for charlie rose. with nancy pelosi. for the democrats in the house of representatives talks about the upcoming election as well as what to do in the future about taxes and spending. >> what we do know is that it is important for all voters to know what is at stake in the election and as i say these mythologies that governor romney is protecting medicare, false, that he is a champion for women, false, that his tax plan is going to create 12 million jobs, false, he wants to take us to the same tax agenda of president bush which in fact took us into the ditch we are still digging ourselves out of. >> nancy pelosi for the hour. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following.

>> rose: additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

captioning sponsored by rose communicationsñi from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: nancy pelosi is here, she is the minority leader of the house of representatives, she has served in congress for over 25 years, in 2007 became the first female speaker of the house, her commitment toçó democratic politics has made her one of the party's assets as november election approaches, democrats are hopeful they can take back control of the house, i am pleased to have her here back at the table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: you have been driving around, you have been in ten days in nine days, nine days, tet states, what is it you hear and see out there? i mean i realize and i expect you to say pro democratic party things, but what do you see? >> well, i see strong support for the president. there is really an understanding that in addition to his name being on

the ballot and our names being on the ballot that some values are on the ballot that are very important, medicare is on the ballot, it survives in a -- >> rose: it is on the ballot because there is a clear since, in fact 35 is a change and governor romney is elected there will be an effort to do away with -- >> the distinction is clear, the republicans have voted six times tto do away with the medicare guarantee. >> rose: right. >> so medicare is on the ballot, hard fought rights for women are on the ballot. >> in what way? >> a in a very clear way, first and foremost, in recent news you see the difference between democrats and republicans and the position that governor romney has taken, even in the state of indiana, regarding a woman's right to choose and respect, even if you are not talking about terminating a pregnancy, just in terms of a )ight and judgment to make decisions, governor romney supports person hood, and that

says not only is that diminished possibilities for women but for stem cell research, for in vitro fertilization, these are specific things they have a direct impact on people's lives, i call these things the mitt-mythology, the mythology that president obama has taken money from medicare and used it for obama care, completely false. completely false, what the facts !at the money was the savings from medicare were used to prolong the life of medicare as well as to increase benefits immediately, the republicans -- >> rose: this is 719 -- >> yes and the republicans took that same money under the leadership of paul ryan, knowing those savings were there, and used them for tax cuts for -- >> rose: romney says he disagrees with what paul ryan does and there would be a change there. >> they have modified ate bit but haven't modified they would turn this into, they would turn this into a voucher, which means leverage is with the insurer rather than with america's

families. >> rose: polls show that governor romney seems to be narrowing the gap among women voters, the gender gap was huge up above ten points and now it seems to be decreasing since the first debate. >> well, i really believe, i know i have watched elections for a long time, that it is very hard to tell how important or how real the polling is at this time. it is a question of who has a cellphone or, are democrats more willing to be interviewed by a pollster, you know, all of those things so i think the early -- very stale, people communicate in a different way, voting is not just one day anymore, and again, the difference between if you are a large number of your interview's are on a cellphone

on a land line .., you know, we are just going to have to wait until election day to find out what it is. but we do know that it is important for all voters to know what is at stake in the election and as i say, these mythologist that the governor romney is protecting medicare, false, that he is a champion for women, false, that his tax plan is going to create 12 million jobs, false, he wants to take us to the same tax agenda of president bush, which, in fact, took us into the ditch that was we are still digging ourselves out of. >> rose: let me talk about one issue that came up this morning in a conversation with general colin powell when he endorsed, in fact, president obama but this is what he said about the congress, roll the tape. >> i think the major problems faced either by governor romney or president obama, whoever should win the election, is going to be what to do about the fiscal cliff we are about to fly over, you know. this is something that was put in place by congress, and while we are

talking about the two candidate for president, let's not forget that congress bears a lot of the responsibility for many of the problems we have now. they are the ones that write the appropriations bills and they are the ones who pass the legislation for more spending and for the various entitlement programs that people have troubleñr with. and so i think it is a close race, i think every american should look at both candidates carefully, measure them against your own personal views. i really am pleased the way the president saved the auto industry and i think that brought a lot of jobs back to ohio and michigan and other parts of the northwest. >> so you blame the failure to find a grand bargain on the congress and not on the president? >> the failure to find a grand bargain, why do we need a grand bargain? why do we need simpson-bowles? this is work congress is supposed to be doing, you are not supposed to need special committees to come along we have a congress of 535 people with dozens and dozens of committees, why can't they up on the hill start talking to one

