u.n. resolution says remove it from iran. it can be left from iran and diluted but it's possible to reconvert it. you can go to 90% to create a weapon. the idea of the congress not acting really does offend me because the purpose of the sanctions is to deter them falling apart at a time we still need them. sanctions is to determ falling apart at a time we still need them. the number of countries sending delegations to iran is growing by the day. beginning to fall apart. if congress voted to pass new sanctions that could only be imposed if this agreement fell apart, it would reinforce to the western world, stop doing business with iran. michael singh, the

politics behind all this, what's going on? guest: to the extent we have made progress on iran that led , ithe stage we're at now was as a result of cooperation between congress and the president, perhaps unspoken cooperation. it was that combination of very tough sanctions as well as this diplomacy which has taken place as well as other factors that led to the place we're at now. the disagreement that you hear is really about the end state, what sort of final agreement would be acceptable, where am,uld we leave iran's progr to what extent can we get more from iran that we have gotten so far? element that does not deal with the interim.

but deals with the final status program, whichar says we will allow iran to have a uranium enrichment program. congress believes that is a premature and unacceptable concession to the iranians. for the white house, you need congress is cooperation to lift i think you have no choice but to try to reach some meeting of the minds between congress. we are very far away from that, which is one big obstacle to reaching a final agreement. many of our allies around the world feel as though this interim agreement was presented to thete accomplish

world. i don't think we can do that with a final agreement. between here and any final agreement there has to be better cooperate tatian -- cooperation between congress and the white house. p5+1. caller: critics have claimed that the washington institute for near east policy is an extension of the american israeli political affairs committee and it seems by looking at the members of the advisory boards and board of directors, that they are disproportionately pro-israeli. can your guest talk about this? the washing institute is

-- washington institute is a nonpartisan think tank. we have a range of scholars who focus on the middle east. they study all aspects of the middle east. we have lots of former u.s. officials, serving military officers. we have a diverse range of views on our staff, pretty much like any think tank in washington. try to helpis to people understand what is happening in the middle east and to help policymakers formulate effective policies in the middle east that advance american interests. that is our sole mission and that is what we are dedicated to. host: where is president of --hin a judge today ahmadinejad today? before he left office he

was already being marginalized by the supreme leader, the political establishment in iran. he was fighting a rear guard action against his political enemies that became quite bitter. now the president rouhani has taken office, a lot of that has faded into the background. he is no longer a big story in iran. .ost: let's go to blair caller: i'd like to ask mr. singh if he and members of the washington institute for near east policy ever watch press tv out of iran, and how do they , or the verycism

veracity and authenticity of the 9/11 attack itself, most especially when coupled with our own u.s. investigators' conclusions about building seven? this is brought up repeatedly at press tv and i'm wondering how think tanks in washington handle the skepticism's. 9/11 truth or is folly.earing is absolute it is nonsense. the story of 9/11 is well- established and has been well established and it is nonsense to go into that. but you do here skepticism around the world about what is happening in iran and the middle east. what i think is best to do is start with the facts and go from there. john is next on the republican line.

i'd like to make a complaint about yesterday's program on the nsa. on for an hour and 15 minutes, had a one-sided and-surveillance viewpoint interrupted a caller as he was making a comment against his own position. sanctions aret already beginning to unravel? ion,t u.s. military opt what possibility is that still on the table because my hearing is that the military option, willy believes the u.s. use military in this situation? the sanctions unraveling, this is a concern that a lot of

american allies and folks in congress have. you have seen this rush of business delegations to iran, anticipating that further sanctions will be relieved. it's hard to know what practical effect this will have in irna. -- iran. the message from the u.s. government has been, it's not business as usual with iran. in six months, if there is no progress on this deal, perhaps all the sanctions will be back in place. dangers, whenl you get locked into negotiation nd, isas no end date in mi that sanctions regimes tend to crumble. it is a concern here. the u.s. government is going to need to keep a close eye on our countries, are entities, our companies being willing to fully

comply with the sanctions. about the part is military option. president obama says the military option is on the table. that is met with a lot of skepticism around the world because president obama's campaign in 2008 around withdrawal from -- c entered around withdrawal from iraq and afghanistan. means what he says, it's important to reinforce the credibility of that message. thing you're hearing is that anyone who opposes this deal supports war. that is a false choice that's being presented. you really don't see that president obama is preparing for war if this negotiation. part. more sanctions is the most -- falls apart.

