syria would be crazy and a war between the u.s. and syria would iran and the united states would bring nothing but further grief. yes, we are capable given our past history, being helpful with israel and palestine. we have shown that in the last 60 years of conflict, if we have a policy that reflects the needs, if we persevere, if we are strong and patient, we can prevail. we need to have a little more confidence in our own country to do this.

>> i would like to hear some comment on what tom friedman calls the third infitada, the tightening of the screws and israel in the negotiations. >> we have tried to address that to some extent. i don't know how many of you have had the experience of living in israel and watching this incredible interchange, interaction between the public and media and the government. it's not something i've experienced in any other country.

this issue has been there, but was largely ignored until rather recently. several developments which we mentioned, the eu boycott of settlements, the danish and norwegian banks -- the dutch disinvesting, the talk by angela merkel. you can bet the tom friedman article is being discussed at every dinner party and in the media in israel. i think it's very important that may be leading to a tipping point. >> the palestinians have one

other asset which, i think, as a last resort they may use before going to the united nations again. they are reluctant to do this because it would be very costly to the united states because congress has passed a law that declares that we shall withdraw from any eu and specialized agencies that admits a palestinian as members, and that would cause havoc for us. we are opposed to this policy. there is a need, i think, in the future if this american initiative continues, and i

believe it will, to begin to develop more public diplomacy. peace is not made by diplomats in the secret conversations. it is made by the people, and the societies of both israel and palestine will have to be committed to peace if it is to succeed. kerry will begin to turn a corner to engage united states more directly with the israeli public and the palestinian public. it's already happening in a way but we need to build this and as a very important component of diplomacy. >> there is a night where scenario. john kerry's talks fail,

everything goes back to how it was. palestinians are just too tired of all this nonsense. maybe they will go into a new specialized agency and the u.s. has to pull out. how stupid. then israel is labeled continually as the black mark. that would be a terrible scenario, which could happen. i hope it does not, for everyone's benefit. >> i think it's important to draw the distinction between bds, boycott disinvestment, sanction, and other attempts that give the impression you try to delegitimize israel as a

state. they are two different things. bds is aimed at israeli investments and activities in the occupied territories. products that are produced there and labeled "made in israel," actually it is not true because they do not claim they are part of israel yet, but my way of thinking is it is a perfectly legitimate, peaceful way to put pressure on israel because the product are not made in israel. what is more complicated is the disinvestment of banks because they all have branches in the settlements. that is more concerning than the

question of boycotts on products made in the territories. on the other hand, the question of delegitimization is more loaded because this is an attack on the basic jewish narrative of israel. there is a battle of two narratives. the twain shall never meet. narratives were important on both sides, so attacking the basic narrative on either side is a dangerous proposition. it's one thing to maintain your own narrative but another to attack the narrative of the other.

>> yes? right there? >> you mentioned peace will ultimately come not through diplomacy, but in peace from themselves. you mentioned peace will ultimately come through the people themselves. in your travels, did you encounter any influence or hear anything about the peace initiatives or even the geneva accords being resurgent? >> yes, i think the geneva accords is one of the templates as are the clinton parameters for a peace agreement. geneva people are still working

and they have institutionalized it and they are using it. the arab league initiative, i think, is quite popular among the pragmatic center in israel although it is feared by the far right because it shows an israeli withdrawal in exchange for peace. there are many, many international and american private organizations that are trying to promote dialogue. this is a very old institution whereby israelis and palestinians listen to each other and ultimately begin to accept each other to mobilize themselves for the approach to peacemaking. that alone has not been enough to brace this impasse, but i

applaud these american groups who send teams over to israel and palestine annually. i think there is a payoff there and they should be supported. >> i think we have time for one last question -- two. please. >> concerning israel's perceived need for security under a peace agreement, netanyahu was asked a question, who do you trust? the answer was, i trust my own army. that is a fairly strong statement precluding the notion of the u.s. or international involvement in the jordan valley. i'm wondering how serious you take that and what it implies moving forward.