another, one another, reach across the aisle, but it will great greater presidential leadership and i think what the president said in one of his remarks yesterday is that he intends to spend more time trying to bring that leadership up to the hill and get both parties, both sides to start talking to one another. but every candidate can say i am going to do this, i am going to do that but in reality, if -- it is the congress that actually does it or doesn't do it and i don't think the congress has been meeting its responsibilities. >> rose: there you go. >> there you go. >> rose: a prominent membero bee next house speaker. well, the least important part of all of this discussion is who the next house speaker, it is important -- >> rose: the majority -- >> that's the most important part, after the most important is, of course, reelecting president obama. >> rose: but he has a criticism that many people in public feel. >> right and let me address that because it doesn't have to be this way. and it hasn't been this way. the last two years have been

extraordinary in the obstacles that have been put up into finding solutions. for example, the grand bargain, the president agreed toñr it, it was negotiated with the speaker of the house, john boehner and we all supported the president in it, if it would say $4 trillion over 10 years in deficit reduction. the president agreed to it and the republicans walked away from it. >> rose: well, here is bob woodward's book. >> but i don't believe that, i don't think that is right, i was there. >> rose: you think bob woodward's book is right. >> i read the book my understanding of the book is that he said we will -- both side the speaker, the president bears more responsibility. i was there. the president agreed to the grand bargain and the republicans walked away from it. >> rose: the book says and what others have said is that there was a bargain and then the speaker, when the president came back and said i need more on the revenue side, then the president said -- >> no, no. >> rose: have to deliver more revenue. >> thank you for asking because clearly there is a need for

clarification. president came to harry reid and to me, we were there together, he said i am not going to be able to get anymore revenue, apart from the assumption that the high end tax cuts will expire, assuming the president won, but they are not going to get anymore tax cuts, this is what it is and we both said you must take it. you must go with it. you have agreed to this, you have tried to get more tax cuts, they are not there, we don't get all we want, we will agree to the cuts that are in there but the full faith and credit of the united states of america is riding on our showing some responsibility fiscally, there is absolutely no question that is something we support, you taking, he did that, and they walked away. >> rose: they came to the president, the president went back to bain and said we have to have more revenue after the deal had been struck. now that is what woodward says, that is what -- >> daily wha what happens in the room -- you ask bill -- i wish we could call him on the phone,

could we have a lifeline. >> rose: you could probably call him. >> and say what happened in the room when the president said there are no more cuts -- revenues and we said, absolutely, we have to go, $4 trillion in deficit reduction at a time when the full faith and credit of the united states of america is in question. i don't know, i never had a conversation about bob woodward but i was in the room. >> rose: have you talk to bob woodward. >> you never talked to bob woodward about this book, you never talked to him about this book? >> about what happened -- >> i didn't read the book, i don't know what else is in there so i don't know if it begins from the origin of man until the future, or if it is specific to that day. >> rose: it is about the economic negotiations that took place during the last two years. >> apparently he was more interested in talking to john boehner than hearing the other side. >> rose: and have you heard it is more favorable to john boehner than to the other side. >> that's what industry heard but i haven't read it. the press reports on it. but let's say what -- it is how we go forward. >> rose: right. >> and how we go forward is that

at exactly as colin powell says, that there has to be leadership from the white house, which there had been, there has to be cooperation, there cannot be obstruction and, you know, it didn't have to be this way. i recently read an, wrote an op ed which you probably haven't read that said the do nothing republican congress it doesn't have to be this way. when we were in the majority and presidenpresident bush was prese cooperated with him on the biggest energy bill, in the history of our country, aids global initiatives, a stimulus he wanted with tax rebates i wanted, infrastructure he wanted rebates, tarp, tarp you have heard me say here, at a meeting that night, the chairman of the senate said we, if we don't act immediately we won't have an economy by monday, seven weeks before an election a and we cooperated with the republican president. so this idea that they come in, the president is there and they

say never, no, it will never work for you and never cooperating and that is, i think, that they may have been surprised that we all said just go for the $4 trillion deficit, too big to pass up, maybe that is what changed the republican main, maybe they couldn't sell it in their caucus. >> rose: i want to do this one more time it is history and i want you to help me understand it. >> right. >> rose: because i had been understanding this from bob's book and i understand this from conversation with john daily during the national conversation during a deal between the president and the speaker john boehner and then .. the president because of requests by democrats in the senate went back to john boehner after the deal and said i need more revenue and that is when john boehner said, no. a and that's when you broke up. >> are you saying that is not true? >> the president may have said can we get more revenue. >> rose: we have to have more revenue -- >> no, no. i mean, again, you asked bill daly what happened in to the

room when the president said if i cannot get more revenue, what do i do? and we said, without any question, both harry reid and i said, you go for it. and we are going to have to answer to our caucus for the cuts and the this and that but when you have $4 trillion in deficit reduction, full faith and credit, as i said over and over, you have no choice but to go down that path. you must end it. you know just that discussion of whether we raised the debt ceiling had an impact on our credit rating, that could not continue, but i will tell you absolutely firsthand being in the room and bill daly can tell you too, because he said to me -- >> rose: you were there i am just saying this is -- >> i am not saying the president may not have tried to get more, but he did not condition doing -- >> rose: the question is whether the asked for more revenue and at that point john boehner left the negotiations and couldn't even -- you know, the president couldn't get him on the phone. >> take you to the next stage,