more sanctions is the most likely outcome. it has been an awful shame that we have resorted to these false accusations of war mongering here in washington as part of this debate. host: the white house releasing a summary of the understanding between the u.s. and the p5 plus one nations and iran. iran has agreed to halt production of 20% of enriched uranium, and iran will be able to continue enrichment up to 5% and these inspectors will make sure there is no new construction that would provide the nuclear capacity. how do you verify? guest: what they have agreed to do is stop producing 20%, medium

and take theirm existing stockpile and convert it to other forms. they're converting it to other forms and it would probably take between one and two weeks to reconvert that to the 20% form. the 5% side they are allowed to continue enriching up to 5% with the same number of centrifuges operating now but they have agreed to cap the stockpile of 5% enriched uranium at the current level. when it comes to new enrichment facilities, that's not a job for the inspectors. it's hard for them to verify that iran is not secretly building a facility somewhere because they don't have that authority to make unannounced inspections.

that will be a task for western intelligence agencies, to keep a close eye on what iran is doing to make sure they're not covertly setting up a parallel program. host: pat is joining us on the republican line. know whetherike to or not all these efforts to accommodate iran are going to signal the beginning of the end of the nonproliferation regime. how long is it going to survive if iran will be allowed to go to , andery tip of the cliff other countries want to protect themselves? it does allow iran to have the mystic enrichment capability.

there are states which enrich uranium inside countries. most of those states are nuclear weapons states. the only non-nuclear weapons states that have domestic enrichment capabilities are argentina and brazil, which had nuclear weapons programs which they have shelved. germany and the netherlands produced in enriched uranium for expert to other countries, and japan, which is regarded as a latent nuclear power. this would put iran in a small category. the fear is it would prompt other countries around the middle east to want to have the same technology. the united arab emirates signed a nuclear accord with the u.s. were they agreed not to have this kind of technology. cannot have this technology, even though we just agreed that iran can have it, that seems to be a difficult position to sustain. we don't want to see that list

of countries that are enriching uranium to expand. the is an issue with which administration really has to contend in a more serious way in which they -- than which they .ave in the past host: michael singh was an assistant to: powell and condoleezza rice and for the national security council, former professor at harvard and now managing director of the washington institute for near east policy. marcel is joining us from virginia. caller: i have a few comments to make. first is a question. me if you read

"new yorkkerry's that the-ed article iranian's program can only be seen as one heading towards a nuclear program because of the way it is established. he points out that no country would want to have the kind of program they have if they really wanted to use nuclear facilities because in purposes one year iran can produce as much uranium that is refined as is produced in europe for sale in five hours. iran's interest superiorityse its

or its view that it has superiority in that part of the middle east through the use of this particular kind of program. marcel is referring to an op ed written by william perry and a nuclear expert based in california. it is a point widely accepted amongst iran and nuclear nuclear that iran's program is clearly configured as a weapons program because the extent of iran's infrastructure for increasing nuclear flow -- fuel is not big enough for a power program. they have a ballistic missile program which seems to be oriented towards producing long- range ballistic missiles.