>> if i were kerry, i would take it as an opening position and would not accept it as the final position. if that means the army permanently stationed along the jordan river, that's a total nonstarter. but when you deal with right-wing israeli governments, you always have to be careful to distill real security concerns out of a mix that includes strong ideological and religious considerations. >> why does no one ever talk about the security of the palestinians? >> allow me. both sides have legitimate

security concerns. israel has them, and palestine does, too. when i talked with the peace team, i pointed that out and i pointed out the danger and talking only to the israelis about peace terms and security arrangements and going to the palestinians and say this is what we need to do for israelis. it's been done before and it's a stupid thing to do. it's a mistake. i hope the president's guys have not done it that way. i agree, it's an opening position. we have to defend ourselves by ourselves and continue to do that. but israel is not defending itself now. without american support, they

would be a quite different security situation and i'm not only talking about funding but all kinds of equipment and so forth and the 1973 war we remember that have supply issues and requirements. i don't think they've ever let them down when it comes to security needs. they are maintaining the qualitative edge and it has been done it very well to the present day. it is wider than it has been since the 1967 war. in fact there have been no complaints with the obama administration regarding the security support. it's not true now and it was not necessary then. ways can be found to ensure israeli and palestinian security and we have heard that they have needs, too.

what security needs to they have? one can analyze that and they do have needs. to me, one of the biggest problems we need to solve is now, it's the idea that controls the west bank. it is under military law, not civilian law. israelis can do anything they want, due to their own ethical and moral considerations. some go beyond those things as published by israeli former soldiers who served and did some of those things. the hardest thing will to get israel to accept that they no longer have total freedom of action to do whatever they want in the palestinian territories in the new state of palestine. that will be a big psychological

barrier that will have to be broken through. i think it can be broken through. >> i think the u.s. must remain sensitive to the security of the state of israel. but the real threat is its occupation another nation, and that is simply untenable in the 21st century because it violates all universal attitudes towards human rights, human freedom, and self-determination. that is the real security problem. of course, israel, like all nations, has other security problems, and they should he attended to.

the fact the u.s. has focused on israel's security i think this has given a sense of false confidence that military force is the key to security. it is not, and i think history confirms that. >> one word about the palestinians. their most pressing issue is to get rid of the foreign military occupation so they can begin to live normal lives. >> with that, we will close out for today. [applause] we are out of time. i appreciate your attendance today. thank you for coming. keep an eye out for us in the future. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a live picture from the heritage foundation. until sixence lasts :00 eastern with discussions on privacy, health care, marriage, religious freedom.

among the speakers, senator ted cruz and mike lee, jim jordan, jeb hensarling. you can see this live. easternrun until 6:00 on c-span. the u.s. house will return for work at 2:00 this afternoon, it's just two bills on the calendar. funny, andrizes noaa another condemning violence in ukraine. we are expecting general speeches first and then a recess until 5:30. then we will see work on the debt ceiling. republican's are holding aim members-only meeting today. 5:30 thisg is set for evening. you can see that house when it returns today on c-span at 2:00 eastern. and look at the week ahead in congress with a reporter who joined us for "washington journal."

continues. continues. host: welcome back. our guest is susan ferrechio. she's the chief congressional correspondent for "the washington examiner." thank you for being here. walk us through. what are the major story lines running on capitol hill this week? guest: everyone is going to be talking about the debt limit. the treasury secretary said he needs the debt limit to be raised by the end of february. otherwise he will run out of ways to fund the government. our borrowing limit is now at $17.2 trillion and that's going to need to be raised he said by the end of february. congress is in this week. the senate is in all week. the house is in until wednesday because the democrats have their annual issues retreat so they'll adjourn on wednesday. that's just three days. there's no deal yet. we're going to be all paying very close attention to how house republicans because