john boehner said he got '98 percent of what he wanted in the grand bargain for him to walk, to brag on the one hand he got 90 percent of what he wanted and to walk away from it this really is a disservice to the president. >> rose: bill daly we will play and you can respond. >> and call him on the phone and he can tell you what happened in the room. >> rose: i would love to do that, if you can get the cellphone whether he do that. >> i may have him on speed dial. i don't know. i may have his old number. >> rose: i have papers here because it is important, a couple of things here, we want to talk. this is primarily, because there are two things that concern people is what is going to happen in the next our years? >> yes. >> and what is going to happen to the fiscal cliff an what is going to happen to the debt? here is the washington post your own hometown newspaper after san francisco, on debt, that is one and the other is, ceo's call for deficit action and so the question is, what is going to happen? let's assume president obama is reelected to the fiscal

cliff. give us what you think is possible. >> okay. as you know, just to put it in context, we are at a place where in -- in order to raise the debt ceiling the republican agreed to -- well, everybody agreed to but the republicans all voted for, including the leadership a plan where we would have a super committee which would reduce the deficit by x amount of dollars and if not, we would go to a place where there would be a firewall between five and a half billion -- $500 billion, defense, domestic, just to put it in -- >> rose: right. >> not the best way to go about it, we should have been able to do it in the super committee but in order to do that, you have to have revenue. now, all of these people, the ceos -- >> rose: all say you need revenue -- >> all missing in action. no they are wonderful on that score but all missing in action when this step was being amassed. >> rose: in other words they needed to lean on people to say

we can't do this without more revenue? >> right. and some of them did, and peterson he is wonderful, like a st., in all of this, but they didn't do it. but when this -- >> rose: why didn't they do it? >> well, they said because they don't have the votes to do it, but, again, they took an oath to grover nordquist they would not raise taxes and that superseded their oath of office to the well-being of the united states of america, and that same night, the next day they all, over 250 in the house and senate, they also said, the most important thing they could do is to make sure that this president was a failure, and so this is a very -- as i say, we cooperated with president and fought him on the war in iraq and afghanistan, as ah and there is no plan here and cooperated with him wherever we could, this has been an obstructionism that is, shall we say, true to their nature, because they don't believe in a public role, and they never --

one way to get rid of a public role is not to have any revenue. >> rose: you are interesting in many ways. including the fact yo you have a cellphone and can call somebody and add them to the conversation but let me stay with what i was saying. looking to the future, it is my impression and correct me if i am wrong that the president has sort of said in that in the past, during this campaign, that he would argue for some kind of a ratio of $1 in revenue increases for two and a half dollars in spending cuts. is that appropriate to what he says? is that about right? >> something like that, and you understand that during the debates, during the republican nomination one day, asked governor romney. >> rose: ten to one. >> ten to one in cuts versus revenue. >> rose: and they said no. >> and they said no so that tells you how out of balance that is, again as you say let's just go forward. >> rose: that's what i am trying to do. so i am asking you, as the most powerful democrat in the

congress, would you in your members and your caucuses support a dollar and revenue for $$5 in spending cuts? >> well, i don't know why it would have to be that. why would it be one in five? what you want is growth. growth is what really brings in revenue to help reduce the deficit loo so how would you generate growth. >> you don't do it by cutting education and training and that if you want to bring money to the treasury the most important thing you can do is invest in education from early child to lifetime learning, so you have to carefully look at the investment. >> rose: would that have an immediate impact on economic growth? >> well, it would have if if we had done it, in other words, one year, two-year, three-year, all of these budgets are ten year budgets, they are all ten year budgets we are talking about, $4 trillion over 10 years, so, yeah in that period of time it would. but what we -- you have -- you put growth on the table and you say what revenue and what

investment cuts or addition would would you have that promote growth? so tax doubts the wealthy at the high end do not promote growth during the bush years and the republicans want to go back to a situation that got us into this ditch in the first place, which was near depression, deep deficits and also at the same time the meltdown of our financial institutions, that is not a good idea, but again everybody can't have it their own way and so what we have is to say, okay, this is going to take some time, you are not going to do it in two weeks between the election and thanksgiving and the break for christmas, say four working weeks if they ever work that long, they haven't lately but what you can do is to say, what we have in our house democratic proposal, spearheaded by chris van holland our senior democrat there and go to democratic leader.com to see that, and it addresses some of the democratic

