>> reporter: jeanne moos. now, sanjay, do you do any accents. cnn. >> no. not really. >> reporter: new york. >> maybe off camera. >> i'm candy crowley in "the situation room." "john king, usa" starts right now. thank you, candy. late word the president is calling republicans trying to round up support for a new push on immigration reform and republicans are promising a new campaign contract with america by labor day. but our lead tonight, wall street reform. as this takes shape on capitol hill, cleaning up wall street is the goal. we'll tell you about the negotiations under way, the big hang-ups and what it means for your money. we'll also go wall to wall tonight on a day goldman sachs reports record profits. we'll show you where goldman gives, which politicians get and how it influences the debate in washington. in "one-on-one" the focus middle east peace. we talk to a man with experience negotiating for the united states who now says we have the wrong assumptions in the

arab/israeli conflict. the most person you don't know tonight will tell you something you don't want to hear. $770 million of your money wasted on a project that was supposed to make big improvements in border security. it's been 18 months now since wall street's collapse. almost sent the country into a depression. and your congress has done exactly nothing to keep it from happening again. they're trying and tonight there's some optimism of a bipartisan deal in the senate. i know, we'll believe it when we see it. after all, the president says republicans are lining up to defend the big banks and the republican leadership says what the president and his party want are endless bailouts. but i spent a bit of time on capitol hill today. one of my stops was with a key player on the republican side, tennessee senator bob corker. >> i think the rhetoric on both sides is -- has been over the

top and, again, especially when you -- when i really do believe that in the next week or so we're going to come together on a bill. >> so with that optimism, just what are the hang-ups? one is new rules governing incredibly complicated things like derivatives trading. and of course how they are doing that makes it harder to track. secret negotiations and back room deals. we'll spend some time tonight on the substance and what this means to you and your money and spend some time on the politics. there are millions being spent to lobby this issue and a lot of the advice in the negotiations we can't see is coming from the very same banks that caused this whole mess in the first place. banks like goldman sachs which just today reported making $3.5 billion in profits so far this year. goldman is lobbying fiercely against some of the changes and sometimes it comes down to little things that can make a huge difference like shall versus may. the current version of the senate bill talks about what regulators shall do to police

things better. but several senators today told me goldman is lobbying aggressively to change it to may do. regulators shall versus regulators may. must versus maybe. you get the picture. so where is this headed and will your investments be safer in the end? with me tonight cnn national political correspondent jessica yellin. chris freelyin of the reuters service and cnn congressional correspondent dana bash. complicated subject. let's start by framing this as financial reform 101 and frame our conversation around three big issues in the debate. one is ending what we call too big to fail and increasing consumer protection and regulating the very complicated derivatives market. let's start on too big to fail in the sense the republican leadership is still saying that what the president and the democrats want is endless bailouts, millions of dollars in the system to protect the banks and keep the big bailouts. but you just saw bob corker. he is a republican trying to broker a deal. i asked him about this today and

said, wait a minute, is that true? first he used the word over the top in the -- to describe the republican leadership language. i asked him define over the top. washington we use terms like the rhetoric is over the top. in america would we use terms like when it comes to whether it's the president's language you just mentioned or the republican leadership saying endless bailouts? out in the country would we call that wrong, misleading? >> i think it's -- i think both sides can have a tendency to mislead. it's like a rabbit trail is created. it's a diversion away from what i think are some of the essential elements of a bill. >> jessica, on the essential element of the bill, does the bill as it now stands end too bill to fail? >> it doesn't end it exactly but it does enormous -- it makes enormous strides toward taking apart this huge institutions,

separating them and/or finding ways to help them die so if there's a crisis, it doesn't put the rest of the economy in danger. there is no clarity that you can permanently end too big to fail. >> one thing that i think is really missing from the debate -- and we as journalists have a tendency to try to say on the one hand, on the other hand, one side says this and the other says that. but sometimes people use orwellian language that doesn't really correspond to the truth. >> shocking. washington people do that? >> sure. but i think the republican attack on resolution authority as meaning endless bailouts is really an example of this. what it ignores is the fact that the current situation absent any legislation, that is what will guarantee endless bailouts. because without any legislation, what we have seen, what the markets have seen is if these firms fail, the government will step in. so if you don't have legislation, these firms already -- they have an implicit government guarantee.