this is now widely accepted, that iran's program was a nuclear weapons program. has abundant resources, fossil fuels, the third-largest or second largest gas reserves in the world and has abundant resources of oil. i don't think many people buy that this is a nuclear power program. -- ofwas a poll ofo iran ofnians that showed that 55% iranians believe that iran's purpose is to make nuclear weapons. steve is joining us from north carolina. caller: thanks very much for c- span. the rush to the oil riches and economic opportunities of iran

is happening. the eu and russia are tired of conflict and sanctions in the middle east. will the u.s. join the world in economic opportunity and iran? consider the pivot to the east in your answer. the u.s. is interested in economic opportunity, free trade and so forth. one of the reasons that the u.s. and others are very concerned potential pursuit of nuclear weapons is because they worry about the stability of that gulf region in the middle east. i'm glad the caller raise the pivot to asia in this context. the move towards asia is very much based in economic reality in terms of u.s. trade and economic activity and is now increasingly centered in asia. our asian partners, like taiwan

as well as china -- they are increasingly getting their oil supplies, their energy supplies from this gulf region. the stability of this gulf region is very important to the economic activity in asia, and that is important to america's economic prosperity. east,we do in the middle our influence and success in the middle east impact our influence in asia and our economic well- being and the well-being of our partners and their. a story available this morning on nytimes.com, sanctions eased, iran gets feelers from old trading partners. welcomed more delegations from europe than in all of 2013. a larger and growing number of

withesses who look at iran its 70 million people as a sizable middle class, the world's last major isolated market. explain the economics behind all of this. that: this sort of story you're having a flood of , it iss delegations going to set up a lot of worries in washington and allied capitals around the world. even though we're only expressly giving limited sanctions relief, that crack in the sanctions regime will then be widened by people who are pursuing commercial opportunities as well as the iranians and their diplomatic partners around the world. the u.s. has to be vigilant about detecting any attempts to bust sanctions. iran is a large market. a lot of our success in pursuing

the sanctions have been in convincing businesses that it's bad for them to do business and iran because they will have a harmful effect on the reputation. as a declines it's logical to expect that we will see these commercial feelers. the idea that sanctions are levers that are within our control and we can calibrate is not right. that's why you have to be careful about sanctions and the message you are sending to the market and congress. host: italy's foreign minister hasbeen to iran, jack straw tradeed to iran, delegations from ireland and weeksand france in coming -- what about the u.s., and how much interest is there among american companies to invest in iran? guest: i'm sure there's

interest, but it's different for u.s. companies. u.s. national sanctions are much stricter than national sanctions elsewhere around the world. u.s. companies will be more hesitant than european companies. this is irresponsible behavior by our partners in europe. the unified message should not be that it is time for business as usual with iran. the u.s. is going to have to respond to this sort of thing and say, we will be imposing sanctions on firms that go beyond the sanctions relief that has been imposed. that will be the only way to convince these firms and countries that this is not a good idea. host: we are focusing on the

iran deal worked out with secretary kerry and our partners in europe. our next caller is on the independent line. i assume that your guest is a republican and has a conservative point of view. i used to be a republican. i'm originally of iranian descent. easingriginally against sanctions. past sanctions against cuba, north korea -- nothing has ever come about. a few months ago i was in iran and saw the hardship people are going through with the sanctions , the cost of basic necessities.

the rulers are having no issues at all. u.s. is in no position to take military action against iran. we have done it in iraq and afghanistan and both situations have been failures. for the call.u don't think there is a republican versus democrat point of view on iran. i don't think foreign policy should be politicized because i don't think there are republican and democrat foreign policies. one of the interesting thing about president obama's policy towards iran is a quite a bit of it was carried on from the bush administration, when it comes to this combination of sanctions pressure less diplomacy plus working through the p5 plus one,

there are differences. so much of the story here is of continuity. that is something that americans should like to see from our foreign policy. it does not simply change every time there is a change in administration. there are a lot of issues that the caller raised. it's important for people to recognize that it's not simply the case that sanctions are what brought iran to the table. the u.s. changed our negotiating position. our position had been that iran could not enrich uranium. we rejected in 2010 that turkey- brazil offering because it did not comply with the un security council requirements. you soften your negotiating position it makes a deal more likely. there has been a change in personnel on the iranian side.

