un, who is not the president of the united states on january 20, he does not walk in with control. he does not command. he is being behind the scenes guided and directed, and as i would suggest for the near- term, that is going to be done predominantly by the military. that he should be associated with economic reform in which they may have to give up things that are valuable to the military, things that they ultimately believe are necessary for the long-term survival of the regime, and certainly critical for their short-term survival, i do not

think that is going to happen. it does not mean that we ought not to try, that we ought not to do things, but i do not believe that it will occur. >> if i could just jump in on this, you know, the challenge for someone like kim jong un is, he has to take control and he also has to define the new ideology under which he is going to be running the country. and it cannot be the same ideology as his father. at the same time, he is going to have to show that what he does is reinforce the state. in that state, he will pull from his father's legacy because the backbone of the state is defined by this new capability, this nuclear weapons capability, in addition to the ideology in terms of the military. this doesn't mean that he will

not be interested in things like hard cash and currency for the regime. but i do not think that that will be acquired for some sort of wholesale reform. it will be acquired through the same means the north has used in the past. in terms of getting to something more progressive, some sort of wholesale change in which they move in the direction of accepting the advice placed on the table for the north. going back to 1994, it is very hard to see someone who is so young being rushed into a position like this to really be able to make that sort of change in the system, even if it is a collective leadership, it is still a very difficult situation for all of them.

we have to remember that this leadership -- you have heard me say this before -- this leadership grew up in a period where there was a very defining event in tiannamen square, the arab spring. there is nothing comforting about the interaction with the outside world for this leadership. both the younger generation as well as the up-and-coming one. unless you have a truly charismatic leader, a deng xiaoping, it is not easy to make changes in a regime like this. i do not see a deng xiaoping in korea. >> let me say something about

his relationship with the military, because this is a critical fault line that requires more careful examination. what we have seen in this admittedly incomplete transition is that all kim jong un's positions are based in the party. it does raise some very interesting questions about the military's relationship with kim jong un and his key advisers. it raises the possibility of a shift toward more policy- oriented days, although admittedly the lines blur in institutional terms between party and military when you are trying to understand how things work in north korea. but in terms of a potential cleavage clearly visible to the outside, i think the relationship between kim jong un and the defense commission

is one that i would take time to examine. >> let me pick up there. scott and i two years ago were in pyongyang and it was just as we were watching the aftermath of the party congress and things were going on, and i had an opportunity in our discussions with the ambassador, one of their six-party negotiators, to ask about what i observed as the revitalization of the korean workers' party. and he bristled and said, "there has been no revitalization, it is always been strong." clearly that is not the case. it suggests that kim jong il shortly after his stroke figured out that his son, a 28- year-old, could not put on the four-star uniform and command the respect of the military. it just does not happen. he was looking for a way to rebalance power in north korea. he had begun by trying to

reemphasize the role of his father on the korean workers' party. the idea that that kim jong un is going to come in with the new slogan and military second, it is probably not going to go over well. [laughter] >> before i open up the microphones to our audience, i want to ask you about the regional perspective on the changes occurring in north korea. scott, i'll start with you. how do you see china during the leadership change in north korea? do you see north korea's relationship with china changing in this new relationship? >> my main metric for looking for possible sustainability is follow the money. providing north korea with the

economic sustainability necessary to get through any near-term difficulty. and so we have already seen a very strong show of support from china. we know that president hu jintao has paid his respects at the north korean embassy at beijing yesterday. and one can imagine that china may be concerned enough to be reaching out in other ways to revive economic support. i'm very much struck by the openness of doubt in chinese analysts' commentary about the sustainability of north korea. that tells me that the chinese government must be very aware and concerned about sustainability. i think the national response

for this government in china, given its focus on regional stability, is going to be to try to do what it can in order to provide near-term support for sustaining north korea until there is a stable political transition, if that is possible. >> great. victor, how about japan? japan is probably viewing these changes with quite a bit of trepidation. how should the japanese government approach change? >> first, i would agree that they are viewing this with a great deal of trepidation. as we all know, for japan, north korea is an existential threat, the biggest threat possibly to japanese national security. in that sense, i think they're following the situation very closely. i think the government has

already made a statement on this about the death of the north korean leader. what they can do, it is open to question of what they can do beyond that. the visit by the japanese foreign minister here provided a good opportunity for the u.s. administration and for the japanese to make a strong sign of alliance and solidarity in the event of any sort of change that happens in the region, which is always the first thing you want to do. from that sense, that was a good opportunity. in terms of the future of japan, the issues are very clear when it comes to north korea. they're very concerned about the missile threat from north korea, particularly them the abductions issue, and at the same time, they potentially have a great deal of things to offer in return, in terms of coordinated packages of economic

development assistance, through the six party framework. but all that is on hold right now. the government of japan will monitor the situation and look for openings, if any exists, for making inroads on diplomacy and some of these outstanding issues. but i doubt that they are going to be able to find any. the primary road to diplomacy was supposed to happen this week, through the united states, and that is probably going to be put on hold for at least the foreseeable future. japan is really wait-and-see. they are closely tied with united states. and then for all of these countries, also, to maintain channels to china, since china

is really the only country that has eyes on the ground in north korea. even though they do not know very much about what is going on, they still know more than we know. >> jack, how about the united states? how should it today approach the north koreans in this period? >> a two-pronged approach that they should be thinking about. if we believe that there is a high probability that kim jong un will not succeed, that there is some beginning of collapse -- in the way i would put this is that the death of kim jong il is the beginning of the end of north korea, and we think that as a high probability, then our first priority is to think through the consequences. what should we be preparing for in the eventuality, whether it comes quickly or drags out over comes quickly or drags out over several months, a couple of