they run the house. not the democrats and they need to come up with a plan to agree amongst themselves on how to raise the debt ceiling and then take up legislation on that. once they pass it out of the house, the senate will need to decide whether they agree with that or not, it's by the democrats. you will have a tricky negotiation there. after that, the president can sign it. so the debt limit is the big issue on capitol hill this week. it's not expected that the house will come up with a solution by the end of this week. that leaves them with very little time because they're not going to be in session again until february 25 which is just two days before that deadline. the dominating story line in congress will be the debt ceiling. there are other issues as well. there are other legislations going on in the house and senate, including a bill in the senate to stop a planned cut to cost of living adjustment for military retirees. there's been a lot of protest over that. it was something agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal

passed earlier this year. most legislators want to get rid of it somehow. the democrats in the senate have come up with their own plan. they want to take it up today at around 5:30 with a test vote to see if they can get the 60 votes needed to begin debate on this. it will restore the proposed cuts, but it does not include a way to offset it in the budget. so it would add to the deficit. that means it's less likely that republicans will support it. so we're not expecting that to pass. host: on the topic of debt limit. you talked about the house's short week. what are you hearing from house republicans? there are some republicans in congress, no matter what they are not interested on voting on raising the debt limit. guest: they believe raising the debt limit will hurt the economy in the long run because we're borrowing and borrowing. eventually that will take up a lot of our growth, just having

to pay the bills all the time. there's another group who say if we're going to raise the debt limit, there needs to be equal cuts in the budget. that doesn't look like it's happening now. democrats feel like they have the upper hand on this. they don't want a strings attached debt limit increase. i actually think what we're going to end up seeing is a bill that passes in the house with democratic and republican support, and the people you'll see on that are republicans who don't want to threaten a government shutdown and democrats who would like to pass a debt-limit increase without any so called strings attached. i think it's headed more in that direction right now because let's think back to october when the republicans really took a hard line on spending and we ended up with a government shutdown. their numbers really plummeted in the polls. they are very much aware of the public eye being on them in this situation and taking the blame for even a threat of a government shutdown.

that gives democrats a little more leverage in this deal making. which you may end up seeing potentially a no strings attached or clean debt limit increase pass bipartisan in the house with democrats and republican support. it may end up being a last minute thing that happens on february 25 when they get back. it's possible that they'll do something this week, some folks in the leadership tell me it's not likely they'll do something this week. but it's looking more like potentially a clean debt limit increase. host: our guest is susan ferrechio of "the washington examiner." susan, you mentioned that bill from the military retirees.

explain to us what we likely to see on the senate? guest: this is a bill sponsored by mark pryor. he's a senator from arkansas. this bill would essentially restore those cuts at a cost of about $6 billion. if the cuts were not restored, the cola or cost of living adjustment reductions would amount to about 1%. i've seen some estimates that, if you were the rank of captain, that could cost you $80,000. this bill will restore that money. but again, it doesn't include a way to pay for it. it will add to the country's deficit. taking other parts of the budget, cuts elsewhere or some other way to raise money to pay for that. the problem with that, in the senate, we have the dynamic of

55 democratically controlled votes and 45 republican controlled votes. you need 60 votes to clear this test vote or cloture. it's looking less likely that you'll see enough republicans join democrats to reach that 60-vote threshold and the reason is that they want to find some way to pay for this. there has been lots of ideas out there by republicans and democrats to pay for this legislation. this one includes no pay-fors, as we call it. host: let's go to the phones. first call is from elizabeth from pennsylvania, harry is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a question about the extension of the unemployment benefits? what is the holdup? i know a lot of people who don't want to vote republicans because of this. is there going to be any more talk about the extension of

unemployment benefits? guest: absolutely there will be. one problem with the extension of unemployment benefits is how to pay for them. the democrats who run the senate has taken up this legislation in various forms. the last one, as you just mentioned accurately, was just a vote shy of reaching that critical 60-vote threshold. there is another underlying factor in the senate that's slowing down legislation. that is seniority of very much in the weeds what's going on in congress. there's a little bit of a fight with democrats and republicans over how the floor on the senate is run. the republicans feel they're not given adequate opportunity to amend legislation, to have their say on legislation, and they're also angered over a recent move by the senate democrats to make all executives in judicial branch nominees by