, a savvier would say negotiating team. partions isn't important of this story and i think that sanctions will continue to be -- is an important part of the story and i think sanctions will continue to be an important part of the story. did this surprise you, this latest deal? guest: no, once you saw that rouhani had won the presidential elections, this was predictable. this first step agreement is a first step, a relatively modest step. it's important not to exaggerate what has happened here. there's a lot of hope that this will now lead to agreement that the u.s. can live with that enhances our security, stability of the region.

that is by no means a forward and conclusion. there is a lot of work especially to show our allies in the region that we are still very committed to the middle east, this is not about withdrawing from the middle east. have a betterwe negotiating atmosphere under this new team is something that most expected. from u.s. officials' point of view, this gives us the best chance. how long will these inspectors be in iran? guest: presumably as long as negotiations are ongoing and hopefully afterwards if there is a final agreement. inspections are part of this first step agreement, which lasts for six months and is renewable. my assumption is the inspection mission also lasts for six months and is renewable as negotiations continue. host: michael singh is with the

washington institute for near east policy >> more now from washington journal on the $1.1 billion spending bill. -- $1.1 trillion spending bill. eric washington of " the hill newspaper" host: you are really looking at these numbers, the 1.1 trillion dollar spending plan that was passed by the house and later the senate last week, signed by the president late friday. walk us through this. what is surprising in these numbers? a 1500-page bill, chock full of secrets that are still yielding themselves.

"the wall street journal" had a nice piece this week highlighting the white potato rider to make sure that people can still purchase white with subsidies. it is full of policy but it sets the government is in place until september 30, guaranteeing there'll be no more shutdown as we saw subsidies. it is full of policy but it sets the government is in place until september 30, guaranteeing there'll be no more shutdown as we saw in october. .t is $1.1 trillion pr this is what democrats and republicans agreed to in the summer when paul ryan and patty murray struck a deal. host: biggest hit in terms of the budget? guest: there is a decrease in the defense budget but the defense budget is half of discretionary spending in this country. a lot of the spending in the government is on the mandatory side of the ledger and that includes security, medicare/medicaid but this is the discretionary agency budgets of there is a decrease for defense of about $30 billion compared to what they had been

seeking. another big decrease of about $8 billion comes from the labor hs budget, the departments of labor and health and human services which administers obamacare and the department of education. that sees a decrease but that is a sizable oil compared to some of the smaller ones like the agriculture bill. this past quickly in the house and in the senate. when speaker john boehner took over, he promised that lawmakers would be able to review the bill and then sign off on it. said weman jim mcgovern will continue to see surprises in the days ahead because it is such a massive bill. guest: that's right. it was released monday night and the houseboat was on wednesday. that was a quick turnaround. -- the house boat was on wednesday. --vote was on wednesday. all 12 of the individual bills were done on time and that has

not been done since 1994. they are telling their members who were miffed about this that they would have more time to scrutinize and offer amendments. those not on the appropriations committee did not have a lot of input into this bill because there was no time. it came under a close rule in the house and no amendments in the senate. many americans are interested in saturday mail delivery. what did you learn? guest: that is a writer that has been on the spending bill for a while. it forbids the u.s. postal service from ending saturday mail. that is something they have proposed to do. the postal service is lost money and a lot of it has -- is due to the fact that they have to pre- fund their employee retirement health care benefits. they are looking to make reforms by closing postal centers and ending saturday mail and that is forbidden in this omnibus. it would make certain funds

available through the discretionary budget contingent on six-day delivery. host: here is a headline from your piece -- the main thing to think about on the situation is that it is a victory of leadership over tea party insurgents. in october, we saw the government shutdown when speaker went along with the shutdown strategy. he basically said that we will shut down the government unless you defund obamacare. that failed in a spectacular fashion. once that was resolved, the focus of the media went on to the problems with obamacare, the botched website rollout. this created a dynamic were gop leaders felt it was in their best interest to avoid further brought theich republican poll mummers down and

get this over with quickly so they can get back on the attack on obamacare and its problems. host: we will go back to winners and losers. downoburn is stepping that because of his battle with cancer. this isoburn has made passionate signature issue. he is someone who wants the ability to amend things on the senate floor. every year, he comes up with a waste book. these are not really targeted programs. when appropriators seal the deal behind closed doors, people like coburn want to champion a more open process have to be considered losers in the process. host: another loser who was first on the list is the tea party groups. a similar headline from "the new york times." guest: you still saw more than