leader.gov and it addresses some of the things that you can do to take you beyond sequestration and then you can simplify and make the tax codes fair and review every tax roll dollar that is spent, to be subjected to the harshest -- >> rose: speaking of sequestration, my impression is that the president said during the debate that it will not happen. >> i believe he is right. >> rose: do you believe somehow -- and john boehner has said that essentially to me. >> well -- >> not allow se questions sequestration to happen. >> it would be devastating. just to put it in a historical -- >> rose: do you agree with the president and john boehner it is unlikely to happen? >> well, i hope it does not happen. but let me just put it in perspective for you, historical perspective because it is really important, when this was a brought forth in the late eighties before, the firewall

between the domestic discretionary cuts and the defense cuts was sort of was beveraged on both sides, nobody wants these massive defense cuts either but nonetheless we certainly can't afford, we already cut over a trillion-dollar in domestic discretionary spending, we already have made those cuts so people say, oh, we have made those cuts and we would make more if we had had the grand bargain, you know, across-the-board. but at that time, the republicans walked away because they said we are not going to have those defense cuts. these republicans today are saying, go along with sequestration rather, we would rather cut defense by half a trillion-dollar than raise one red cent from the wealthiest people in america. >> rose: how much do you think can be reduced in the defense budget? >> you know, you have to start with a mission and whether our strategic needs and the rest of that and come back down but as i

said, subject every dollar, domestic discretionary, whatever and -- and, and not hold it harmless to that same review. but -- >> rose: some say you cannot cut the defense budget. >> i just don't think that is so. >> rose: and so, therefore, my question is -- >> no he is saying you have to increase the budget, you are saying you have to increase the defense budget. >> rose: i understand that. how much do you think it can be cut? you know the old expression as they say, cut the fat but not the muscle. how much? >> well, we are now coming out of two wars. >> rose: right. >> coming out of two wars, thanks to president obama's leadership, we wound down the war in iraq and we are doing so in afghanistan, other threats exist in terms of fighting terrorism, how to, you know, what is the price tag on that? so you don't start with dollars and cents, you start with what is the mission and you certainly as you are winding down from war, you don't say we need 200 -- we need 2 trillion -- whatever he is saying $200 billion more in defense

spending. we want all the security that we need but we don't need to have it -- we don't need to squander, and it is very -- it is very emotional. i was just in more folk. >> rose: norfolk, virginia. >> rose: which is a military town. >> and beautifully so, patriotically so, fraudly so, and the concerns are, well, what does get cut? and how are those decisions made? i have confidence that the president takes what we all know, he is a great commander in chief, he takes that responsibility very seriously to protect and defend, it is an oath we all take, but you can't -- you don't protect the american people on the one hand by saying, as admiral mullen said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt. >> rose: yes. >> and now let's go deeper into debt for systems that we may or may not even need. >> rose: so the former chairman of the joint chiefs, mike mullen says, the biggest national security threat we have

is the debt load that we are taking on. >> agreed. >> rose: so how wow you would, so how would you suggest to the american public the best way to reduce the debt other than, what you have already said which is to promote growth? >> well, we had a model under president clinton and part of the congress when we passed the clinton economic plan in 1993, we lost the next election and people were defeated because of decreasing revenues, raising taxes but everybody said, it was worth it because what happened was private sector, public private way, public sector was able to create over 20 million jobs, president clinton's last five budgets were in balance, were in surplus. all of that created growth and created jobs which created revenue coming in to the point that when he left office we were the if .6 trillion dollars trajectory to deficit reduction, eliminating the national debt.

president bush turned that around almost immediately, historic about the same amount, $11 trillion change in our fiscal status, to, two unpaid wars and prescription drug bill that gave away the store to the pharmaceutical industry. did not create jobs and did not bring in revenue. >> rose: the president is in favor of the bush tax cuts for the middle class. >> yes. yes, i am, of course. >> rose: and what you object to is the fact that republicans tied together with the tax cuts for those making more than -- having more than $250,000? >> holding hostage the tax cuts for the middle class to giving tax cuts to the high end which has not -- that formula has not created jobs and it is not even fair and we are just talking about, we have to, again, make cuts, we have to promote growth, make cuts, make investments that

promote growth and have a tax policy that promotes growth as well. and not one that just increases the deficit. and, again, we have done it before, president clinton did it before, democrats know how to reduce the debt, we just don't know how to brag about it enough, by the way none of these people are saying boo when this stuff was being grown under president bush, we thought the conservative hawks were an endangered species. >> rose: because of the war or because of the war and the prescription drug legislation? >> all of it, all of it and republicans have criticized presidenpresident bush for thate go guard is really important. >> rose: we keep coming back to that and that's what i am trying to do here. the ceo said in their statement that they released these 40, 50 ceos they said any fiscal plan that can be succeed both financially and fiscal i will have to limit the growth of healthcare spending? are you in