the president require only a simple majority for passage and not the 60 votes. because of that republicans have become far less cooperative. i think the unemployment benefits are an example of that. it's a cost of $6.4 billion. there are somewhere around 1.7 million people who are needing these unemployment benefits. this debate will continue. i can guarantee it. i think democrats will continue to bring it up. it's possible that it will reach a solution. the problem is also too in the house. it's got to be paid for in a certain way or republicans aren't going to go along with it. that's why we're seeing the gridlock here on that particular measure. host: next caller comes from elkin, maryland, carol is on the line for democrats. good morning carol, you're on "washington journal." caller: i was talking about the extension of unemployment of how

soon do you think they'll pay it? guest: great question. i know they're going to keep trying to pass it. it's hard to say, a lot of us aren't quite sure because of the various dynamics in the house and the senate, the need to pay for it a certain way. i think republicans want to pay for things one way, democrats want to pay for them another. then they are arguing over the amendment process. there are also republicans who believe that federal unemployment benefits have been extended for five years now and it's time to wind that program down. you're still eligible for state unemployment benefits. the federal benefits have been around for a long time. it cost tens of billions of dollars.

in some republican states, because the unemployment rate is developing, it's falled to 6.6%. now maybe the time to wrap it up. of course many people disagree because the unemployment picture is not that rosy in the united states in particular people that have been out of work for a long time. the debate will continue. host: one of the issues that has been polarizing in congress is the issue of immigration reform. senator chuck schumer talked about his new proposal on the senate. let's listen to a clip from meet the press. [video clip] >> let's enact the law this year and simply not actually start until 2017 after president obama's term is over. i think the rap against him if he won't enforce the law is false. he's deported more people than any other president. you can actually have the law start in 2017 without doing much violence to it. you would move the date back

to december 31, 2013, the deadline for people who can get legalization and citizenship. it would solve the problem. make no mistake about it, david, this view that we can get this done in 2015, 2016 is false. you'll have the republican presidential primary, pull people over to the right. tea party maximized. it's so simple. let's say to our republican colleagues, you don't trust obama, enact the law now, but put into effect in 2017. host: susan, your take? guest: well, i think schumer is probably accurate in saying that the presidential election year is not the best time to take up immigration reform. this become so political even more so than this year. this idea of waiting i think is an interesting one. one of the republican arguments against immigration reform is the fear that president will not enforce border security. again, that potentially put that

issue aside. the larger problem with that, republicans are wary of negotiating with president obama which would be necessary to pass a bill now. part of that reason is you might recall his state of the union address and prior remarks where he talked about taking bold action this year with or without congress and relying on his phone and his pen. republicans have watched him do that and watch him make moves that sidestepped their concerns. we're talking the epa regulations and who is deported and who is not. other issues as well where he has used the executive action to go around them. they're wary of negotiating with

him on legislation for those reasons. schumer's plan doesn't address the negotiation process. the second issue is that republicans are less likely to take up immigration right now because it divides their own party. if you're dividing your party in an election year, the focus will be on the divided republicans. in particular, the health care law where they would like to focus on the problems they see in the law that will help them in 2014. if you are tied up in the gratian reform, that detracts. i think they may wait until after 2014 before they try to get any legislative action in the house. aboutpeter king was asked

immigration reform. let's hear from him. [video clip] >> this would have been tough in any case. this islican districts, not a popular issue. it is something the party should do, but when you think district by district, it is hard to get on to it.s to sign state of theent's union, it did not help. then you get pushback in districts were there is no strong support for immigration report. certainly not a pathway to citizenship. guest: the republicans earlier this month took their annual reporters are and