60 republicans vote against the bill. it passed overwhelmingly in the house. but there is a core group of people, many of home are aligned with tea party groups. tea party groups and conservative groups came out strongly against the omnibus. they issued an alert saying they would punish members in their annual rankings if they voted for it. in the end, the bill passed overwhelmingly. there was some soup rising stalwart tea party allied who voted with leadership. they have to be considered losers in this fight. host: our phone lines are open -- you can also send us a tweet or send us an e-mail.

vivian is joining us from tennessee, good morning on our line for democrats. caller: good morning to both of you. i have three to the things i want to say. the first thing is about the spending bill. republicans and democrats are taking away from the people unemployment. the talk about not extending it and that is money that people have paid for. they have been taken from their jobs. they are not lazy people. if we take the stuff from the congress and cut their salaries -- wars, the, these money spent overseas helping the people over there, they send money to them. we need that money here. the next thing i want to talk about is the tea party. i am a 63-year-old black woman. i am tired of hearing folks say

tea party. those are klansman using a new name and term. about lettingng the governors of the state run things for it if they let the governors of the states run things, i would not be able to vote today, to go and write on the bus. or go to school. that is the reason we need the government to help us out. thank you very much. one thing you brought up was the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. that is something democrats initially wanted to see in the omnibus spending bill and that was left out. once the compromise started to together, especially house democrats decided to back off from that and try another legislative vehicle. there are still talks ongoing about how to deal with extending unemployment insurance benefits which have run out for 1.3 million people because of the expiration at the end of the year.

a compromise could be found that would also reverse part of the budget deal to cut military pensions. the thing is how to pay for it and whether to pay for it. some democrats have said it's the type of disaster aid that does not need to be paid for over one year. they may be backing down from that position. harry reid said he would be open to a reasonable compromise. the past, it has included tax increases so we will see but there were tough votes in the senate this week that indicate a compromise is not readily available. host: congress is in recess this week for the martin luther king holiday in the president will deliver his state of the union address on tuesday at we will have live coverage. wasson who hasik been looking through the numbers in the 1.1 for embellish spending plan approved last week and signed by the president. he is a graduate of amherst

college and earned his masters from columbia and bill is joining us from freedom, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. spending comes under stewardship. we were told by the good lord to be a good steward. , man rebelledning against god and this has continued. when they do legislate and spend, it should be for the common good. get: a reminder, when you through next time and for all of our listeners, turn the volume down on your set which would eliminate the delay and the echo. thank you for the call. howt: this indicates passionate people are about the government spending issue. people view debt and deficit as an ethical issue.

people look at the amount of unemployed and say the government should be doing more to him money into the economy. passions are very high. on the spending issue. i think that call was an illustration of that. host: i want to share another headline from "the hill" newspaper. this follows the comment subject lou on thursday indicating that -- this follows the comments of jack lew on thursday. it's a mistake to wait until the 11th hour. congress should do this as quickly as possible and with the least drama as possible. in terms of how long congress i have communicate with congress saying we thought the ability to manage through the debt limit being hit on february 7 would it is maybe to the end

of february or early march. it's a very unpredictable time of the year. in terms of cash flow. host: those were his comments last week. this is the headline from "the hill.com." of thethis is a slip tongue that harry reid had where he talked about a lack of urgency in dealing with the debt ceiling. beingked about it something that can be within late may and his office quickly walked this back and said he was just responding to something he read in the media and nothing from treasury. this is a bit of a slip and it's on but it's an important issue. people should not think the fiscal fights of going away. the debt ceiling officially runs out on february 7. the treasury department can use a drug. measures as it has in the past to extend that deadline and make it fuzzy. thisjack lew says is that