favor of that. >> that's what our bill does. >> rose: make social security solvent and include comprehensive and pro growth tax reform, what tax reform do you want to see other than the elimination of the bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000? >> what tax reform do you want to see? tax cuts do you favor? what deductions do you -- are you prepared to eliminate? >> well, i think what you do is you go to the table and you put everything on the table, because you have to subject, does it create jobs? does it reduce the deficit? you know, what really is going on here? i think that most democrats would agree that there are many loopholes that can be closed and i think some of these ceos probably agree to that. >> rose: right. you know,, there is what they press governor romney on all the time, what tax deductions are you in favor of eliminating? i am asking you? what tax deductions and your answer is exactly what

governor romney says. >> no, no. >> rose: wait until the negotiations he said. >> no, no that is not what he is saying, he is saying he is not going to increase taxes at the high end, he is not saying wait until the negotiations for that big piece of it, but let me just say this, what the governor is proposing and what his running mate has proposed in his budget -- >> rose: they are running on the romney -- >> i am just saying, our members, house democratic members, republican members voted six times for that budget, so they have to run on their vote. >> rose: right. >> and that is tattooed to them, sever the medicare guarantee tax cuts for the rich while seniors pay more for medicare to get fewer we was that's, benefits, that is what they voted for so it is a different thing than what the governor may say one day to the next and we never know what his current, to what they voted six times to do, but the -- some of the deductions that the governors are talking about are harmful to

the middle class and i think that that -- >> rose: so these would be deductions you are against, deductions, some you are against, i assume mortgage deduction would be one o orr no. >> that would be harmful -- >> rose: that would be harmful and you would not be in favor of eliminating? >> it is very important to say -- i am going to make this distinction, because you can't -- you can't ask one or the other. what the republicans are saying is, we want to close loopholes, eliminate deductions so we can lower the corporate rate, lower the rate and it is revenue neutral,. >> rose: that is the arithmetic you don't think works. >> you can't have it be revenue -- you have to have more revenue coming in. so what is it that you are suggesting that could possibly, we are not opposed to lowering the rate or lowering the corporate rate if in fact it is not revenue neutral, that it stimulates and grows the

economy. >> rose: i am going back to the ceos because they are not democrats or republicans or we don't know. >> well i think -- >> rose:. >> but nonetheless it is a good initiative. >> rose: fair enough and it is, i am reading from it today. >> you can tax -- you cannot tax your way to fix this problem and you can't cut entitlements must have to fix this problem, but you are in agreement with them and others, including simpson-bowles that you have to cut entitlements and you have to increase revenue to a certain level in order to have a significant impact on the debt? >> well, what do you mean by entitlements? let's go to that point because in the affordable care act is one of the points you make you have to stop the rate of growth of healthcare and if there were no other reason to pass affordable care act, if it were not about preinvention and wellness and healthcare for many more americans and about life, health, life and liberty to pursue your happiness without being tied to a policy rather than to your passion and talent, if -- if there were no other

reason to do affordable healthcare bill it is because individual families, small businesses, corporate america, our economy, our federal budgets and local budgets could not afford, could not sustain the cost of healthcare, and the rising cost of healthcare. and that -- this bill over 20 years which is what we have to report to the cbo, saves $1 trillion. that doesn't count the savings from electronic medical record or any of that, so anyway we are on a path of that, within that bill there were savings of 700, approximately $700 billion contrary to the mitt-mythology that was used for obama care, it was not, it was used to extend the life of medicare now it is the goal of some of these people to say we don't want to extend the life, i don't agree with that. >> rose: let me talk -- >> if it is to make it

sustainable at a lower cost, then we have something to talk about. we are lowering the cost and in the bill, there the provisions that bend the curve that lower the costs so that we did that in the bill and what did the other side say is you took money and spend spent it on obama care, that is not true but they took the money and spent it on tax cuts for the wealthy, so the bottom line of this, the president has to take it to the people, abraham lincoln said, public sentiment is everything. for us to talk about somebody's interpretation, somebody's version of the story and the rest of that, is so unimportant, what is important is that the choices that have to be made and many of them will be difficult, have to be made in a grand way, this is not a small potato thing, and the public has to know what the decision is, and if the republicans want to insist to the public that they don't want to tax the wealthiest people in america, even by a little bit, then the public

should know that. >> okay. wouldn't it be nice if i had john boehner here and the two of oh two of you could have this conversation for the benefit, you would agree to that, wouldn't you? >> of course, of course, but the fact is, is that you have to have -- you have to insist upon the truth. you have to insist on the truth and the truth is, that the plea agreed to that grand bargain and the republicans walked away from it. >> rose: okay. we will have that tape and show it to you at some point, hopefully, let's come to other things that the president talks about in terms of the next four years with the des moines ridge officer, immigration reform, what is the immigration reform you believe is possible in the next four years? >> well, obviously, a lot depends on the election. >> rose: yes. i am assuming the president is reelecting and he is the one promising it. i am assuming for this question, because the president was asked if go are you reelect what are your priorities and he said the fiscal cliff and then he said immigration reform. >> yes. and it is important to note that

we passed the dream act in the house of representatives, and we sent it to the senate and 60 -- the republicans insist wed had a majority in the senate, a majority of the senate voted in favor of the dream act and the republicans insisted on the 60 votes, on the 60 votes, so that was the end of that. so part of it will be, again, take it to the public, the public is the only element that is going to have an impact on these republican senators, if, in fact, comprehensive immigration reform is going to happen, the dream actness allowing these young people not to be deport sod they can go to school is probably as benign, is probably the most popular immigration bill. president bush, president george w. bush, he was great on this issue. >> on immigration? >> on immigration reform. >> he understood it intellectually and from the heart and his republican senators walked away from him on

it. so 35 is an insistence on 60 votes and we don't win the house, and again this is going to have to be something that the public, the president takes to the public. >> rose: one last question about these, what might a happen in the next congress what are you in favor of in terms of reforming social security? raising the retirement age as an dismampl. >> the example? >> my view on social security right now is the it is on its own separate table. i have no interest in people saying one of the ways we can reduce the deficit is by changing social security, social security has to be sustainable in its own right and i would not be prepared now to say that i would be prepared to make any changes in that regard. and that was my concern about the simpson-bowles, they had many good features in there, but i thought that they did not sufficiently respect the role that social security plays in our system. >> rose: looking back on that

question because you raised simpson-bowles, should there have been a bill somehow legislation that would have been incorporated simpson-bowles. >> well, we promised to bring it to the floor if -- if they came to agreement. simpson-bowles came up with their proposal right. >> >> rose: and got a vote in the commission, those two men answer and they have been crisscrossing the country talking about it. >> i understand. >> rose: and the president seemed to move to a more supportive position on simpson-bowles. >> well some of the features, yes, and i think they had the right baseline and had an assumption of the expiration. >> rose: ballots between, balance between cutting -- >> by the way, they cut a trillion-dollar in defense. >> rose: right. >> and they had the right -- >> rose: so you pretty much think they had the right idea. >> they had some good pieces. >> rose: where is simpson-bowles wrong. >> i think, first of all, they didn't build consensus in their own committee. now when we said -- and i said as house speaker we will bring

it -- we promise to bring it to floor, what we want is pay as you go. we -- pay as you go is how we got through the clinton years, you want something you have to figure out how to pay for it the republicans did not want to have to pay for tax cuts, but they are a cost on the balance sheet to deficit reduction and so id, so i said if we have pay as you go we will bring this to the floor, they didn't build the consensus within their own commission and i think that was a failure of -- >> rose: can i ask you about this, one last thing, and go to foreign policy in is from woodward's book and this is a moment in which the president called the speaker's as pupd in him put him on the speakerphone, near the window so everybody could hear the message this is from bob woodward and going to say -- unity of purpose, thank you, mr. president, thank you said reed, we understand we get that but the president wasn't finished warm fog the subject

and continue with uplifting speech pelosi pressed the mute button zero on her phone is that true or not true. >> i don't where he got that. >> rose: it is not true? >> i don't know where he got that. >> not where he got it is it true? >> what is your point when you say push the mute button so he couldn't hear us breathing or we couldn't hear him speaking, no, i i wasn't there, and why would somebody write a book about something that happened in somebody's office and never ask them about it? >> rose: never asked you. >> never asked us about it and i said to my staff, look through your records, what is the mute button? was it an inference to be drawn we shut the president off? i don't have a mute button like that, a mute button usually means, you don't hear what is going -- >> rose: it means you are not paying attention. >> no, no. i mean, if a president -- look, when the president of the united states and the speaker of the house have a conversation, especially with the leader of the senate, if that is what -- >> rose: harry reid and nancy

pelosi. >> are in the room that is historic, that is historic we take notes, we prepare for it in advance that is to say what is to the nature of the call, i mean, unless hi, happy anniversary, happy birthday, still that is still recorded that is to say written down as a conversation that took place, so we don't take -- i have complete respect for this president, any president, for the office of the president and i do for the office of speaker as well. i don't understand why he would write about something whose interests are served by that, and who is the source? and why would he not call me to say, does this have -- >> rose: i hear you say bob woodward got it wrong, you never did that? >> i don' i don't know what he s talking about, i don't know what he is talking -- again, if you are in a room -- if you called me on the phone and i had ten people around the table what i want you to, would i want you to hear their snorts and coughs and off all the rest what does he mean by the mute button i think what we are trying to say is we

didn't listen to him? >> rose:. >> that can't be possibly true. >> rose: i don't know what his intent is. >> and i don't know who would have told him such a thing or whose purpose would be served to misrepresent such a thing but i don't understand why and maybe this is the new journalism why you write a story about something that happened in somebody's office but you never call them to find out if it is true, you know what? it is totally unimportant. what is important is the reelection of barack obama and the congress that will help him get a job tone for the american people. >> rose: we are going to close on that one question about libya. you expect the democrats in the house to be in the majority? >> well, we are the .. very hard on that and here is where we are, the races are very close, very close, and we have many more tan enough races that we could win, they could win by five, we could win by five, almost two weeks out, we are in a big fight and we think, really what is important is that medicare wins, that women's

rights win, that the middle class wins, that the american dream wins, that our democracy wins, think of this race, this is a race in full bloom of the supreme court decision that any and all undisclosed money can be used in a campaign. i have issued a dare, advertise disclose, amend the constitution to overturn citizens united, reform the system, take it way down to publics financing of campaigns and elect reformers that will do that, if this election could be the validation of endless big undisclosed money, our founders sacrificed their lives and fortune and their sacred honor to use their words for government of the many, not the government of the money. so we think nothing less than our democracy is on the ballot as wellable and that is what drives our engines to win as many seats as possible, hopefully that is 25, under the leadership of stephen israel who is our field marshall, in all of this, but right now it could go either way, as i said to you

before, any assumptions about elections based on what has ever happened in the past are totally stale, we are in a whole new era of communication and getting out the vote. >> rose: do you believe that you have, and know sufficiently what happened with respect to the death of the four, the four members of the u.s. officials, including the ambassador in benghazi, libya? >> well, this is such a very serious conversation to have, in an san francisco they have taken great pride and chris stevens, went to the service with his family and others, the secretary of state has rightfully called for this accountability review under the leadership of secretary pickeringable, .. ambassador pickering, he held both titles, the fbi is having its own investigation into it, and that is that we have to find out. i do think it is shameful that

the republicans in the house of representatives have been willing to reveal forces and methods which is -- people go to jail for that, and endangering the lives. >> rose: how would you character try what they did? >> what they did was they dumped -- without any -- >> rose: characterize what they did you would say what about? was it -- >> what they did was, we have an expression in intelligence, loose lips sink ships, and you cannot talk about sources, whenever you are trying to -- they were having a political agenda, they know that the secretary called for an accountability review, they know the fbi was investigating. >> rose: so what they did endangered the national security of the united states? is that what you are saying? >> what they did was enendanger the security of our country by revealing sources and methods, a, and, b, .. went even further than that by heaving, removing all data to who some of these peuld infer from what they said

certain things and then they went even further than that. who in a country that we are trying to build relationships with are in the minute to help us with intelligence would ever come forward to do that if they ever thought a committee of congress would just release that kind of information? so it is not just about this incident but what a chilling effect it would have on others. we can't -- this is serious. people die, wherever the chips fall, you know, let the investigation take it where the chips, wherever they may fall, we need to know who is responsible and how we can avoid it happening again, but we shouldn't be jumping in with a committee investigating, has never had an intelligence breeflg, another, separating what is classified from not classified as to what goes into the public domain. that is not serious, that is not responsible. at is how i would character try that, but again we will know -- i have every confidence we will

get the facts and the people who perpetrated this will be hunted down. >> rose: why don't i don't take a look at this thrkts is what this is what the former chief of staff bill daly said to me in the democratic national convention, just out of fairness of having talked to him. roll the tape. >> we were in negotiations and we had lots of conversations and the president publicly talked about the need for democrats to understand that we had to go with some difficult decisions, boehner looked at the speaker of house and the same question and says we could have have had have he deal but the president went back and came back to me and he said i need more revenue and that's what in the end ruined the deal. >> well, what happened, what really, in my opinion, what really ruined the deal was if you remember we had been waiting and waiting for the gang of six to come out with a plan. they came out with a plan of 30 some republicans senators said they would sign on board to what

was a criminal, $200 billion of revenue. >> right. >> we were merely trying to get out of speaker boehner 800 billion. over ten years, obviously. and we went back to him, not as a condition, but said look, if we are going to get the votes and democrats -- in the senate, we must -- and he had never, and his leadership team had never gone through any sort of count on the count we were working on what votes they had and it was pretty simple for me to say, look, if we were all going to have a hard time getting votes with -- you would have a hard time with 800, you are fairly confident, but when senate republicans have signed on board to 400 billion more than we are agreeing to, how were we going to get some realistic -- so we have to take a look at whether or not this deal, we have been talking about in private can get the votes, this was all about trying to get the votes, and it

was our opinion at that time that we ought to look at try trying to get a little more revenue to get more votes, but it was not either or. >> rose: so there it is that is what i was refer referring to, help me understand because it is history. >> do me a favor. >> rose: okay. >> and the world of truth. your show and ask him the question, the or you cuddle call him now, when the president said to us if we get no more revenue can you pass this with your members and we said to the real estate, just go for it. he told me that that was a very stunning statement to him, that we just said go for it. now, you ask him that question, because that is exactly what happened. and you know why? because we were responsible. we were willing to take it to our members. first of all, from day one, the

house democrats just speaking on our own side said to the president, you have our proxy for the grand bargain, you just fight for it whatever you get we trust, we know you share our values, we also know if you are going to get a grand bargain there have to be concessions made, if you take any one piece out of it people would say, oh, heavens no, but that is not what you do with a grand bargain. you see what the total impact is. and even the distinguished assistant to the president chief of staff said when you said that, i don't know if it took them by surprise or what, but they know that is what we said. and so -- and i think mr. daly is very clear it was not as a condition. >> rose: right. >> but 30 some republicans are saying they would vote for more revenue, why wouldn't that be worth a try? because you can get more deficit reduction, not that you get points, you get more deficit reduction. and that is that we were setting

out to do. because it is a threat to our national security, because we shouldn't be in this situation to begin with, and because we have a responsibility to come together to find common ground, even by some times it is painful ba us you have to make concessions and that was how serious it was and, again, from the start we said to the president, we trust you. >> rose: two things we don't know, we don't know whether -- i don't know whether speaker boehner had a proxy from his own caucus and his republicans, we don't know that, do we? i mean we don't know, you gave the president proxy and said make the deal and support you, we don't know whether -- >> i don't know. >> rose: the other thing we don't know if the president then said okay we can't -- we don't need more revenue, well, we would be willing to go with the deal we had, he could have had the speaker come back and made the deal that they agreed to, we don't know if they tried that after this thing came up. >> no, no, no. that's what he came into the room and said. can you sell this to your caucus

with all of these cuts. >> rose: the revenue. >> and no revenue. except the assumption of the $800 billion expiration, but that would be predicated on the president winning the election. >> rose: right. >> and of course we had confidence that would happen, but it is not -- nothing is a given until the people speak, but it is now, again, that is what it was. now, you and i have always had a very candid conversation about this is what happened that day. i also told you that the supreme court wouldn't uphold the affordable medicare act, tell me what you if you don't, he will. they will. and the chief will be there. >> rose: that's true. a. chief will be there.>> rose:r chance to say that. i thank you for coming. >>s it is my pleasure. thank you. now i think you have to follow up with some of these folks, but because the fact is, is that there is a bargain to be reached. >> rose: and you think it can be reached in the next congress? >> oh, it has to be. so let's start there.

now let's work back from there. but take it to the people. >> rose: start with the bargain they had and try -- >> no, start with the fact we must have one, it could be that one, there has to be one, as long as you know that is where you have to be, then engineer back from that, but take it to the people. >> rose: that is clearly what the american people want. >> sentiment is everything. abraham lincoln. >> rose: i am over here but are you hopeful and do you have reason to believe that the kind of partisan split that has been in congress reflected in some of this can be bridged? >> oh, absolutely. i told you we did this with president bush. we have never went into office to say, we are going to stop the -- >> rose: but on both side of the aisle do you think they can bridge this partisan gridlock that suggests that washington was dysfunctional and had the former secretary of state say what he said? >> well you know what? with all due respect and i love him very much, we are in the fray there. you are in the fray and it is easy to paint everybody with the same brush, but the fact is, the

republican party, the grand old party has to take back its party in is an over the edge crowd that are not a reflection of what this party has stood for, even within a generation. and so if their goal is to make sure the president doesn't succeed at anything, if their goal is to obstruct because that is their -- that's what they believe. you have to bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs and they do not believe in a public role, clean air, safe food, food, safety, public safety, public education, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security, has no place in a free society, medicare should wither on a vine and very clear about saying that but you remember when we did this, the -- the tarp, they -- in the course of time they didn't believe in regulation, didn't believe in supervision and discipline and

when the walls came tumbling down they didn't believe in intervention, we had overwhelmingly the votes to pass the tarp bill for president bush. for our country. we didn't say to him, you are on your own, baby, well to save the national -- >> rose: i will never forget -- >> we will not have an economy -- remember i told you that. >> rose: paulson came to your office and said that. >> well, ben bernanke said, hank paulson described it. >> rose: ben bernanke said -- >> if we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by monday. now, since i have been telling that story, people have come to me and said, we are all seeing runs on our institutions and the rest of that, people pulling out, and it was a very dangerous situation. and the republicans weren't even there for president -- imagine what they would have phone to president obama under the situation. president obama would not have gotten us in that fix in the first place but it is an interesting election. i really think that, you know,

who knows, it is all turnout, it is the polls are goofy, i mean one day i will have a candidate be five points up and the next poll, eight points down, you are like, well how could this be, you know, well let's split the difference and call it an even race, but how can these polls be so all over the map, same thing as you said with the real estate, there is who way that the gender gap -- how could they be for romney? how could women be for romney? person hood? he doesn't know if he would sign lilly led better. >> .. paycheck fairness. binders. i mean, how could women vote for romney? >> rose: thank you for coming pleasure to see you. see you next time.i/w captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express. additional funding provided by these funders. and by bloomberg, a provider of multiple media news and

2012 special event.