not allowed to listen to the conversations. we rely on reports from lawmakers. when the immigration reform proposals and ideas were being discussed, they could be divided into three groups. there was a group who do not want any reform. they want to leave immigration alone. another group thinks immigration reform is a good idea, but now is not a great time to do it. another group, the minority, said let's do it now. you had about 2/3 of republicans saying now is not the time to do this. that leaves the leadership in a tough spot. they are getting a lot of pressure from congress and big business groups who think now is the time to do immigration

reform. they were putting pressure on republicans. john boehner has said he wants to start moving on immigration and that he would try to move bills independently on border security, guestworker agricultural programs. he is running up against opposition from his own conference. the majority is saying let's not do this now. republicans cannot go anywhere when they have 2/3 of their conference saying no. the president then threatens with executive action, feeding the distrust that already exist between house republicans and congress. that formula has spelled a temporary halt to the immigration reform.

i think this will resurface and republicans will be behind it at some point. right now it will be dormant. host: cindy in pennsylvania. you are on "washington journal." caller: yes. hello. i would like to see this unemployment come to an end -- not come to an end. i have lost benefits. it's very hard. i do work, but i get partial benefits. i even go in to do a job that 16-year-old kids do, and i am 50 years old. it is hard when you have a lot of hours and your hours are down to the bare minimum like 10, 15 hours compared to 30 hours. i need the extension.

i need this extension. i'm ready to lose my house and all. i need this extension. guest: democrats are making known that there are people who really are suffering and need federal unemployment benefits to pay their mortgage and rent and buy groceries. the economy is not healthy enough to support everybody. people are being forced into part-time work. their wages are not growing. this is all the reality of the economy. that is why this will just continue. one move the democrats are making is to highlight income inequality. they are talking minimum wage increase.

we will have a hearing this week where lawmakers will examine the idea of calling for an increase in the minimum wage up to $10.10 an hour, phased in. it is almost a 40% increase over the minimum wage right now. this is a big part of the discussion, how to get people's wages higher, and that will include more discussions about revising the unemployment benefits, which expired on december 28. the number of those who need them is growing the cause more people are running through their state benefits. i think the debate is going to continue on capitol hill. host: next caller in ohio is rick.

caller: i think the facts about congress is the american people trust the terrorists more than they trust congress. 2% of the population controls 75% of the wealth. in detroit, 1950's, 1% had maybe 3%, 5% of the wealth when i was growing up. it is the democrats and the republicans. when you put on your tv, you are being brainwashed. what you're seeing today on c-span, this lady is talking about unemployment benefits and to raise the minimum wage. the democrats are responsible for war and oil and trade policy and tax policy. there is a great book that everybody must read called "taking back the rust belt one

radio station at a time." if you're watching c-span, the last three minutes, you have seen a politician, king and schumer -- these are east coast democrats. my point is, we still have a community radio environment before deregulation. when i turn on my radio station, that information is being manipulated through the east coast, the jews, and through the shouth with clear channel and time warner. guest: we have an increasingly polarized congress and an increasingly polarized country. we have had these swing elections where one year we are electing people who are further to the left and another year

electing people much further to the right. interesting, because the result is a congress where a philosophical gap has grown so much that very little gets done in the way of big compromise. think back to the 1980's where there was a huge deal between house democrats and ronald reagan. bill clinton, welfare reform, working with republicans in the house. you don't see those big deals happening anymore. there is a real polarization. people are really divided in this country on the way forward. there is a lot of anger about the way things are being run. rich are getting richer. they gap between the classes is a big one.

it has caused a lot of anger amongst people who are struggling. wages have not been going up. they have been stagnant. the president has used executive action and called for an increase in the minimum wage for federal contractors. he has control over that. that could be an echo effect into the private sector. you might see more private companies raising the minimum wage as well. host: janet yellen will be on capitol hill on tuesday and wednesday to report to congress. what are we expecting to hear from her? guest: the choice of yellen was in part because of the flexibility on the taper.