is not going to be months and months of extra ordinary measures. it will be something that congress needs to deal with. the key thing will be coming up after the martin luther king recess when house republicans go on a retreat in maryland. one of the top issues will be how to deal with the debt ceiling and whether to seek entitlement cuts or perhaps something less far-reaching like the approval of the keystone xl hotline from canada that has been a hot topic for a long time especially in many states in the midwest. that should come out in the last week of january. host: let's go back to the name of this -- the omnibus. what does that refer to? guest: it refers to the fact that all 12 of the annual spending bills are put together in one enormous package and that is not happened in years. there was one in 2011 that did not have all of the bills. this is everything. this includes the defense will which often passes on time. that is why they use the term on the bus.

host: you have written about this but there is a headline journal.com.l let me read a few portions -- in thethat's right,

georgia situation, senator chambliss is retiring and you have a bunch of house all planning to run for the seat. kingston is the cardinal, the subcommittee chairman, in charge of the bill that ultimately funds obamacare. he was in a tough position and wound up voting against the omnibus. when appropriators and leadership crafted this deal, they did it in a way to present it as a win-win. new funding, no increased funding for the irs, for example, to in the -- to implement the individual mandate. it's in force by a tax penalty. there is a cut of $1 billion to the obamacare prevention fund that republicans have called a slush fund. this is a fund that secretary

sibelius could dip into in order up the account on obamacare. that is something that republicans pointed to as a victory on obamacare. on the democratic side, they can point out the program will go ahead which would not have been the case during the shutdown. host: here is another story to bring you from thehill.com. muriel is joining us from new haven, connecticut, democrats line. caller: good morning. i simply want to say this -- is apending bill itself positive measure.

-- was it 40 times? i lost count. this is a complete waste of the taxpayers money. segment thate last government is not working or is working. government is working for the congress people because they are getting their salaries to do nothing. they take continual recesses. time,ody needs vacation

even the ordinary person out there like myself. we all need vacations. what has happened in the congress is a slap in the face to the american people that are struggling out here. has climbed, milk to over four dollars per gallon in new haven. i don't know whether or not -- i have not kept up with it -- i have become so disgusted with what is happening, i just turn it off. host: thank's very much for the call. that: that's another thing congress has to deal with as -- is the "farmville". it has been delayed for two years. lastsat the farm bill until the end of september, the department of agriculture needs to revert to 1949 -- law which would mean a huge spike in milk

prices. proposals of the "farmville" are talking about milk package -- proposals of the farm bill are talking about milk prices. we may see one at the end of january. the speaker could be pitted against democrats and the members who support the dairy issue. the delay "farmville" is something that people point to -- the delayed farm bill is something that people point to. this has raised hopes that rings can get done. inbara mikulski of maryland the flush of victory said this could bode well. one thing people are looking for or are worried about is a compromise on immigration. we will see house republicans releasing their principles on how to do with immigration. it will be a real test on the farm bill and immigration whether the spirit of the omnibus compromise leads to

legislative achievements in the coming months. we will really be into the midterm election season. host: another question -- technically, there are no earmarks. rks hasinition of earmake to be below a certain level. there's a different definition of earmarks. there are certain pet projects in their in energy and water related to the army corps of engineers and certain energy projects. government groups are still going through this to come up with their tally. it depends on the definition. if you have a really wide definition of earmakrs, congress would say you are

defining is out of the whole process. this is a debate that still goes on. technically, as far as tiny or secretive things that are slipped in there, they have certified that there are no earmarks. host: this is a question we posed you this past week. what is regular order? how do you define that and why has that term become part of the hill lexicon? guest: it would go under the 1970s budget act which would mean both houses of congress first accept the president's budget proposal which is supposed to come out the first monday in february, review that, and the house and senate would pass their own budget, reconcile this. it would not go to the president, just set a spending level and the appropriators would go ahead and pass each individual spending bill. there is one for agriculture, commerce, justice, and science agencies. there is one for the departments

