. >> congressman van holland has a lot of federal employees. of federal employees. >> he had a hand in how we did. this i was willing to negotiate on how we treated federal employees. not if we made them pay more for their pensions. he had a very substantial involvement in how this policy works. what we basically want to do is make sure that federal employees had their benefits more in line with the hard-working taxpayers that pay for them. this is something we dealt with in basic. states are dealing with this all across the country. we think it's time to at the federal level. i didn't get every policy i wanted on this. we got a substantial down payment on this. senator and congressman van holland was a part of that. >> certainty element of this. no one gets what he or she wants. the uncertainty is so important for economy, any time we get give it a shot. you know, that that helps. >> i think the idea of a government shutdown in january and then the idea of another government shutdown in october. and getting rid of that is good. jump all over.

van holland -- this is a step in the right direction to find common ground between the house and theenate moving forward. >> has anything changed in the disposition between republicans and democrats since the government shutdown? >> when we went to the government shutdown, there was a clear recognition on the part of a number of republicans that this was not the best thing to have done. maybe it had hurt them going forward in terms of the polls, the polls have -- have the congress at the lowest level this has been since people have kept polls on the congress, and i think there is a clear recognition that there is the need to get some form of working relationship between the house and the senate moving forward, to stop this bickering that has been going on and hurting the american public. going forward. >> what does this do for president obama? i work for republicans for those many years but i have to say that the president is rolely -- he can play some but not the role that one would have expected. or that i would have expected with these negotiations. >> what do you mean by that? pa

i want to thank congressman van holland who has worked very hard to make sure that this deal reflects the values that he cares about and all of our conference budget committee, they have been very hard working with us to get to this deal. i'm hopeful that we can get this bipartisan deal through the house and then through the senate, and get home in time for the holidays that i think everybody deserves this year. >> so you're going to go before the house republicans and pitch this. i talked to a couple of senior republicans, they felt that they would loss a healthy chunk, but what do you say to folks who are realizing this is not one of your budgets that has unanimous support, agreement and compromise, and there are going to be conservatives that says no, this is not for yes. >> as a conservative i think this is a step in the right direction. i'm getting more deficit reduction. so the deficit will go down more by passing this than if we did nothing. that's point number one. point number two, there are no tax increases here. point number three, we're finally starting to deal with auto p

van holland. done since president bush. it started since president bush and it is an emergency.the political might our democratic leadership had and all of us who actually voted in what we call the previous question, we voted 100% democrats to ensure that that would be extended. we got no republican. and the reason why we feel that this is a catastrophe is because your reporter said it right but it is absurd. this is an emergency. and republicans want to insist on a pay-for. i don't believe a pay-for is necessary. >> you believe we should borrow to pay for it? >> i believe just like in hurricanes -- remember that long fight we had for hurricane sandy. >> sure. >> how devastating that was. to leave our fellow americans out in distress because the republicans were looking for a pay-for. yes, i believe it's an emergency. the economy is percolating. but long-term unemployed persons are having difficulty. 40% of these individuals are middle class individuals. their salaries are above the middle class arena. 60% are not. this is an absolute lifeline. >> to those who would say, this wa

we went into the rules committee jedd with a very important amendment that was paid for, the van hollandmendment with other members joining in on it. and the sneakiness of the rules committee, the upside down process of the rules committee, which republicans are the majority, mixed the doctor fix, helped the doctor, which helps seniors. and sneakily, if i might, eliminated and would not allow the amendment that would help in this emergency crisis situation that we're in, help the 1.3 million americans keep 240,000 jobs, 68,000 people in texas and going into 2014, almost 2 million uninsured. we have the amendment. the fight was there. but the republicans basically decided to vote against the people who they don't believe -- >> so where does that bring your vote tonight? >> where that brings me tonight, which i said on the floor of the house during the rules committee, we should not go home. we can cast a vote yeah or nay, but there's nothing in the bill that would provide for unemployment insurance. we should not go home. the amendment rejected yesterday should be a free standing amendmen

chris van holland played a key role. you've got the deal. is goiit going to pass?>> well, our mens are still looking over the details. if you weren't immersed in these negotiations, there's a lot to look over. i think most people will probably conclude this agreement, no matter how small, has across the board cuts and no threat of government shutdown. this is obviously not a perfect agreement. i would not have written it this way. one of the issues many of us democrats believe we absolutely have to deal with before congress packs up its bags and goes home this year is the issue of extending unemployment compensation. so there are a number of things we're looking at to try and at least get a vote, force a vote on that issue and hopefully prevail. >> and what about the minimum wage? >> well, i'm a strong supporter of boosting the minimum wage. that will be at the top of our agenda when we come back in the new year. the president has said that's a big part of his agenda. to make sure that working people in this country can get at least closer to a livable wage. it's s

congressman chris van holland. well, he's got a good plan. he wants to take it one step further.e wants to hit the republicans where it's going to hurt them, by threatening their farm bill subsidies. ooh. now we're getting to the heartland, where everybody is going to be paying attention. what do you mean, no farm bill subsidy? what do you mean, no crop insurance? what do you mean, no counter cyclical payments? what do you mean, no safety net. what do you mean, no disaster relief? van hollen said, quote, under no circumstances should we support the farm bill, unless republicans agree to use the savings from it to extend unemployment insurance. now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty. this is how you've got to play ball with the republicans. here's the lay of the land. a lot of senators are unsure about this budget bill. the latest whip count shows, as of late this afternoon, only 35 yes votes are available in the senate for this budget bill. most of the yes votes are democrats. but 60 votes are needed to clear procedural hurdles in the senate. the senate is the only thing stan

i also want to thank congressman van holland who's worked very hard to make sure this deal reflects the our committee, they have been very hardworking with us to get to their deis de. so i'm hopeful we can get this through the house and then through the senate and get home for the holidays that i think everybody deserves this year. >> questions. >> well, look, as a conservative, i think this is a step in the right direction. what am i getting out of this? i'm getting more deficit reduction. so the deficit will go down more than if we did nothing. point number two, there are no tax increases here. point number three, we're finally starting to deal with auto pilot spending, that mandatory spending that has not been addressed by congress for years. look, this isn't easy. this is the first divided government budget agreement since 1986. the reason we haven't done a budget agreement since '86 is because it's not easy to do. so we know we're not going to get everything we want and she's not going to get everything we want. >>> all right. so there you have it. a major, major deal, words you do

is not just if the tea party doesn't like it but if you have some democrats like the hoyer and van holland get enough parties of opposition. then you don't get a deal. the season this is taking so long is because they're crafting a deal that will likely clear both the house and senate. but this is a small deal. this kicks the can down the road. buys them peace for about 21 months. we still have a debt ceiling fight but at least through the holidays and next year means washington might not be as big of a threat to the economy. >> stay with us. your book this year, the great deformation, the corruption of capitalism in america, made a modest splash, what was it 942 pages with ample foot nodes. we're thrilled he joins us here. why is everybody taking a victory lap? the deficit and g.d.p. is moving in the right direction. if you were working for president obama, you would be out there saying i think this is a fabulous migration we're making. why are we so miserable? >> i would be scared to death. this victory lap is unwarranted. we're in the fifth year of a recovery now. touf have context. if

. >> that he's put the van holland, lee, levin amendment on the floor tomorrow, call us back, mr.- >> the gentle woman's time is expired. stuart: all right, monica, go. >> unemployment coverage for working americans, i think, that's what she just said, which makes absolutely no sense. but this is the liberal line and they want another extension for unemployment benefits. it doesn't look like they're going to get it at least according to the budget. right now it stands at 99 weeks, the standard before the great recession was 26 weeks, what we've seen is studies throughout europe where it's chronically high unemployment the longer you grant the unemployment benefits you longer you get trench unemployment. stuart: and right before the unemployment benefits run out. >> i learned that in an odd way. i had a buddy years ago, what are you up to next week? i'm going to look for a job. i said, okay, my benefits run out next week. i said have you been looking? he said no. what the hell, you're waiting until the last week? i never conceived it was possible, but i know people who have done it

nancy pelosi, chris van holland said they won't support a budget agreement that does not include a one-year extension of unemployment insurance. how do you feel about that? >> well, i find it very unfortunate. and when you talk to employers, they are telling you that they have great concerns about making that extension. we are talking to employers all across the country -- let me give you an example. >> what about the employees? what about the 1.3 million employees whose unemployment benefits would expire? >> that's the concern. and one of the things that we are hearing from so many people is that they have jobs right now that they would like to fill. and we want to see those back into the marketplace so that that unemployment rate comes down. and when you look at the numbers that came out yesterday, you have to say, what kind of difference is going to be impacted, what are you going to impact if you look at making this extension? is it going to extend that elevated rate of unemployment? this president has had the highest rates of unemployment in modern history. what we want to do is get th

woodall, and the rules committee, let's put the van holland lee and levin amendment on the floor tonightwomen -- >> time ex peered. >> so the faces of america -- >> the time has expired. the gentwoman's time has expired. >> we should not allow this to happen in this season of joy! >> i think her time was up. do you guys think that's what she meant? unemployment for people who were working? >> i mean, she's got a big heart. i don't see how that's possible. >> it's not. >> it's not part of the bill. >> it's not. >> it could be sometimes in congress. it's actually not part of the bill. >> oh, it will be though, eventually. you watch. >> no. maybe she meant to say formerly workmen and women. men and women who were part of the work force who would like to work. >> maybe. >> people who were unemployed perhaps. >> we'll give her the benefit of the doubt that that's possibly what she meant. >> what do you think she was talking about? >> the pope endorsed it, obviously. >> what was she talking about? e-mail us or twitter us or facebook us. during the breaks, peter and i go and man the cb radio. b