taxpayers are standing behind them. that's important. >> the question is where's the sweet spot. the question is where do you get to the point where you feel comfortable as legislators and as the government that you have protections in for consumers so that there isn't such a thing as too big to fail anymore or where do you feel like you go too far? >> consumer protection but about giving the markets the assurance that there's enough of a net -- i think you shouldn't call it a bailout fund but a uthd nasa fund. >> they call it funeral money. let's move on to another big question which is derivatives which a lot of people don't understand what it is. it's been used in agriculture and other commodities markets for years but when it got into housing sector and loans is where it got risky. how do you say in english in american where people would understand what is a derivative? i went to capitol hill today. among the people i saw is democrat mark warner, a senator also deeply involved. here's how he defines

derivative. >> what a derivative is basically an ability to try to predict something and hedge against it. so if you're in a business that depends on fuel costs and you want to give predictability to your business you say i want to lock in a price a year from now for my gasoline costs. you can create this contract to lock in that price. it's basically a way to hedge risk. but it got way out of bounds. warren buffett called it the instruments of financial mass destruction if there's not transparency around it. >> not a little bit of transparency around it. so do they have the provisions -- i should note senator dodd the chairman and senator shelby ranking republican member are negotiating as we speak. as they continue those conversations do they have agreement on making this more trance parent and less -- not less risky for an investor but more open to an investor who says if i'm buying one of these here's my risk? >> no, they don't have agreement but they're much closer to

having agreement than the public debate suggests. this is one of the areas where democrats and republicans many agree needs to be more trance parent and they want to get there. and the idea that it's far away is -- they can get there. they just have to negotiate. >> the fact that blanche lincoln, the chairman of the agriculture committee. this is her jurisdiction. she is going to formally start to move this process on derivatives forward tomorrow morning. she said today in a press conference that she has the commitment of the democratic leader to include that in this massive bill. it's hard to overstate how huge that is. because this is not something that's not been regulated. this is something that is no transparency at all. nobody knows how they're traded and something that wall street is apoplectic about because this is where the biggest profits come from. >> and i think the point about transparency is really important that it's not just about having insight, having visibility of what's happening. one of the things that we saw

when the financial crisis happened in the fall of 2008 is people didn't know who the ultimate counter party was because the trades were happening just between parties. and when the market failed, you didn't know who owed you the money. that's part of the reason we had such a meltdown. that's why central clearing, which seems like an obscure concept, is really, really important. that's why when we have stock markets fall because there's a central clearing you know who owes the money. >> i think the consumer could buy into that. if i read the paper it's my fault i didn't get it wrong and not hidden on page 97. before we go to break here's a quick look at today's numbers on wall street. the dow industrials close up as investors had better than expected earnings from coke, johnson & johnson and goldman sachs. goldman stock took a little bit of a hit closed lower. investors are worried about the fraud suit from the federal government. this is equal payday. reminder if you're a woman you probably don't get equal pay. according to the national

committee on pay equity this year a woman only makes 77 cents for every dollar a man does. if you're an african-american woman or hispanic woman it's even less. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so where's that help when i need it? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i could change one thing... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we'd all get a ton of great advice tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just for being a client. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i mean, shouldn't i be able to talk about my money tdd# 1-800-345-2550 without it costing me a fortune? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i had my way, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms would be falling all over themselves tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help me with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) at charles schwab, investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule?

this country definitely needs to focus on other ways to get energy. we should be looking closer to home. we have oil on our shores. natural gas can be a part of the solution. i think we need to work on wind resources. they ought to be carefully mapping every conceivable alternative. there is an endless opportunity right here. i want to fix up old houses. ♪ [ woman ] when i grow up, i want to take him on his first flight. i want to run a marathon. i'm going to work with kids. i'm going to own my own restaurant. when i grow up, i'm going to start a band. [ female announcer ] at aarp we believe you're never done growing. thanks, mom. i just want to get my car back.

[ female announcer ] together we can discover the best of what's next at aarp.org. in "wall to wall" tonight a look at one company and its efforts to influence the big financial reform debate in washington. goldman sachs, you've heard the name in recent days. friday the securities and exchange commission filed

significant fraud charges against the company. today it reported its first quarter profit up 91%. that's $3.46 billion with a "b." and it is lobbying hard against many provisions of the financial reform legislation here in washington. let's go over to the magic wall and take a closer look how this company and others in the industry spend a lot of money to try to influence this debate. we'll start with this right here. this is goldman sachs' political habits. as i stretch this out which party gets most of the company's money. you see the contributions in the early '90s relatively modest. more than $2 million. the blue is democrats. $1.5 million to the republicans there. the 2002 campaign, the 2004 campaign crossed the $4 million park in contributions. in 2008 in part because of big support of the president we'll show you that way, way up here. so goldman sachs money most of it you get the picture goes to the democrats. let's all look at something else about its annual lobbying

spending. it's not just giving money to campaigns but spending a lot on lobbyis lobbyists. way back here in 1998 modest amount below a million dollars. 2003 crossed the million mark. recent years down here especially here as we've had the problems on wall street and the issues here. way up the lobbying money. way up in 2008, up in 2009 and we're in the first quarter just into the second quarter of 2010. we don't have those numbers yet in the middle of this debate. the banking industry overall, goldman of course just one piece of it wk more than $26 million spent in 2009 on lobbying. again the debate carried over into 2010 we will track those numbers. a quick look back at the 2008 presidential campaign. if you look at this here you see goldman sachs employees were the second largest contributor collectively to the obama presidential campaign. john mccain got some money from the goldman group. $230,000. the fourth largest contributor in his case. the president, the democratic nominee at the time getting much of the financial benefit of that spending.

when you go to spend money, you give it mostly to the people on the important committees that influence your business. goldman sachs committee outreach. how much goes to people on key committees? this is the twoin/2010 cycle, the current campaign cycle. just shy of $100,000 to house financial services and shy of $90,000 to the senate banking committee. where we are in the spring of 2010. look at some of the favorites. when you stretch it out it goes to the key players. chris dodd is the chairman of the committee. about $4200. he decided not to run for re-election. dick shelby is the ranking republican and happens to be negotiating right now with chairman dodd just shy of $35,000. chuck schumer a big player from new york where wall street is, some money there and this is the house side down here. democrat of connecticut, democrat of new hampshire that should be. getting big money from there as well. one last look at this. why are they spending all this money? they don't like some of the things in the legislation.

they don't like that the congress wants more derivatives trading to be more open, transparent and public. they think you increase transparency about the risk. if you buy a derivative you should know how risky it is. and the new law would allow regulators greater ability to step in. the banks think it could result in billions less for them. what's the impact of all that lobbying and campaign money? when we come back the intersection of money and poll continuation.

john is a ford and lincoln mercury service technician. very smart. we were just discussing the circumstances by which a person can find himself in four separate places at one time. i didn't really say that. but people come in here for tires, brakes, batteries and oil changes. so it's possible? yes. oh that's brilliant. buy with confidence. thanks to our low price tire guarantee. so, with everything you need in one convenient place why would you go to four separate places? now that's a good question. well, there you go.

you hungry? yeah. me too. (door crashes in) (broadview alarm) (gasp and scream) go! go! go! go! go! go! (phone rings) hello? this is mark with broadview security. is everything okay? no. someone just tried to break in. i'm sending help right now. thank you. (announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99. the proven technology of a broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now - and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security for your home or bususess - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.

we're back again with national senior political correspondent jessica yellin and dana bash. let's talk about the intersection of politics, money and lobbying. i want to put up what's called the volcker rule. this would say what separates the financial dealings of commercial banks from investment banks. it's designed to lower the risks and make things more trance parptd. we put it up because this is one of the issues when i was on the hill several senators say goldman sachs -- we showed the money they're spending on lobbying and campaigning. the bill says regulators shall

and trying to change it to regulators may creating wiggle room so they don't have to enforce certain things. is that what we're talking about with the back door regulations changing one word at a time? >> absolutely. and one staff member on the hill told me that they refer -- there's something called the blob. the blob is the combination of lobbyists and staffers working on the ball constantly talking and conferring what should be in it. it's such a prevalent part and accepted part they name it. >> striking to me because one senator told me and i asked another senator they're trying to change shall to may. i said when the goldman lobbyists came to you shall/may. he knew right away. >> the administration doesn't want to stand for that. they want it to stay with shall. >> it's the difference between whether the volcker rule is a rule or whether it's just how the regulator feels that day. the political mood can change a lot. it would transform wall street.

the volcker rule would mean some institutions particularly goldman sachs in fact would be very, very different. they would have to choose which side of the fence they're on and they don't want to do that. >> shall and may equals millions and millions, maybe billions of dollars. >> billions. >> billions of dollars. >> so the political contribution is relatively small amount. but whenever a controversy like this comes up, people say aha, you took money from goldman so you have to give it back. blanche lincoln who you mentioned earlier the chairwoman, chairman of the agriculture committee. she has a democratic primary in her home state of arkansas. it's tough enough but a primary first. her opponents say give the money back. you put the question to her will you give it back? let's listen to senator lincoln. >> you've received campaign contributions from goldman sachs. are you considering giving those back? >> no. i made it clear back in september that i wasn't going to accept contributions from those that were accepting t.a.r.p. money. >> beyond the issue of t.a.r.p., the question is now allegations

against them for fraud. >> oh, for their fraud abuse? is that what you're saying? >> that's right. >> we haven't contemplated that. >> is this side political drama? is it meaningful? will pressure build? >> i think it's because one candidate, a republican candidate mark kirk running for senator in illinois released a statement saying we don't know what the deal is but out of abundance of caution he's going to return his goldman sachs contributions. it goes back to the whole question of does it smell basically. does it smell bad, look bad, is it bad? interesting footnote in the hallway senator richard shelby who you showed as one of the biggest recipients of goldman money also said he would not return the money. he was surprised $35,000, that's all they gave me? >> as far as blanche lincoln is concerned she is enemy number one on wall street right now. she is proposing the most radical legislation especially on credit drive tivtion. far more red cal than the white

house was initially couldn't plating. >> not money well spent is what you're saying? >> jessica yellin, chris freeland and dana bash. a man with a quarter century of experience trying to find a path to peace in the middle east and now says u.s. hopes for the deal are based on the wrong assumptions. bls [ female announcer ] it's red lobster's festival of shrimp... a chance to get everyone together for a night where everyone gets just what they want. combine two or three favorites,

from new creations like crab-stuffed shrimp and pecan-crusted shrimp to classics like decadent shrimp scampi. it's everything you want in a night out. starting at just $11.99, during the festival of shrimp.

for more than 207 years our next guest was in the thick of u.s. efforts to broker peace between the israelis and palestinians and a firm believer other u.s. goals in the middle east were dependent on progress in the peace process. now aaron david millar says that u.s. policy is based on, quote, false religion and he's no longer a believer. he's here to go one-on-one. pretty strong words. our policy in the middle east is based on a false religion. why? >> i was a believer for a long time. i embraced the religion of yes. number one, that arab/israeli peacemaking was the most important interest america faced. number two, that only negotiations could resolve the arab/israeli conflict and only america could help deliver. i haven't abandoned that religion. i've simply begun to test those propositions. to try to determine whether or

not they still make sense as the region and as america has changed. >> but for 30-plus years the united states says this. the israeli/palestinian dispute is the core issue and sort of nothing else will ever get to the finish line in the region unless you advance that. you think that's no longer true? >> i think that there are other interests. we're now involved in two costly and very difficult wars in iraq and afghanistan. we are trying to contain in iran that's determined to cross the nuclear threshold. we're dealing with a middle east that is dysfunctional, angry, turbulent in which you have authoritarian and extractive regimes. we face the threat of another attack against the continent of united states by al qaeda and its affiliates. there are interests which are at least as important as the pursuit of arab/israeli peace. calibrating what an american role is is absolutely critical. part of that calibration has to do with where are the opportunities? is there a chance right now for a major breakthrough between the

israelis and the palestinians? can an american president substitute his own leadership and his own sense of urgency if those things are missing among the israelis and the palestinians? i guess what i'm saying is the answer is no. we have to be careful. we cannot disengage. there are things we can do and must do. all i'm suggesting is we not get overly ambitious. this region is littered with the remains of great powers who thought they could impose their will on small tribes. and we can't. >> you write this. and this was the problem with obama's tough talk to israel on settlements. not only was the goal he laid out -- a settlements freeze including natural growth -- unattainen but it wasn't part of a wroder strategy whose dividends would have made the fight worthwhile. is he wrong? is he naive? >> i don't think this president is naive. i think he has transformational objectives and transactional style. i think the arab/israeli conflict is perfectly suited to this president's view of the world. the problem is that view the

world perfectly suited to where the israelis and the palestinians are right now? and i would say the answer to that is probably no. look, fighting with the israelis over settlements or something else is an occupational reality. every serious or would-be peacemaker does it. but the fight has to be worthwhile. it has to be part of a broader strategy so that the end of the day, after the mess is cleaned up, after everybody's neat and prepared to sign up or show up for the signing ceremony, everybody looks good. the president looks good. israeli prime minister looks good. the arab leader of the palestinian president looks good. you need a strategy. and this administration 15 months in doesn't have one. >> doesn't have one, you say. and the administration you say doesn't have a strategy. they would probably take issue. you say they don't. you also have two weak leaders with not a lot of room to negotiate in president abbas and prime minister netanyahu. you have a team of people who work for barack obama who you know very, very well from past trips up this hill.

rahm emanuel chief of staff and hillary clinton the former first lady and now the secretary of state. general jones a middle east envoy. george mitchell now the middle east envoy. dennis ross which whom you worked so closely in the clinton days. do you think they're still practicing a false religion? >> i told colin powell when i left government i would not criticize the administration's policy. that lasted about five seconds, frankly, after i left. >> you just said this administration doesn't have a policy. these are the players. >> absolute plip. there's no question that you're dealing with a group of extremely smart experienced and talent people. i think there are divisions within each administration. i think nine-tenths of barack obama's problem right now is that the israeli/palestinian problem about which he cares a great deal, about which he wants to see resolved is simply not tractable. the one part that is his problem has to do with how he is responding to the reality that

there may well not be a solution. >> well, let me ask you in closing what do you do about some other issues in the region? the syrian deputy chief of mission was hauled into the state department this week because the administration sees signs, evidence, that syria is programs providing scud missiles other weapons to hezbollah. what is the administration's choice there? >> i don't think they have good ones. this is a small determined, tiny state with an enormous amount of regional influence. determined to support hamas. determined to support hezbollah and determined to maintain its 30-year relationship with the iranians. we can try to contain and confine. we might even try to test. but the reality is there's no good fix right now to containing syrian influence in lebanon or stopping syrian weapons supply to hezbollah. they're going to continue. >> and an even bigger challenge is the iranian nuclear program. the stakes of course much higher there. a lot of talk in town this week about a gates memo, secretary gates memo and a plan "b" if the sanctions plan doesn't work, a

lot of back and forth whether it was quoted out of context. do they have a plan "b"? >> i think the reality on that one as well -- is no. diplomacy is not going to work. the iranians don't want to talk to us in a serious way. sanctions probably won't work because iran is a country entitled and secure. >> what do you do? >> you try to contain. you try to confine and ultimately you will face the decision how much is it worth to you to try to stop the iranians from acquiring a weapon? is it worth courting the risks, the implications and the dangers of an american military strike? >> is it? >> and over time -- over time, i think the administration is going to have to take a look at that issue in a way that when this administration started, i believe they weren't prepared to do. i think increasingly they may welcome to that realization because i'm not sure barack obama wants to be the president

or will be the president that allows iran to cross the nuclear threshold on his watch. and if he doesn't want it, you know that any israeli prime minister who's sleeping with one eye open on this issue isn't going to want to be that prime minister either that allows iran to cross the nuclear threshold without cost or without consequence. >> sober talk on all fronts. aaron david millar, thanks. >> it's a pleasure, john. still much more to come tonight including this. when you meet today's most important person you don't know, you'll also find out your tax money -- and a lot of it -- has been wasted. not me! cause shipping is a hassle. different states, different rates. not with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service, if it fits it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. so shipping for the chess champ in charleston is the same as shipping for the football phenom in philly? yep. so i win! actually, i think you deserve this. no, i deserve this.

wow, got one of those with a mailman on top? priority mail flat rate box shipping starts at $4.95, only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship.

remember the bush administration's plan to fight illegal immigration with a virtual fence along 2,000 mile u.s./mexican border. today's most important person you don't know confirmed to congress so far it's been a colossal waste of money. alan bersin, they call him the border czar. technically the commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection. he met bill clinton, by the way when they were both rhodes scholars and bersin ran across al gore at harvard and hillary rodham at yale law school. between then he ran san diego's public schools and been a federal prosecutor. the government has spent $770 million setting up a mere

23-mile stretch of cameras and sensors in arizona and bersin says the high-tech gadgets can't do the job. >> what has got worked is the total integration of technology from each of the areas along the border into an overall system that would permit a central monitoring and control. that technology integration at the very broadest level has been the complete failure the committee described. >> $770 million. with us now back with us is dana barbour senior congressional correspondent. $770 million down the chutes essentially what he said. >> and counting because it's supposed to cost a lot more. this is exactly what -- when we talk about arng against washington, this is case in point just in terms of taxpayer money being wasted. but it is just remarkable when you think about the political debate that we covered about immigration in general. but specifically about this fence and the need for this virtual fence. and you have members of congress, republicans and democrats at that hearing today

saying it hasn't worked. >> it hasn't worked. and that admission is a reminder that the immigration debate is back before us front and center. there's a big debate in washington but a lot of the retd rick is fueled by a proposal soon possibly to be law in arizona. the governor hasn't signed it but indicated it will be. one of the provisions in the new arizona proposal would require police to question somebody they pull over about immigration status or someone they encounter. if there's a reason to suspect they might be in the country illegally. that has a lot of latinos raw including a key member of congress luis gutierrez. >> this administration has to stop looking at this community as a community they can simply rely on and not have to fulfill a very key and fundamental promise to. >> could we have another bite from gutierrez? that was about something else. let's go back to the other one he said today on capitol hill about this particular issue, the arizona law. >> i'm puerto rican. i was born in chicago and my

family has been u.s. citizens for generations. but look at my face. listen to my voice. i'd probably get picked up in arizona and questioned. is that what we want in america? >> the rawness of this debate is back with us at a time when politics are already pretty raw. >> absolutely. and this particular piece of legislation that the governor has to decide whether she's going to sign or not in arizona would be the toughest with regard to criminalizing illegal immigration, illegal immigrants in the entire country. that's why you heard that particular comment. what's interesting is we're talking about a state working on it because the federal government has just not been able to deal with this for so long. >> not able to deal with it. the first bite from congressman gutierrez was a reminder to his companies. he also says his own party including the president promised people to move on immigration reform this year. any chance? >> democratic leaders are well aware of that promise.

that's why the president we are told called a republican, the newest one scott brown of massachusetts, this afternoon to see if he might be interested in signing on with democrats to move forward on immigration reform. the back story is that they just have one republican right now, lindsey graham who is now on this. but he says, look, i'm walking unless you can get another republican. in the next two or three weeks, the white house is going to be fishing for another republican. if they can't find that, they're going to move on and try to do this with just democrats because of that promise that gerutierre was talking about. nobody i talked to thinks it will happen. the next story is "on my radar" including what a source is telling cnn about the search for a new supreme court justice.

typical midwestern farm. r the reason lies 6000 miles away in japan. where a producer of specialty eggs needed corn for feed grown to precise standards. cargill identified the producer's needs then introduced an illinois farmer to grow the exact corn needed. and developed a system to ship it separately, connecting the farmer with a japanese customer who was very appreciative. this is how cargill works with customers.

this is the part of the show we bring in smart political players to talk about stories on our radar. tonight with us conservative strategist john fehry and cornell belcher. here's a few things. president obama is reaching out to possible supreme court candidates. they won't say who but we're told the president is holding conversations rather at this point rather than doing formal one-on-one interviews. the source predicts a final choice by early may. has the phone running? >> no. but i hear he's looking for real world experience. i want to offer my mother. >> real world experience. what does that mean? >> it's a good question.

i think he wants someone who understands how the law impacts people on the ground and not just a theorist. might be time for a politician. i'm still holding out hope for the hillary clinton. >> a little nefarious but that's all right. speaking of vacancies part of the reason you might think the government isn't working better is because it's missing so many people it needs. for example, the people at the transportation security administration. that's the agency that takes care of airport security. have been without a boss for 456 days. they aren't alone. out of 157 administration positions at the assistant secretary level or higher 38 remain unfilled. now, some of this is slow nominations but just before we came on the air senator mccaskill a democrat went to the floor saying some of these people not only have been nominated but endorsed by committee but held up. the senate rules allow a senator to place a quote/unquote hold on somebody. it's always an issue. you see pictures of there senator mccaskill on the floor.

reading some of the names saying why can't we get the people approved by the committee in? this happens in both democratic and republican administrations. >> my cousin works for tsa and i'm sure he'd love a promotion. the system is completely broken and broken both administrations and gets worse. the senate needs to fix this because people need to get these jobs. the government needs to run. >> yeah. well, you know, this is where partisanship becomes dangerous because these people are important jobs. tsa is an important part of our security. this is where partisanship perhaps gets a little dangerous and we need to pull back. >> this one is right up your lane. more proof language matters. how you ask a poll question can have a big difference in the results. recent gallup poll asked should the government regulate large banks and major financial institutions. 46% were in favor. 43% opposed. but when the question changes should the government regulate wall street banks essentially the same thing as the first question but the language wall

street in there watch this. the support goes up. opposition goes down. guess what, surprise. americans don't like wall street. how big of a deal is that? you do polling for a living. >> and actually if you ask you to disagree or agree more oversight you get a higher majority. the problem is wall street replaced lawyers and lobbyists as the most unpopular group of individuals in the country. >> thank god. >> yeah. and hopefully some political consultants. so it's a real bad place for wall street to be. americans don't see wall street as working to be part of a solution. also in those numbers that financial advisers and community banks do have sort of higher profile than wall street but right now wall street is seen as an evil player in this narrative and politically democrats and republicans are going to play with it come this fall. >> this is right up your lane. proof that everything old is new again. not that john is old. house republicans are cooking up a new contract with america just like back in 1994. expect the details around labor day.

texas congressman pete sessions the chair of the national republican congressional committee saying gop candidates will be encouraged but not forced to sign it. you remember the day in 1994. this contract was an organizing document. there's a big dispute about how much role did it play in the big republican win in 1994 but gave you an organizing document so that when the republicans did sweep into the majority, they at least had a piece of paper to work off saying we promised the american people these things. how important? >> extremely important. it gave the republicans something to do. it gave them promises that they kept and able to point to. for almost a decade they could point that we passed the contract with america. it's still fresh in people's mind so i think it needs to be updated not only to bring in the house but also anticipate what the senate is going to do. and with the president still being in office, how do we deal with the president and what things can we work together on. i think it has to add those elements. >> try angulation clause. we'll start there next. president obama gets heckled and not by a republican.

time for new zyrtec® liquid gels. they work fast. so i can get relief from the pollen that used to make me sneeze, my eyes water. with new zyrtec® liquid gels, i get allergy relief at liquid speed. that's the fast, powerful relief of zyrtec®, now in a liquid gel. zyrtec® is the fastest 24-hour allergy medicine. it works on my worst symptoms so i'm ready by the time we get to the first hole. new zyrtec® liquid gels work fast, so i can love the air®. i'm going to work with kids. i want to run a marathon. [ female announcer ] at aarp we believe you're never done growing. i want to take him on his first flight. [ female announcer ] discover the best of what's next at aarp.org.

here comes the play-by-play. >> we get the idea of play-by-play. we break down the tape, just like on the sport shows. we take a look at what works,

what doesn't. john feehery, cornell belcher. we were talking about wall street becoming a dirty word, the democratic national committee has a new ad trying to tap into this sentiment. let's take a listen. >> for years, republicans stood by while wall street ran wild. risky bets, lax regulations. when the economy collapsed, republicans looked the other way. >> let's just stop the ad right there. obviously that's john mccain in the last campaign saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong. i want to focus on this line in this ad right here. when the economy collapsed, republicans looked the other way. now you're a democrat. i know you want to push this message here. >> absolutely. >> but when the economy collapsed, was it not a republican president who did t.a.r.p., the big bailout bill that now everybody in the country hates? >> could you say that again? it was bush and t.a.r.p.? >> if the democrats are going to run this ad, so it's their bailout? >> but t.a.r.p. is probably next

to wall street, t.a.r.p. is what is driving much of this anger. and oddly enough, they think sort of we did it, democrats. and it was really bush. >> now to be fair, to be fair, a lot of the stuff in the republican ads might not pass the absolute truth test either. >> these laws were created by bob rubin and the clinton administration. now the republicans were complicit in that. but they were the ones who were driving it. the other problem for democrats with this ad, president obama got a million dollars from goldman sachs, a million dollars. that's going to be the republican talking point in counter to this ad. >> goldman sachs at the moment might be thinking that money wasn't well spent. >> well, they've been good at making investments and they invested and thought democrats would take control, and we did. >> there you go. that's good. that's good. a little bipartisan support here. the president was out on the west coast last night, raise mongolia for barbara boxer, a democratic senator who in a state that has been blue, blue, blue could have a tough test this week. as the president was speaking, he got heckled from the crowd. let's listen.

all right. the tape froze up there here is what happened. here we go. >> passionate about fighting for california's -- >> nope, that's not going to work. sometimes the technology doesn't come with you. she is passionate about fighting for california's families he was saying, and somebody in the audience started heckling the president saying about what about don't ask, don't tell, repealing the policy. we got to see a bit of the president's temper -- not temper, testy. he said holler at the people who oppose it. sometimes the president gets -- >> well, he is right. they were out of place. look, i talk about fringe a lot on this mainstreaming fringe. we got fringe on the left as well. and this was a fringe group who they were holering at the wrong guy an this, and he let them know it. >> all right, rahm emanuel goes on charlie rose last night. he is the white house chief of staff. >> i hope mayor daley seeks

reelection. i will work and support him if he seeks reelection. but if mayor daley doesn't, i would like to recommend the city of chicago. that's been an aspiration of mine. >> it's a big job being the mayor of chicago. it's an important job. but the president of the united states, i think he is thinking he wants out. maybe i should run for mayor. >> he likes potholes. that tells you a lot, tells you what you think of rahm. our pete dominick has found his way to goldman sachs today. maybe a campaign contribution? we'll check in with pete, next. when you least expect it... a regular moment can become romantic. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis. with two clinically proven dosing options, you can choose the moment that's right for you and your partner. 36-hour cialis and cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a low-dose tablet

you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. >> tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. >> don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. >> don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. >> if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. >> 36-hour cialis or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor if cialis is right for you. you can be ready for your moment with cialis. so many arthritis pain relievers --

i just want fewer pills and relief that lasts all day. take 2 extra strength tylenol every 4 to 6 hours?!? taking 8 pills a day... and if i take it for 10 days -- that's 80 pills! just 2 aleve can last all day... perfect. choose aleve and you could be taking four times... fewer pills than extra strength tylenol. just 2 aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day.

campbell brown is just a few minutes away at the top of the hour. let's head up to new york, check in and see what's coming up. >> hey there, john. tonight we're looking at case before the supreme court that could really matter to a lot of us. who owns the text that you send on your company phone, you or your boss? you may not have as much privacy as you may think you have. we're also going to take a closer look at the goldman sachs situation, and their big earnings in the wake of the s.e.c. civil charges. also ahead, what could be an unexpected breakthrough in treating illnesses like depression and ptsd. we're going ask dr. sanjay gupta if hallucinogenic drugs may be the answer? there is new studies looking into that. we'll talk about that as well. see you at the top of the hour,

john. >> sigh you in just a few minutes campbell, thanks. our offbeat reporter pete dominick got wind that goldman sachs had huge profits, more than $3 million. what did pete do? he headed over there. maybe to look for a job. >> no, no, no, please. i'm really happy with this job. i wanted to find out what people thought about those bonus, whether or not they got one. you guys get bonuses? >> no. >> you're not goldman guys? no. >> is there something else you want to be doing? >> no, i want to be doing this. this is a good gig. >> can i get my 20 bucks? just a clip? the clip alone is worth more than me. what are they creating? i don't understand this very well. what do they do? what do they make? >> i think you should go ask them. >> i'm trying to. they really won't talk to me. what do you do for a living? >> i'm an iron worker. >> an iron worker. you're creating a building. they're creating -- >> heart aches. >> did you get a bonus? >> if you give me a bonus, i get

one. >> what? >> you didn't get your bonus? you teach. hmm, that's probably not as important as a wall street banker, right? >> no. >> the bank is broke, but they still got huge bonuses. >> yeah, well, life isn't fair. >> education is far less important than keeping wealthy people wealthy. >> oh, i don't work for a bank. >> but you have a suit and a tie and the slicked back hair and all that. >> i know that. i'm just a poor old attorney. >> you look like you got a bonus. come on. what do you do? you're looking good. you're looking sharp. your phone on your belt? do you have your phonor on your belt? banker! got him. you get bonuses in your line of work, right? >> not this year. the more you hustle, the more you hustle. but i didn't accept money from the government to bailout my company. >> what are they building in goldman sachs? i don't know. but around the corner, those iron workers are building the new world trade center, john king. >> god bless the iron workers. not the most talkative types down there are, they? >> no. i had a hard timeso