freeze. they are really willing to do their part as far as a large reduction package. clearly, those issues were discussed as part of a multi- year, large deficit reduction plan. i do not know if it is appropriate to be asking those folks to take another hit when we are not asking corporations to have their loopholes closed, when we are not asking folks who are making millions of dollars a year to pitch in a little bit more. after all, they are talking about cutting the pensions of folks, for december, at the cia, who helped track down osama bin laden. thank you for getting the guy. we're going to freeze your pay. these are things we should look at in a larger context. i do not think they should be part of a short-term plan. again, we're going to have a conversation. >> the financing mechanism for the two-month extension is

higher fees on fannie and freddie over 10 years. how comfortable are you, just as a general proposition, of having money that goes out in two months, as the payroll tax, jobless benefits, to pay for over 10 years of fees? that is spending up front, revenue over the long haul rise in. their budget talks on both sides who say that is simply no way to run the federal budget, and it creates and intensify as the debt and debt problems -- that and deficit problems we are going to deal with -- there are budget hawks on both sides to say that it is simply no way to run the federal budget, that it creates and intensifies the debt and deficit problems that we're going to deal with. >> when you're dealing with appropriations caps, those sometimes become a little bit more iffy.

people will be after all -- people will have to be careful to monitor that. >> we can talk about this without talking -- we cannot talk about this week without talking did politics about what happened in the house -- without talking about what happened in the house. what you think about what happened with john boehner? >> there will be a lot of political analysis. i will say that i think it is part of a political pattern that we have seen all year long. we have issues where there are important differences, but there have been bipartisan answers to these issues. instead of taking a more bipartisan approach, there have been big parts of the house republican congress that have not been interested in bipartisanship. they have taken these things to the brink. i hope that, moving forward, we can get beyond that and look for

some practical answers to these very real questions. we have seen that pattern. we saw it over the summer, where house republicans threatened to prevent united states from paying its debts for the first time in its history. we saw it in multiple efforts to shut down the federal government if republicans did not get their way. hopefully in the new year, we will get beyond that. we will get to more problem- solving. i am glad this issue was resolved, finally, at the end of the year. it should not have taken this long. it should not have been so hard. at least we got it done. as we turn to this question about how to extend a payroll tax cut for the remainder of the year, it is going to be very important that people come together in the spirit of compromise so that we do not repeat what we just saw. >> speaker boehner, stronger or weaker after this last week? >> that is going to be the

question for his caucus. >> but democrats and white house way that all the time -- weigh that all the time. you have a very strong feel for these sorts of things. stronger or weaker? >> that will play out in the coming months among the republican congress. the speaker appeared to, having thought about the proposal put forward in the senate -- he thought it was the right way to go, at least initially. obviously, the tea party wing of his caucus changed his mind, or at least changed the dynamic within the caucus. the question is, for his caucus, what is the last -- the lesson coming out? as a lesson that the speaker's initial instincts were right -- was the lesson that the speaker's initial instincts were right?

again, i think it is still unclear how the politics will play out within the republican caucus. >> what you think congress has historically low approval -- why do you think congress has an historical low approval rating right now? >> it takes great effort to resolve what should be relatively easy. seemed to be a no-brainer in the senate. you had a bipartisan group, 89 out of 100 senators. you know how rare that is in the capital, and a number of republican senators. yet when it came to the house of representatives, you had the tea party wing, the more right-wing, the extreme wing of the caucus, put the brakes on that and tosses into this sort of fire storm in the closing week.

so, i think as we go forward, i hope we will find it easier to resolve our problems without going to those extremes. republicans -- the public is watching that. they are understandably frustrated. i am and i would be to if i was watching this from the outside -- would be too if i was watching this from the outside. >> if you look at the poll numbers, democrats, republicans, independents -- they give 9%, 10%, 11% approval ratings. do they say, it is republicans? or do they say, washington is broken? >> a pox on both their houses. none of them can get together. the best we can hope for is to urge the american people to closely follow what is going on, to follow what positions

everybody is taking. in this last week, people did get a real sense of who is willing to enter into bipartisan compromises. who only got their kicking and screaming -- there kicking and screaming? the important thing is that the country got the right result. answer your question, i think people will be paying closer attention, and i believe that is a good thing. i believe greater sunshine on the process and the positions of the parties will show that the president and certainly congress are working hard to get the economy moving. that is the main focus of the country. jobs are going to be the main issue of this election. >> would you say that this last debate played out the way it has is a watershed moment for your party in its attempt to win back the house, in that occur five or

debut traction on issues -- in that it clarified or gave you traction on issues? it may turn out to be looked at as a significant turning pro ball? >> that is a very difficult question. when you're in the middle of the moment, people say it will be a watershed moment. i do and think the conclusion is the best result for the country -- i do think the conclusion is the best result for the country. / .

how could the you not believe it's not going to make a solid difference? >> because i think the main thing for the country is the

economy and jobs. and that's what people are going to focus on. >> i think the overriding factor will be how's the economy performing and what is the vision of the candidates for the economy's future

>> i would like to see an even longer fix. as you point out, how much we can pay for and, with the compromise agreement -- and come up with a compromise agreement the longer we can continue, the better. it is a question of coming together and identifying the offsets. another issue that will come up is to what extent some of it savings can be used for the purpose of deficit. >> the ama, along with senator

kyl, to retire, -- son to max baucus,etire, and have come up with the same fix. house republicans are adamantly opposed, arguing it is false savings for real spending. it is not actual savings. it is just counting savings. how open are you to using what we call here in washington, oco, overseas contingency operations savings or something like medicare -- for something like medicare doc fix? >> is a corporate to look at savings that are real. -- it is appropriate to look at savings that are real. if you look to that, at the spending in the defense accounts and overseas, the reality is that per

contingencies moneys -- the contingencies moneys are being used to fund what i would consider ongoing, non-ward defense on jennings -- non-war defense functions. the reality is that those funds are real in the sense are being used today to fund non-war operations. and you would like to pull them back - >> you would like to pull them back in? >> the defense department should live within their budget. those funds are multiyear slush funds. if you do not kill those back, the reality is that those are available for expenditure -- scale those back, the reality is that those are available for expenditure. it can lead to real deficit

reduction. this is going to be part of the conversation. >> we have time for a couple more questions. >> i want a fast forward. december 31, 2012, two things about the terry significant will happen. the bush tax cuts are set to expire. the automatic cuts will be triggered because the super committee was not able to come up with the funds. there are some who are seeking to alter that defense sequester, saying an across-the-board cut would be damaging to national defense. is this an issue that congress will be able to solve? is this setting up for a cl lame-duck session this year? >> i have proposed totally eliminating the sequester, not substituting another plan, the $1.20 trillion. if you just automatically sequester, the deficit will increase by $1.20 trillion. we do not want to do that.

we should, as congress, come up with a plan, a balanced plan to reduce more than $1.20 trillion from the deficit. but i certainly oppose the idea of increasing the deficit and not looking for offsets. and i do think it makes sense to find a reasonable approach and a balanced approach rather than this across-the-board cut in both defense and non-defense. you put your finger on the big bump of the coming year, which is going to be december. while i very much hope the congress can resolve a lot of these issues we're talking about today, like the extension of the payroll tax and other issues, the big questions about the future of the economy and a balanced approach to the deficit are very likely to take place after the election. in fact, the election will be a great national debate about how best to approach those issues. in december of next year, in

addition to facing the possibility of the across the board sequestered beginning in january, 2013, you also have the end of all of the 2011 -- by themselves, the amount of $4 trillion. what i mean by that is, if congress were to pack its bags and go away, you would have an additional $4 trillion going into treasury, compared to current policy. that is going to be part of the mix. it is all going to be part of the conversation. -- conversation during the election. what i hope, though, is that while that grand conversation is going on around the country in the next election, we're still able to do some important business for the country, including extending the peril tax cut, unemployment compensation -- the payroll tax unemployment compensation.atio

>> if barack obama loses, does it make it likely that the bush tax cuts will be extended? >> the question is also about the majority of the house. >> i thought you might say that. >> if you look at the swings in the last couple of congressional elections, they have been in the range of 25-plus. especially if the conversation continues the way it has been, i think more and more people are going to be looking for a change of the majority in the house of representatives. your question as to how the elections will affect the outcome of these big issues that we're talking about -- i think they will have a very real impact. i think that is why these elections are so important, both for the presidency, why it is important to reelect the president, as well as the house and senate. >> congressman chris van hollen, thank you for being our "newsmakers."

-- "newsmaker." where is their common ground as they head into these negotiations on the payroll tax extension to try to make it long term, or at least 10 more months? where did the democrats and republicans agree -- where do the democrats and republicans agree? >> it is $170 billion for 10 months on these three outstanding programs. it gets you may be a comparatively small change. on this christmas day, i would say we are looking toward groundhog's day. the democrats will reintroduce the question of the millionaire surtax. the republicans better have a better argument, or they will be revisiting all the political elements of this debate that they found torturous for the better part of a month. that will play out in the next 60 days. >> where do we end up?