of labor and health and human services and education and then run them through the floor, allowing for amendments and then having them signed individually. this is something that speaker john boehner, before he took over, had pledged to pursue and says it's important especially in dealing with government waste. you can have an amendment on the floor that says this row graham is ridiculous and have a debate about it and try to get rid of it. host: a comment from one of our viewers who is discussing the economy -- let's go back to the point of the unemployment benefits and the food stamp program. the farm bill is still tbd? guest: that's right, there was a

cut to food stamps that happened. it was the beginning of december that affected a lot of people and benefits across the board. it was due to the expiration of the obama stimulus program. food stamp continue and they are part of the mandatory budget number the actual foodstamp spending is not set by this omnibus. it is set by the farm bill. there is a debate about whether and how to cut food stamps over 10 years. originally, the house proposed $39 billion in cuts over 10 years. the senate had proposed $4 billion. we have learned that the compromise is about nine billion dollars in cuts. that is something democrats in the senate can go along with. the way they would be achieved is by tightening the ability of people who qualify for food stamps by the virtue of getting home heating assistance. onet stands, people can get

dollar of home heating assistance and automatically qualify for food stamps even if their income says otherwise. by changing that to $20 per month, you would thereby exclude some people and save $9 billion. people thought it would be the biggest problem and it turns out that dairy policy and whether to control production of dairy -- something speaker boehner has been passionate about -- it is the hold up and they are trying to square that circle behind the scenes. host: our guest is erik wasson, our focus the omnibus bill passed last week. our guest writes for "the hill" newspaper. from maine, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. my question has to do with the -- i am concerned about this identity theft.

toterday, i took the time call three of the four congresspeople in the house of representatives in connecticut. they all voted against it. then i called senator blumenthal's office and i was told that he voted against it. apparently, they don't understand that democrats, -- whatever latinos you are -- we are all americans and we all have credit cards. everybody has a lot of them in the united states. they have no concern. so what if we get hacked into? but just when this target department store problem -- innocent people have been hacked

into. and they say, it's of no concern to us. the democrats are supposed to be, they love us and want to help the people who don't have a lot of money. .aybe you can explain it to me i would love to hear an answer. i wasn't quite following exactly what foti was referring to, but the issue of identity theft has come to the fore with this massive theft of customer data at target. it is something people are interested in trying to figure out what the legislative fix would be. host: bill from youngstown, ohio is on the democrats line. i had a question, if you could elaborate on it or it i

was listening to the -- it. -- theistening to the pay for the unemployment extension. when the initial figures came out, when i was reading online in terms of this budget, when it , wes to defense spending spent somewhere upwards of $1 trillion. reading -- counting benefits for retired vetera ns. when trying to find out about is, why they're having a difficult time finding this money to pay for these expenses. the base defense spending

is $520 billion. this is a $1.1 trillion defense make up almost half of that . when you include war funding, $92 billion for afghanistan and operations at the cia to deal with terrorism. it is a large part of the budget. one of the things you bring up is who wins. there are some very controversial weapons programs, the most expensive joint strike fighter jet ever , the abrams tank. these are big defense programs and there are a lot of jobs associated with them. lobby have aeople lot of people in town looking out for their interests.

perhapsment benefits, the group does not have as powerful of a lobby. the $6 million cut to pension. that does not take lace until 2015, so congress is planning to have a year of debate on this issue and there are attempts to reverse that or find other savings. democrats have come up with one idea to pay for unemployment insurance, to extend sequestration cuts to medicare in the out years in 24. republicans had at one point talked to another cut to obamacare. these are opening offers that are out there and perhaps they can find a middle ground. whenever you can find an offset, there will be a party that wants to protect that. host: it might be helpful to

take a step back and explain to the audience how all of this came together. late lastns began year between senator patty murray and congressman paul ryan. their mission was to do what? guest: it was set out in the deal that ended the government shutdown, to come up with a way to replace part or all of sequestration, set a topline budget number for this year. that does not include war funding. $1.012. it is something the paul ryan and patty murray were able to come together on. reversed $65 billion in sequestration cuts that were put into effect by the failure of supercommittee to come up

with a grand bargain. both sides had motivation to come to a deal and they found $85 million in offsets to pay for the 55 lean dollar increase. retirement benefits for future all federal workers curtailed and a host of other changes that were put in there. that was signed into law by the president in december, which triggered another round of negotiations between rogers and .ikulski over break would all of us were enjoying the holidays, a staff were working feverishly everyday

to come up with some agreement and these marathon talks resulted in the bill that was signed into law by the president on friday. host: you reported over the weekend that a number of leading senators want to restore the pension plan to the original pension amount. if that happens, where does the money come from? guest: there's a lot of different ideas about what to do that. there was a small change in the on the bus. the original cut applied to disabled veterans and survivors of those killed in action. they were exempted to the omnibus. the cost-of-living increases for other military retirees is curbed. this is something that was insisted on by paul ryan. i think a lot of deficit hawks think the benefits to the

civilian and military are overly generous compared to the private sector. they are more generous in the private sector. other republicans, defense hawks like john mccain are adamantly opposed to that and working feverishly to reverse it. host: chris is joining us from ohio on the republican line. i was calling about the unemployment extension. i was wondering why they have the test votes on them. what the whole point of that is, if it doesn't count for anything. to my knowledge, the actual vote has been put off a couple

different times that congress is vacation andek's they're trying to figure out where to come up with the money to offset some of that. problem with the them cutting congress's vacation and their paid vacation to help fund part of the unemployment? host: are you out of work at the moment? for how long? caller: yes. a year. host: what have you been doing without unemployment benefits? stopped theenefit 28th of december and i still had money coming in, but when they stopped, i can't get that no more. a lot of this depends on the political pressure that you and others who are affected by this can put on congress.

the test vote was taken to see if members were feeling the heat and were willing to go along with it. as of yet, their judgment has been that perhaps they're feeling more heat from deficit .awks or tea party groups a lot of these test votes are taken to encourage backroom negotiations, which are no doubt occurring on staff level during the recess. this has been done in the past as far as making congressional on or vacations continued action, and the no budget no pay , congressyear ultimately sign onto that and the senate it is they budget for the first time in four years.

-- produced a budget for the first time in four years. host: on our line for les isdents from neavada, on the phone. i sure don't know how they can call themselves deficit hawks. they won't do one thing to get rid of the loopholes that the big businesses and these hedge fund managers, the superrich -- 15% ofe mr. romney $20 million, and my buddy down the street -- it seems ridiculous. we balanced the budget in the george busht was would not raise taxes.

clinton raised taxes a little bit more and we balanced the budget. convinced it was the moderate cuts and waste in the pentagon, and there's a whole lot of waste over there, and getting rid of all these -- ge pays no tax. how ridiculous is that? voicing arguments of democrats have been making, but you need to -- that you need to close loopholes. the loophole allows hedge fund managers to be taxed at 15%.

the grand bargain, which has been talked about, should include ending tax expenditures as well as dealing with entitlements. democrats point to the increase in deficits that happened under .ush that's the argument he's making. phone.hris is on the caller: your audience of news watchers should be aware that in west virginia we been having a terrible crisis of late around water pollution due to the carelessness of our chemical industry and lack of inspections. we have a perfectly horrible example of the need for more oversight by the government. havee also aware that we an industrial lobby and a bunch of politicians that are constantly demonizing the epa,

which has been totally out to lunch during this water crisis. have the republicans got the orl to bury any stinkers further hamsters to the epa -- hamstringers to the epa in this budget bill? guest: there are some interesting coal industry supported writers in this bill. them relates to the army corps of engineers. there is something called fill material that relates to mountaintop removal, mining, and the author would prevent the that,orps from arising which some say would allow the army corps to keep dumping in streams like west virginia. theher it actually affects

epa, the army corps would be forbidden from doing any work under this bill the president obama signed into law. host: recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen,