>> schieffer: today on "face the nation," can the lame duck congress throw down its crutches and walk? >> we need to get this resolved and i'm confident we can do it. >> schieffer: we know a lame duck congress can posture. we've seen it during this last week of back and forth. but can it get down to business now and find compromises-- to keep taxes from going up for all of us? can it ratify a new nuclear arms treaty, and pass legislation to stave off the government shutdown? we'll talk to the key negotiators for both sides-- democratic senator dick durbin and republican senator john kyl. then, we'll get analysis and perspective from cbs news congressional correspondent nancy cordes, and jim vandehei of politico. i'll have a final word on-- are you ready for this? -- training germs. but first, let's make a deal on

"face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs "face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now, from cbs news in washington, bob schieffer. >> schieffer: good morning again. jon kyl is the lead negotiator for the republicans on some of these key matters before the senate now. dick durbin is number two in the democratic leadership in the senate. he is doing the same on these issues. they're both here at the table with us this morning. so, gentlemen, yesterday, the senate did exactly what everybody knew the senate was going to do. we got these votes out on whether to extend the bush tax cuts for the people who make $250,000 or less. and the senate did... voted exactly the way we knew it would come out. they voted no. because the republicans say they want these tax cuts for

everybody. so here we are. we've got the posturing out of the way. you might call it something different. but now, senator kyl, is the senate going to get down to business and resolve this whole business of the tax cuts? >> i hope so. we can. we should. i would just make one point. nobody is talking about tax cuts. we're talking about extending the rates that have been in existence for the last decade, so just to be sure. i think that most folks believe that the recipe would include at least an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed, and an extension of all of the tax rates for all americans for some period of time. >> schieffer: at every level >> schieffer: at every level including those who make $250,000 or more. let me just ask you this, senator kyl. a new cbs news poll shows that only 26% of those questioned wanted to extend the tax cuts for everybody, including the wealthy.

53% said they wanted the cuts for... or the extension of the tax cuts for the lower-income groups, and i guess 14% want to let all of the tax cuts expire. why was it so important... why is it so important to republicans to extend the tax cuts for the upper-income people? >> first of all, there's a gallup poll of a week ago that had 80% of americans saying don't increase taxes. but i think the point is this. especially in an economic downturn, like we're in now-- but i would say at any time-- it's not a good idea to raise people's taxes. the key here is to put people back to work, to get economic growth going again. we're never going to get out of the deficit that we have unless we have economic growth in this country. that will produce wealth. the government taxes that wealth. and so, it's good for the country, it's good for the government. that means that we have to have jobs created. many of the jobs that are

created are created by people who have money. about 25% of all the jobs in the country, for example, are created by small businesses. and those small businesses would have been dramatically impacted by an increase in their taxes. so that's one of the reasons why. >> schieffer: senator durbin, i think we just heard senator kyl make a little bit of news here, because he talked about if you extend these tax cuts at all levels, a compromise might include unemployment... continuing unemployment benefits for people out of work. a lot of republicans said they didn't want to do that in the beginning. they've been against that. >> i can tell you that without unemployment being extended personally, this is a non- starter. the notion that we would give tax cuts to those making over a million dollars a year, which is the republican position, and then turn our backs on two million americans who will lose unemployment benefits before christmas? 127,000 in the state of illinois-- is unconscionable. incidentally, having just left

the deficit commission, clearly, the deficit is not an issue here any longer. if we can justify giving a tax break to the wealthiest people in america, adding $700 billion to our deficit over the next ten years, i wonder what i've been doing over the last ten months sitting on that deficit commission. >> schieffer: let me turn this around. if you get the unemployment benefits, will you be willing to go along with extending these tax breaks for the upper-income people? because it sounds like that that's what it's going to take. >> we're moving in that direction. we're only moving there against my judgment and my own particular view of things. but it appears now the republican position is-- and it's been consistent, i'll say that. we saw it yesterday in the senate-- is we have to continue the bush economic policies. and the bush economic policies of tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals have led us into this recession, cost us 15 million jobs, have utter failed. you can't point to those policies as successful. >> schieffer: it sounds like

you're going to vote for it, because there's no other way to get this done. i want to ask both of you this: would these tax cuts be temporary for everybody, or would this be something permanent? >> i'm not voting for any permanent tax cut for the people of the highest income categories. and i will just say-- i don't speak for anyone else-- but when it comes to the president's position and the position of democrats in congress, we are laser-focused on this jobs issue. >> schieffer: what about you, senator kyl? is temporary good enough on those upper-income extensions? >> first of all, we're not talking about tax cuts. we're talking about extending for another period of time the rates that have been in existence for the last decade. secondly, those tax rates helped our economy and job production. they did not create the problem that we have today. that was a problem created, as you know, by the crash of fannie mae and freddie mac and the housing market, the so-called bubble. it had nothing to do with these tax rates. without the taxes being where they are, the situation would have been much worse. that's why they need to be

extended for some period of time. >> schieffer: let me just ask you this. i'll ask both of you. are the votes there now in the senate, in your opinion, to extend these tax... >> rates. >> schieffer:... rates as you call it, for all americans if the package includes extending unemployment benefits? is that do-able? are the votes there right now? >> there are other items that both the president and republicans would like to see a part of this package as well. as one of the six negotiators, i can tell you there have been a lot of discussions about the other elements as well. at least in theory, i think an agreement could be reached in the relatively near future. >> schieffer: you think so, too, senator? >> it could happen. i won't rule it out. i want to tell you something else. i'm troubled. i know that, in a few months, we're going to have a debt ceiling vote and all of these pious speeches posing for holy

pictures, as dave obey used to say, about our deficit. many of the people who are going to vote for this tax cut for the wealthiest people in america adding to our deficit lamenting that deficit will refuse to vote on the debt ceiling out of principle. i think honestly the debt ceiling ought to be a part of this unlikely, but it is part of the same conversation. >> schieffer: both of you think this will get resolved this week? >> it could. there is other business that the senate may have to deal with this week. i will tell you that, when we said we went to the white house last tuesday, the president said will you sit down in a bipartisan way to try to work this out. we all said yes. we started the next day with a meeting. we met everyday for the next three days, but it was very clear. we were not going to be discussing anything of substance until these political votes occurred in the house and senate, this posturing as you call it. so we basically wasted a week after the president asked us to meet in a bipartisan way going through this political exercise in order to get to the point that we are now. >> schieffer: you both sound fairly optimistic that you can get this done now. >> look, we're up against... it's almost christmas eve. i don't think anybody thinks we can leave this thing hanging. so that deadline is a pretty good way to focus our attention.

>> schieffer: about the same mood on that? >> sure. there's nothing that motivates members of congress more than the thought of a recess or going home. >> schieffer: i want to ask both of you about this whole wikileaks mess. i mean, we've had another huge dump of information, these confidential-- some of it classified-- information that's been made public by this group called wikileaks headed by this man named julian assange. what is going on here? how bad is this? or is it something we ought not to be worried about? and why aren't we trying to find this guy, or are we? >> i think we are trying to find him. a lot of people are. he has criminal charges pending in sweden, if i'm not mistaken. i'm told that some 180 nations now would honor those charges if they discovered... >> schieffer: do you think he's damaged national security? >> i do. >> schieffer: you do? >> i do. i'll tell you i come from an era where i think daniel ellsburg situation with the pentagon

papers was a clear contrast. here was the disclosure of classified information in the midst of the war that brought out some things not well known, not public and might have changed course of history. in this case, mr. assange is doing a dump of information across a broad spectrum of things. it is not about any particular issue. whether you agree with ellsburg or not, his is a much different case. the first question is how did he get access to so much information? >> we need to find that out, because this is very damaging. what troubles me is this is the third dump. and the administration didn't seem too concerned about the first two dumps. it's only when it starts to embarrass the state department because they have cables that are very relieving... excuse me, very revealing about what some of our diplomats have said about other world leaders that we appear to be all that exercised about it. this guy could have been, it seems to me, we could have gone after him a long time ago. >> schieffer: do you think it's a terrorist? could he be charged with espionage?

i mean, what do you think he's up to here? >> he's up to publicity and, i presume, making money. as to the exact statute under which he can be charged, i'm not sure. that gets into a very complicated-- dick and i serve on the same committee. we had a hearing about what kind of statutory framework we need for this kind of phenomenon in the future. we'll be working up legislation that would enable us to be able to more broadly charge people, even if they're not handing information over to an enemy, for example. >> schieffer: let me shift to this whole start treaty, ratifying this new nuclear treaty. a whole lot of republicans, senator, people from henry kissinger on back and on up since then, say we ought to ratify this thing. that it's a good thing that helps us to keep an eye on what the russians are doing. you have held it up, up until now. why? >> i haven't held it up. leader reid can bring it to the floor any time you wants to. i have no ability to hold it up. i haven't even said whether i'm for it or against it. all i've done is try to get the administration... >> schieffer: are you for it or against it? >> what i've tried to do is get

the administration to focus on the modernization of our nuclear facilities and weapons, because when you go down to the very low levels that this treaty would take us, you've got to make very sure that what you have left works and is safe, reliable and secure. the administration is now i think a lot more focused on that. they recognize it's going to cost a fair amount of money in the future. when i see how the resolution of ratification turns out after amendments are offered to that and proceed a little bit down the road regarding modernization, i'll make my views clear about whether i support or oppose the treaty. >> i support the start treaty. i go back to ronald reagan-- "trust but verify." for over a year, we haven't had a inspector in russia. we don't know if the nuclear weapons are being held in a safe way. we are in the dark. >> schieffer: is it important to get it done now during this lame duck? >> yes, it is. >> schieffer: or can it wait until next year? >> it's important to do it now. >> schieffer: why? >> the sum and substance of the last week could have been

accomplished in a matter of hours. we have time on our hands at a time when time is running out. we need to give this president the authority to move forward to make this world safer and the united states safer. but secondly, to make sure that the russians will continue to work with us, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons into iran and to deal with other threats like north korea. >> schieffer: what do you need, senator kyl, on this to get this done. >> let me say, "the washington post" editorialized saying no calamity will befall the united states if this treaty isn't done in a lame duck session, if we wait a couple of months to do it. a.p. had a fact-check story in which they pointed out that the administration itself recognized there was no immediate national security needs. >> schieffer: what do you need? >> it's not a matter of what i need. >> schieffer: what do you want to happen? >> first of all, the administration has never provided the negotiating record of the treaty. the russians know what we've said.

we know what we've said, except the u.s. senate doesn't know what we've said. why is that important? because in the area of missile defense, there's a lot of concern that we will not proceed to the development of the missile defense, which we need in this country, because of russian objections to it and the way that that inter-plays with this treaty. there are issues related to the consultative commission. >> schieffer: do you think that can get worked out in this lame duck? >> no. the answer is there is not time to do it in the lame duck when you consider all the other things that the democratic leader wants to do. he just announced last night five additional things he wants to bring up, in addition to the spending bill which we have to pass in order to get the government funded in addition to the tax issue that we've just been talking about all before the 17th. >> schieffer: i'll give the congressman a word. >> harry reid and the democrats understand the priority for national security behind the start treaty. we are prepared to work with senator kyl. he said at one point he needed two weeks. then it came down to seven days. whatever it takes, we're going to get this done. we have to get this done for our nation's security. >> schieffer: all right. >> harry reid is not standing as an obstacle to this.

we are prepared to sit down with the republicans and work out a schedule to do it. >> schieffer: thanks to both of you. a lot of insight there. we'll be back in a minute with a little analysis. [ s. greenlee ] i would love to have been a musician but i knew that i was going to need a day job. we actually have a lot of scientists that play music. the creativity, the innovation, there's definitely a tie there. one thing our scientists are working on is carbon capture and storage, which could prevent co2 from entering the atmosphere.

we've just built a new plant to demonstrate how we can safely freeze out the co2 from natural gas. it looks like snow. it's one way that we're helping provide energy with fewer emissions. >> schieffer: we're back now with our round table. jim vandehei, the executive editor of politico; nancy cordes, of course, is our congressional correspondent. both of you have been all over this lame duck congress story. i think that the headline, if i were going to write one right here, is that it appears they are going to extend these bush "tax rates," as senator kyl, likes to call them. he doesn't want to call them tax cuts. it sounds to me like the start treaty is not going to get ratified during this session. >> i think you're right. i think everything we're hearing over the weekend is there could be a deal as soon as wednesday that would extend these bush tax cuts for at least one to three years. this is astonishing, if you

think about it. you have president obama with a democratic majority in the house and senate about to extend bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for a duration that could last the totality of the first term of the obama presidency. who would have thought? if you think back to that campaign, this was the issue he talked most about and talked most passionately about. now, he has to compromise. it is a big compromise, a big capitulation. >> schieffer: do you think this might get him an opponent in the democratic primary for president next time around. >> i don't know if he'll get an opponent. in the next six months, if things play out the way we think they will, he'll have to look liberals in the eye and say, "not only did i extend tax cuts for the rich, i'm also probably going to leave the end of my first term with more troops in afghanistan than i inherited." on two of the biggest issues that liberals care most about he's taking a position that was a lot like george w. bush. >> schieffer: nancy, i take it there is no other way to get these unemployment benefits.

i think senator kyl made a little news this morning, because he suggested that unemployment benefits are going to be a part of this package. what exactly does he mean there? >> well, this is the tit for tat that republicans are working out behind the scenes. "we'll give you what you want on tax cuts," which is a huge blow to senate democrats. you heard that frustration from senator durbin. they're angry at the white house for what they see as caving so quickly. there is a small faction of liberal democrats who want to play a game of chicken here. let the bush tax cuts expire, go into january, keep fighting. they know they can reinstate them retroactively, but most senate democrats realize their position won't get any better in january when republicans take over the house and gain more seats in the senate. they're basically looking at this and saying "this is the best we can get." >> schieffer: but it does appear that they are going to get this, as far as the unemployment benefits. that's very important to millions of americans, with

christmas coming up. >> there's other priorities, other tax credits that the obama administration wants. they'll say, listen, as part of this compromise we got a lot of things that democrats care about. but on the big issue, they're taking the republican position. that's why democrats on capitol hill are privately livid, because they feel that the white house basically telegraphed a compromise several weeks ago when david axelrod had made some comments. they've done so in private meetings ever since. this is sort of inevitable. you had that feeling with the senators today. they both felt like this is inevitable. >> i would not be so quick to rule out the start treaty getting done during the lame duck session. this is a huge priority for the white house. it's unlikely they would negotiate this kind of deal without a promise on start. when the senate wants to do something, despite what senator kyl said, it can be done very quickly. >> schieffer: they figure out how to do it really. when you come down to this, this has wide bipartisan support. you can get a list this long of republicans-- former secretaries of state, former national security advisors-- who say we

really need to do this. and so it's not like it's without republican support. but it's in the senate where it's hung up. >> it's got all the hallmarks of a negotiating tactic. basically, they are not going to compromise on start until they know that they've got a lock solid agreement to extend the bush tax cuts for three, but most likely for two years. >> schieffer: one of the interesting things, jim, is that when people start putting out the story that the democrats are going to get a wink and a nod from senator kyl who, despite his modesty, is the one who is going to decide whether this thing gets out there for a vote, when it appeared... somebody put out the story that he might be willing to go along with the start treaty if they could get the tax cut business done. the heritage foundation, a very, very conservative group, the president basically attacks

senator kyl and said "this can't be part of some kind of deal. this has to stand alone." republicans in the senate are feeling some pressure from the right on the start. >> some pressure but welcome to the new washington where republicans have tremendous power. even before by the way they take power. right now, we still have operating democratic majorities in the house and senate. almost all of these negotiations are being done on republican terms. the start treaty, which is i think still likely to get pushed into next year, but possibly could get done this year. the tax cut debate. you had president obama come out this year... or this week and talk about a two-year pay freeze for federal workers. that was a top republican idea. house republicans have been talking about it for some time. obama wanted to show a nod towards, hey, i'm thinking deficits, just like republicans are. again, politics has changed radically because of what happened in november. >> democrats backed themselves into a corner on the issue by not being able to reach agreement within their party sooner about what they were for. you have some democrats who think they should be extended for everyone, the tax cuts. you have some democrats who feel there should be a $250,000 ceiling, so they waited until this lame duck congress right before the bush tax cuts were

set to expire to bring this to the table, and they've got no leverage. >> schieffer: we have about 30 seconds. "don't ask don't tell." does it fall by the wayside, jim? >> i think so at least in the short term. >> senate democrats say it won't but you look at the calendar. there's very little time. >> schieffer: all right. we'll be back or i will with some final thoughts in just a moment. thank you. logistics makes the world work better. ♪ when it's planes in the sky ♪ ♪ for a chain of supply, that's logistics ♪ ♪ when the parts for the line ♪ ♪ come precisely on time ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ a continuous link, that is always in sync ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ carbon footprint reduced, bottom line gets a boost ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪

♪ with new ways to compete ♪ there'll be cheers on wall street, that's logistics ♪ ♪ when technology knows ♪ right where everything goes, that's logistics ♪ ♪ bells will ring, ring a ding ♪ ♪ ring a ding, ring a ding, that's logistics ♪ ♪ there will be no more stress ♪ ♪ cause you've called ups, that's logistics ♪ and go everywhere. to help revitalize a neighborhood in massachusetts. restore a historic landmark in harlem. fund a local business in chicago. expand green energy initiatives in seattle. because when you're giving, lending and investing in more communities across the country... more opportunities happen. ♪

but i wasn't winning any ribbons managing my diabetes. it was so complicated. there was a lot of information out there. but it was frustrating trying to get the answers i needed. then my company partnered with unitedhealthcare. they provided onsite screenings, healthy cooking tips. that's a recipe i'm keeping. ( announcer ) turning complex data into easy tools. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. >> schieffer: finally, i am still not sure i understand it, but i have to say my favorite headline of the week was on the front page of "the new york times" friday. "microbe finds arsenic tasty. now that is a grabber. and right below it, an equally

intriguing the lead sentence that began scientists said thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic. i mean, who knew you could train germs? it boggles the mind and fires the imagination. if you can train them to eat arsenic, can you also train them to sit and fetch and roll over? and what kind of treats do you give them if they learn a trick? teeny little pieces of arsenic, i guess. actually, all of this is a remarkable scientific breakthrough. scientists scrape bacterium from a dry lake bottom and gradually wean the bacterium off phosphorus one of the elements thought absolutely essential for growing things. instead, they fed them arsenic. faced with eating arsenic or starving, the germs began eating the arsenic, eventually thrived on it. scientists say this means there could be life on other planets where we used to think the elements needed for living things didn't exist. apparently, what we thought were

the essentials aren't essential. that seems to happen a lot with these scientific tests lately. one week a test shows you that this or that kills you, the next week a survey shows it doesn't. whatever. the amazing thing to me is that these little guys are trainable. who'd have thought it? back in a moment. hey, did you ever finish last month's invoices? sadly, no. oh. but i did pick up your dry cleaning and had your shoes shined. well, i made you a reservation at the sushi place around the corner. well, in that case, i better get back to these invoices... which i'll do right after making your favorite pancakes. you know what? i'm going to tidy up your side of the office. i can't hear you because i'm also making you a smoothie. [ male announcer ] marriott hotels & resorts knows it's better for xerox to automate their global invoice process so they can focus on serving their customers. with xerox, you're ready for real business. i'm hugh jidette and i'm running for president. i'll say a lot of things but do i really care about this baby's future? when he's 30 years old our $13 trillion debt will be $70

trillion eventually his taxes will double just to pay the interest. i'm hugh jidette and i say let's keep borrowing and stick our kids with the tab. [ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. >> schieffer: that's it for us today. we'll be right here next week on "face the nation."

same time, same bat channel. thanks for watching. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ,,,,,,,,