the taper is winding down. the quantitative easing is easing down where we print extra money to keep the government healthier. we're supposed to be tapering that off, depending on how the economy goes. i expect the taper to continue but the interest rates, she is not going to raise interest rates. i think those will stay low, given we have slow economic growth. sort of stay the course for right now because there haven't been big enough improvements in the economy to suggest she would make a major change. she is very new, but has been vice chairman. she is one of the most experienced people we have had on the job. she will be the first woman in

the position, so it will be exciting to hear her speak to congress. host: she will be speaking on tuesday. the senate committee on wednesday. you can find both those hearings on c-span. robert is on our line for republicans. caller: i would like to make two comments. i have been republican for 60 years. i cannot understand how the republicans can turn their back on almost 2 million american people and their families. everybody wants to look for work. they are not supplying it for us, they are not doing anything for us. they should say, how can i do this to the american people, my own people? are they kidding? political acts because of differences between the democrats and republicans? it is ridiculous. why don't they straighten up and

fly right instead of all this nonsense? guest: well, one area is how to create jobs so that people do not require federal employment benefits, because they eventually run out. the argument is if we keep the economy healthy by not putting money into these big programs, that that will create more jobs so people can work instead of rely on the government. another area where the parties have not been able to agree. democrats would like to increase jobs through stimulus spending that would increase infrastructure, work, education, public sector employment, areas where the federal government can have some and troll over employment. republicans are more focused on

private-sector growth they believe will come through lowering taxes for companies, making it easier for small companies to expand by removing onerous regulations. republicans would also like to see growth in our energy sector where there is a lot of promising developments, including the keystone pipeline approved by the president. they believe that is a job creator and it would run through the united states from canada. the president has not approved that project. the republicans believe it is job creator that is stalling because of the democrats. republicans are not going to approve more stimulus spending. it has come down through congress, and they believe it has not helped the economy. you have the two sides not getting anywhere on that front.

more partisan gridlock and you can hear the frustration in the voices of people unable to find work. host: we have a question from twitter, monty. guest: there are a lot of democrats who would like to see that happen. a lot of leading democrats. senator schumer is a member of the democratic leadership in the senate. they run the chamber. the situation is this. the sides are negotiating, iran and the united states. if sanctions are approved, it would hinder iran's ability to complete these negotiations for

the larger, the nuclear arms situation in iran. the president is behind the steel. he doesn't want iran sanctions to move through congress. he thinks it would cause the deal to implode. because of that, the democratic majority leader in the senate, harry reid, he is trying to keep a lid on that. he has a lot of his members who would like to move on those sanctions. the house has taken them up and passed them. you are likely to see an alliance in the senate. i do not think we will see sanctions move at this time. i think they will wait until the end of the negotiating period. then make a decision. that is not what a lot of democrats want. they would like to but something in place now that would warn the

iranians, if they don't go along with terms of this deal, there will be sanctions against them. i do not think that is going to happen. host: seana on our line for independents. caller: united states air force. nebraska regional group. 1% cuts on military retirees. they just went through 20 years. a term limit 18 and most of us retire out around 44, 45 years old. this cut to cola should never have happened. this year's cola was 1.5%. they would only have gotten .5% cost-of-living allowance.

i feel most politicians find it easy to cut military benefits because less and less of them in congress, they have never served their country in uniform. thank you. guest: i think you will see legislation this year that will restore those benefits. they are already partially restored -- fully restored for disabled veterans. it is a matter of finding a way between the parties to move that provision. it is possible we will see in the upcoming debt limit deal. republicans are talking about a potential deal to restore the cuts to military cola increases and the doc fix. the medicare doc fix needs to be

happen frequently, because the law cuts the reimbursement rate unless congress does something about it. those two things may be part of a agreement. eventually we will see the pension benefits restored in some piece of legislation before they take effect. it is going to take a little time to figure out what vehicle to move it through congress. host: what is on the other side of this? we should not and come up with some kind of a fix? guest: there are members who think if they restore the cuts, there should be a way to pay for them. a variety of ideas have come up, through closing tax loopholes, raising money elsewhere in the budget to pay for it. there are not that many people who say the pensions should be

cut. some people do think it is ok to help the government pare down its spending. it is a tough issue for lawmakers. no lawmaker wants to support cutting benefits for our military, particularly when these men and women have served multiple tours. this is not a great time to be on the side of cutting military cola benefits. that is one thing that will propel this through, even though it is caught up right now in partisan gridlock. host: kathleen in chicago. caller: good morning. i keep hearing this lady say republicans are wary of this president. i didn't think she american

people were paying the republicans to be weary of this president. another thing, you say the republicans want everything paid for. answer this question -- how did the republicans shut the government down for $24 billion? how was that paid for? on the backs of the unemployed. how are republicans going to pay for the 16 day shutdown? places like c-span and the other people would have been concentrating on the republicans like they have been concentrating on this president, no, -- this country would be in good shape. you need to put the spotlight on the republicans. this president is going to be all right.

guest: the unemployment benefits are on the horizon. as for executive action, other presidents have used executive action more than president obama. republicans feel the executive action has been more targeted to areas that they are opposed to, and that is part of the problem. the epa regulations which will hurt coal plants. it will make energy more expensive for everybody. republicans fight against that type of executive action. their argument is they are on the side of americans, not just opposed to the president. the caller made a good point about the government shutdown.

it truly damaged the repulicans. the shutdown cost the economy tens of billions of dollars to have people out of work and we had to pay back pay to federal workers that weren't working. they were making a point about the health care law, wanting to delay it. some feel justified, particularly now, because the health-care law had so many problems. that is not a view the democrats have of the health care law. the shutdown was not great for the economy. democrats made a great point of that, and that is one reason that you will see republicans more willing to pass a clean debt limit increase because they do not want to end up in the same position with a

shutdown. host: richard in north dakota for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i see the country is divided. the main problem for democrats and repulicans is the large large government we have and controlling our monetary system. thomas jefferson once said when the government and big banks can get together, your democracy is over and we are starting to see that layout. the democrats think the president and the democratic party does them good by giving them handouts. what we need to do is let the free market run so that medium-sized businesses can become large corporations.

now the overregulations and the overtaxation is stopping medium-sized businesses from becoming large corporations. we have the same group of greedy people it in charge of this country. we will never get away from it. that is why the democrats want the cheap-labor immigrants here so that the middle class gets held down and we cannot get paid $30 an hour to maintain a middle-class society. mexicans and other immigrants can take the money back home and cash it in for pesos. they buy their farms back home. it's just been ridiculous. i think you'll see some big changes in the very near future. guest: interesting. there is a bill called the small cap liquidity reform act.

it sounds noncontroversial. it will probably make it through the house. it's for small businesses to have larger trading increments. it is supposed to help their company grow. it's loosening the requirements for small companies. republicans in the house have been moving an agenda aimed at helping small businesses increase flexibility and the ability to hire, fewer taxes. they are looking for ways to give the small businesses a chance to grow. small business makes up a huge portion of employers in this country.

then we can start getting these people off the unemployment rolls. you will see a bill this week move on that. you will see more legislation this year that is aimed at loosening or maybe adjusting regulations a little bit. bit. there is a consumer protection bill coming up this week that would require when to develop a new role and determine the impact on the financial institution, to make sure it will not do any serious damage first. those are two bills republicans >> those are two bills the republicans think would allow his assist to thrive and hire more workers. host: the next call is on the line for democrats. we believe this program at this point. you can see it in its entirety at www.c-span.org. the house is returning in a moment to begin its legislative week.

two bills this week under suspension of the rules. after some general speeches, the house is expected to recess until 5:30 today. the house is only in session until wednesday this week as democrats hold any issues retreat. the senate also back shortly. they will work on a bill restoring military pension cuts included in the federal spending bill. you will see live coverage of the senate on c-span2 and the house on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will be offered by our the chaplain: chaplain, father conroy -- by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficultis